Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2030 of 2024
Decided on : 19-09-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34 and 120B [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 61(2)] – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25(1-B)(A) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 8 and 27[Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Sections 6 and 23(2) – Murder and conspiracy – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Where case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, finding of guilt is justified only if all incriminating facts and circumstances are incompatible with accused's innocence – There must be a chain of evidence so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must show that act has been done by accused within all human probability – A fact already known to Police is not admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act – As disclosure statement has led to arrest of appellant, prosecution may take benefit of Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – However, absence of any corroborative evidence directly linking appellant to crime introduces a significant gap in facts as alleged in chain of circumstances – This fails to establish hypothesis of guilt that conclusively excludes all other reasonable possibilities – Prosecution has failed to prove that appellant is guilty of murder, either individually or with shared common intention or in conspiracy with co-accused – Impugned judgment set aside. (Paras 9, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Five individuals were prosecuted for offence(s) punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act, 1959. By impugned judgment dated 18.10.2022, Jitendra Singh has been acquitted. His acquittal has not been challenged. However, conviction of appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, was upheld, prompting him to file present appeal.
Findings of Court:
While appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, may be guilty of an offence under Section 201 of the IPC, the evidence provided by the prosecution is insufficient to secure a conviction for the murder of the victim, Narayan Singh, on 13.11.2011. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, is guilty of murder, either individually or with shared common intention or in conspiracy with the co-accused, Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama (now deceased).
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Five individuals, namely, Laadkunwar Bai, Jitendra Singh, Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama, Meharban Singh and the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, were prosecuted for the murder of Narayan Singh in the chargesheet arising out of First Information Report No. 640/2011 dated 13.11.2011, registered with Police Station – Industrial Area, District Dewas, Madhya Pradesh, for offence(s) punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Three out of these five persons are related to the victim, Narayan Singh. Laadkunwar Bai and Jitendra Singh are the wife and son of the victim, Narayan Singh. Meharban Singh is the father-in-law of Jitendra Singh, the son of Narayan Singh. The remaining two persons, namely, Nirbhay Singh and the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, are allegedly hired killers.
3. On 30.11.2017, the trial court acquitted Laadkunwar Bai and Meharban Singh. However, Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama, Jitendra Singh, and the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, were convicted.
4. Following this, Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama, Jitendra Singh, and the appellant filed appeals before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. During the pendency of the appeal, Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama passed away, resulting in the dismissal of his appeal as abated.
5. By the impugned judgment dated 18.10.2022, Jitendra Singh has been acquitted. His acquittal has not been challenged. However, the conviction of the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, was upheld, prompting him to file the present appeal.
6. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 13.11.2011, at 9.30 p.m., Rachna Bai, the mother of the victim, Narayan Singh, deposed as PW-2 that both she and Narayan Singh were sleeping at their house in Village Binjana, District Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. Someone called out Narayan Singh’s name from outside, prompting him to open the door. At that moment, Rachna Bai (PW-2) heard a gunshot. She ran towards Narayan Singh, and shortly after, a second gunshot was fired, striking Narayan Singh in the chest, and causing him to fall. When Rachna Bai (PW-2) went outside, she saw her daughter-in-law, Laadkunwar Bai (Narayan Singh’s wife), and Jitendra Singh (Narayan Singh’s son) standing on the opposite side of the house. She also saw two individuals with their faces covered fleeing the scene on a motorcycle.
7. The prosecution’s primary evidence against the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, also referenced in the impugned judgment, is the recovery (Exhibit P-6) of a pistol and the ballistic report (Exhibit P-57), which confirms that the bullet (Exhibit B-1) recovered from the body of the victim, Narayan Singh, was fired from the country-made pistol (Exhibit A-1 and C-1). There is evidence to show that the pistol was recovered (Exhibit P-6) from the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, and we would accept the said version of the prosecution.
8. There are no eyewitnesses to the crime, implicating the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal. The case against the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, rests entirely on circumstantial evidence.
9. Where the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, a finding of guilt is justified only if all the incriminating facts and circumstances are incompatible with the accused's innocence. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but the one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must show that the act has been done by the accused within all human probability. 1[Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 2 SCC 71.]
10. In Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharasthra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 this Court outlined five essential principles, often referred to as the “golden rules”, which must be satisfied for circumstantial evidence to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused:
“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be f
Disclosure statement – A fact already known to Police is not admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment establishes the principle that circumstantial evidence must be cogently and firmly established, pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and that confessional statements given to polic....
(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 ....
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....
Conviction on circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain linking accused to crime; absence of ballistic report connecting recovered pistol to gunshot, no firing eyewitness, and unreliab....
Circumstantial evidence must be fully established beyond reasonable doubt, with the burden shifting to the accused after the prosecution proves its case.
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
