2019 Supreme(SC) 1195

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
Rajender @ Rajesh @ Raju – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1889 OF 2010
WITH
Raj Kumar @ Raju - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1890 OF 2010
WITH
Sharda Jain - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2014
Decided On : 24-10-2019

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Circumstantial evidence – In cases where prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence to establish its case, such circumstances should be duly proved and chain of circumstances so proved should be complete – Chain formed must unerringly point towards guilt of accused and not leave any missing links for accused to escape from clutches of law – With respect to conspiracy, existence of three elements must be shown– a criminal object, a plan or a scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, and an agreement or understanding between two or more people to cooperate for accomplishment of such object. (Para 9)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof – Reasonableness of explanation offered by accused as to how and when he/she parted company with deceased has a bearing on effect of the last seen in a case – If a person is last seen with deceased, he must offer explanation as to how and when he parted company with deceased – He must furnish an explanation that appears to Court to be probable and satisfactory, and if he fails to offer such an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, burden cast upon him under Section 106 is not discharged – Particularly in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, if accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him, such failure by itself can provide an additional link in chain of circumstances proved against him – Circumstance of last seen does not, by itself, necessarily lead to an inference that accused committed crime – There must be something more that establishes a connection between accused and crime. (Para 11.2)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65-B(4) – Proof of call detail records (CDRs) of mobile phones – Objection relating to non-production of certificate under Section 65-B(4) relates to mode and method of proof and cannot be raised at the appellate stage – Since no such objection was raised at the time of marking of these records before Trial Court, these records can be considered. (Para 11.3)

(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 10 – Proof of criminal conspiracy – Three essential elements must be shown – a criminal object, a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, and an agreement between two or more persons to cooperate for accomplishment of such object – Incorporation of Section 10 to Indian Evidence Act, 1872, suggests that proof of a criminal conspiracy by direct evidence is not easy to get. (Para 16)

(E) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 r/w 120-B and Section 364 r/w 120-B – Murder, kidnapping and conspiracy – Conviction and sentence – There are no eye witnesses to incident and case of prosecution fully rests on circumstantial evidence – Deceased was last seen alive in company of A-1 – Prosecution witnesses have withstood test of cross-examination and no valid ground to disbelieve their testimony, particularly when they are independent, unbiased police officials – There was no reason for them to falsely depose against A-1 who was also a public servant – Circumstance of A-1pointing out place of murder of deceased is proved – Testimony of a chance witness, though not necessarily false, is proverbially unsafe to rely upon – However, it was found that evidence of other witnesses conclusively proved that deceased went to house of A-1, sent his car back to his house, and then went with A-1 and attended rally – There is proximity between time of last seen of deceased with A-1 and time of his death – Since no plausible explanation has been given by A-1 as to how and when she parted company with deceased, this forms a link in chain of incriminating circumstances against her – Evidence of offence was caused to be disappeared and involvement of A-1 was screened through false claims – Charge under Section 201 of IPC is also proved – However, motive, as put forth by prosecution, is not proved – Prosecution has proved circumstances against A-1 and A-5, which form a complete chain pointing towards their guilt – In absence of any missing links, they cannot be given a chance to escape from clutches of law – Conviction and sentence partly affirmed. (Paras 7, 11.1, 11.2, 11.6, 12, 17 and 18)

Facts of the case:

By impugned judgment, High Court affirmed order of conviction passed by Trial Court against Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar (A-2), Pushpender (A-3), Nirvikar (A-4), Rajender (A-5) and Roshan Singh (A-6) for offences under Section 302 r/w 120-B and Section 364 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, and Roshan Singh were also convicted under Section 201 r/w 120-B of the IPC.

Findings of Court:

Prosecution has proved circumstances against A-1 and A-5, which form a complete chain pointing towards their guilt. In absence of any missing links, they cannot be given a chance to escape from clutches of law.

Result : Appeals Partly allowed.