1. Murder of a vehicle driver and looting of the vehicle — Trial for offences under Sections 302, 392, 396, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 223
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Thakore Umedsing Nathusing – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 218-219, 250 of 2016, Criminal Appeal No. 1102 of 2024
Decided On : 22-02-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, AOR Mr. Mohd. Asad Khan, Adv. Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Adv. Ms. Himadri Haksar, Adv. Mr. Himadri Haksar, Adv. Mr. Narayan Dev Parashar, Adv. Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, AOR Mr. Mohd. Asad Khan, Adv. Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Adv. Ms. Himadri Haksar, Adv. Mr. Himadri Haksar, Adv. Mr. Narayan Dev Parashar, Adv. Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv.
The Court reaffirmed that convictions based on circumstantial evidence require a complete chain of evidence excluding innocence. It further held that appellate courts cannot reverse an acquittal unless the trial court's view was perverse or the only possible conclusion was guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 392 IPC - [IPC] - [Section 392, Section 302, Section 34, Section 396, Section 397] - The court discussed the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal challenging acquittal of the accused by the trial Court and the standard of proof required to bring home charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. The judgment quashed and set aside the conviction of the accused as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on unreliable circumstantial evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC for the murder and looting of a jeep. The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused for the charged offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 396 and 397 of IPC. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 396 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on unreliable circumstantial evidence. The High Court's judgment was based on conjectures and surmises rather than substantive or reliable circumstantial evidence.
Issues: The scope of interference by High Court in an appeal challenging acquittal of the accused by the trial Court and the standard of proof required to bring home charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment quashed and set aside the conviction of the accused as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on unreliable circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the appellants were acquitted of the charges, and were directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
-
The case involves an appeal against conviction related to a criminal offense, specifically under Section 392 IPC, which pertains to robbery and theft, including the murder and looting of a jeep (!) (!) .
-
The original trial court convicted the accused for the offense under Section 392 IPC but acquitted them of more serious charges such as murder (Section 302 IPC), dacoity with murder (Section 396 IPC), and related offenses (Section 397 IPC) (!) .
-
The prosecution's case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, including recoveries of weapons, blood-stained clothes, and a blood-stained jeep. However, critical evidence such as the ownership of the jeep and forensic analysis of recovered articles was either not established or not conducted (!) (!) .
-
The key recovery of the jeep was attributed to the first accused, but the evidence supporting this was challenged due to procedural irregularities and inadmissibility of confessional statements recorded by police officers, which are protected under Evidence Act provisions (!) (!) .
-
The court noted that the confessional statement made by the first accused, which implicated others, was inadmissible in evidence, and the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the accused and the commission of murder beyond mere presence or circumstantial suspicion (!) (!) (!) .
-
The appellate court emphasized the principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence, including the necessity of establishing a complete chain of evidence that excludes reasonable hypotheses of innocence. It also highlighted that the appellate court should only interfere if the only logical conclusion is guilt beyond reasonable
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Admissibility of police confessions — Reliability of circumstantial evidence and recoveries — Scope of appellate interference in reversing an order of acquittal. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. Inadmissibility of custodial confessions — Lack of serological evidence for recoveries — Failure to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence — Absence of perversity in trial court's acquittal. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
4. Reversal of acquittal requires finding the trial court's view perverse — Custodial confessions are inadmissible — Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding innocence. (Para 23 , 24 , 29 , 36 )
5. Appeals allowed — Convictions under Sections 302, 396, and 392 of the Indian Penal Code set aside — Appellants acquitted and released. (Para 40 , 41 )
6. What are the requirements for conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence?
The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every other possible hypothesis, and form a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. (Para 23 )
7. When can an appellate court interfere with a trial court's order of acquittal?
An appellate court can interfere only if it finds that the trial court's view was not a possible view based on the evidence, or that the only possible conclusion on the basis of the evidence was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 24 )
8. What is the evidentiary value of a confession made by an accused while in police custody?
Confessions of an accused in custody recorded by a police officer are inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, except to the extent provided under Section 27 regarding the discovery of facts. (Para 29 , 30 , 36 )
9. Can a confession made by one accused be used as substantive evidence against co-accused persons?
No, the confession of one co-accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be used to hold other accused persons guilty, particularly when the confession is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. (Para 36 )
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. These appeals take exception to the common judgment dated 11th December, 2015 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 949 of 1994 and 1012 of 1993.
2. The appellants being the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 namely Thakore Laxmansing Halsing (hereinafter being referred to as A1), Thakore Pravinsing Rajsing(hereinafter being referred to as A2), Thakore Umedsing Nathusing (hereinafter being referred to as A3), Thakore Khemsing Halsing(hereinafter being referred to as A5) alongwith original accused No. 4, namely, Thakore Prabhatsing Kapursing (hereinafter being referred to as A4), were tried in Sessions Case Nos. 107 and 143 of 1990 respectively by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’). The accused appellants were convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and were sentenced to undergo 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo further three months simple imprisonment. The learned trial Court acquitted accused appellants of the charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 396 and 397 IPC vide the judgment and final order dated 21st August, 1993. The original accused No. 4 was acquitted of all the charges.
3. Being aggrieved, the accused appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1012 of 1993 against the judgment and order dated 21st August, 1993 and craving acquittal whereas, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 1994 seeking to assail the acquittal of the accused appellants for the charged offences, i.e. Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 396 and 397 of IPC.
Brief Case of Prosecution:
4. One Vithalbhai Kachrabhai Barot PW-1 lodged a complaint dated 1st March, 1990 [Exhibit-21] at Gadh Police Station, Taluka Palanpur, Gujarat alleging inter-alia that his son Bharatbhai (deceased) who used to drive a Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-08-114 had been murdered and his dead body was found lying in the field of one Nizamkhan at village Dangiya on Dantiwada Road. Based on the said complaint, Criminal Case (FIR) No. 2914 of 1990 came to be registered at Gadh Police Station, Taluka Palanpur, Gujarat and the investigation was commenced.
5. In the early hours of 2nd March, 1990, PSI J.N. Chaudhary (PW-22) of Sardarnagar Police Station saw a jeep being rapidly driven near Charannagar, Ahmedabad. The PSI tried to stop the jeep which was being driven away at a high speed and the same was stopped at some distance. Four persons alighted from the jeep and tried to run away. One of these persons was chased down and was apprehended and he divulged his name to be Laxmansing (A1).
6. It is alleged that A1, upon interrogation by the police disclosed the names of four co-accused (A2, A3, A4 and A5) and stated that they were the ones who were travelling with him in the jeep.
7. During interrogation, A1 also confessed to the murder of the owner of the jeep and also that the vehicle was looted in the course of the said transaction. He also stated that the persons who had escaped from the spot were also privy to the murder. Since the jeep bore blood stains, it was seized and A1 was taken into custody.
8. The usual investigation was conducted; panchnama was prepared; the remaining four accused were apprehended. At the instance of A2, a blood stained knife was recovered which was alleged to be the weapon of offence. This recovery was alleged to be from a nala. A3 and A4 were arrested. Blood stained clothes of A3 were recovered. A4 was arrested on 4th April, 1990 and a knife was produced on his information by one Shobhnaben wife of Kanji Chhara. The Investigating Officer concluded that the accused persons had taken the jeep taxi of Bharatbhai (deceased) on hire and thereafter they murdered the victim and looted the jeep.
9. Two separate charge-sheets came to be file
