Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Ravishankar Tandon – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3869 Of 2023 with Criminal Appeal No. 2740 Of 2023, Criminal Appeal No. 3869 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 837 of 2024] Criminal Appeal No. 3870 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1174 of 2024]
Decided On : 10-04-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 read with 34, Sections 120B and 201 – Murder, conspiracy and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – For bringing the case under Section 27 of Evidence Act, it will be necessary for prosecution to establish that, based on information given by accused while in police custody, it had led to discovery of fact, which was distinctly within knowledge of maker of said statement – It is only so much of information as relates distinctly to fact thereby discovered would be admissible – If a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information supplied, it affords some guarantee that information is true and it can be safely allowed to be admitted in evidence as an incriminating factor against accused. (Paras 9, 10 and 13)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 read with 34, Sections 120B and 201 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Murder, conspiracy and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution has utterly failed to prove that discovery of dead body of deceased from pond was only on the basis of disclosure statement made by accused persons under Section 27 of Evidence Act and that nobody knew about the same before that – Prosecution has utterly failed to prove any of incriminating circumstances against appellants – Impugned judgments quashed and set aside and appellants acquitted. (Paras 22, 26 and 27)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – For bringing case under Section 27 of Evidence Act, it will be necessary for prosecution to establish that, based on information given by accused while in police custody, it had led to discovery of fact, which was distinctly within knowledge of maker of said statement – It is only so much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered would be admissible – Rationale behind this provision is that, if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information supplied, it affords some guarantee that information is true and it can be safely allowed to be admitted in evidence as an incriminating factor against accused – Prosecution will have to establish that before information given by accused persons on the basis of which dead body was recovered, nobody had knowledge about existence of dead body at the place from where it was recovered. (Paras 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals challenge Judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2023 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeals wherein Division Bench dismissed criminal appeals preferred by appellants and upheld order of conviction and sentence dated 5th February, 2013 as recorded by trial court in Sessions Trial.
Findings of Court:
Appellants are directed to be acquitted of all charges charged with and are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted in SLP (Criminal) Nos. 837 and 1174 of 2024.
2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 194, 232 and 277 of 2013 wherein the Division Bench dismissed the criminal appeals preferred by the appellants, namely Ravishankar Tandon (accused No.1), Umend Prasad Dhrutlahre (accused No.2), Dinesh Chandrakar (accused No.3) and Satyendra Kumar Patre (accused No.4) and upheld the order of conviction and sentence dated 5th February, 2013 as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2012.
3. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeals are as under:-
3.1 On 2nd December 2011, Ramavtar (PW-1) lodged a missing person report being Missing Person Serial No. 10/11 at Police Station Kunda after his son Dharmendra Satnami (deceased) went missing. While an extensive search was being conducted, on the basis of suspicion, the police interrogated the appellants. During the interrogation, the appellants disclosed that they had strangulated the deceased to death on the Bhatgaon Canal Road and had thereafter thrown his body into a pond at Village Bhatgaon. Thereafter, on 3rd December 2011, the police recorded the memorandum statements of accused Nos.1 to 3 at about 10:00 am, 10:30 am and 11:00 am, respectively, whereas the memorandum statement of accused No.4 came to be recorded on 6th December 2011 at 07:00 pm. On the basis of the aforesaid memorandum statements, the police recovered the dead body of the deceased from the pond at Bhatgaon on 3rd December 2011 at about 04:05 pm and the dead body was identified. Thereafter, on the very same day, a First Information Report (‘FIR’ for short) being No. 402 of 2011 was registered at Police Station Mungeli, District Bilaspur wherein it is recorded that the aforesaid offences were committed between the days of 30th November 2011 and 3rd December 2011. According to the Post-Mortem Report (Ext. P-22), the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation and the nature of death was homicidal.
3.2 The prosecution case stems from the memorandum statements of the appellants wherein the appellants had admitted that Dinesh Chandrakar (accused No.3) had instructed Ravishankar Tandon (accused No.1) and Satyendra Kumar Patre (accused No.4) to murder the deceased in exchange for Rs.90,000/-, which was to be paid upon the execution of the said murder. Upon receiving the aforesaid instruction, Ravishankar Tandon (accused No.1) and Satyendra Kumar Patre (accused No.4) along with Umend Prasad Dhritalhare (accused No.2) hatched a criminal conspiracy to kill the deceased and worked out a plan to execute the same. Accordingly, the aforesaid three accused persons called the deceased to Mungeli on 30th November 2011 under the ruse of purchasing silver. While Umend Prasad Dhritalhare (accused No. 2) and Satyendra Kumar Patre (accused No.4) reached Datgaon which fell within the ambit of Police Station Mungeli, on a motorcycle belonging to a relative of Satyendra Kumar Patre (accused No.4), Ravishankar Tandon (accused No.1) and the deceased reached Datgaon by a bus. Thereafter, the three accused persons along with the deceased went to visit the house of the brother-in-law of Satyendra Kumar Patre (accused No.4), namely, Sunil. On that same night, after taking the dinner, they left Sunil’s house on the pretext of returning to their homes. However, when they reached near Bhatgaon, Ravishankar Tandon (accused No.1), Umend Prasad Dhritalhare (accused No.2) and Satyendra Kumar Patre (accused No.4) strangulated the deceased to death and in order to screen themselves from the said act of murder, the accused persons tied the dead body of the deceased with his own clothes and stuffed it into a jute sack which had been procured from Sunil’s house. Thereafter
(1) Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion.(2) Disclosure statement – It is only so much of i....
Information leading to the discovery of fact cannot form the foundation of the prosecution case as it is one link in the chain of proof and the other links must be forged in a manner allowed by the l....
Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased is....
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt unless it excludes every possible hypothesis e....
The conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a common intention to kill for financial gain through witchcraft.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Disclosure statement – Once information is given by accused, same information cannot be used even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody – Section 27 of Evidence Act does apply to ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
