Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(SC) 170
B.S. CHAUHAN,S.A. BOBDE
Gulam Sarbar – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) – Respondent
Crl.A. No.-001316-001316 / 2012
07-10-2013
AWANISH SINHARATAN KUMAR CHOUDHURI
Conspiracy and murder convictions require proof of agreement to commit an illegal act, established through circumstantial evidence, reinforcing the significance of quality over quantity in witness testimony.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 120-B - Arms Act, 1959 - Conviction under conspiracy and murder - Conviction of appellants was affirmed by High Court, despite arguments of insufficient evidence for conspiracy and improper investigation. (Paras 2 to 4)
(B) Criminal Conspiracy - Essential ingredients include the agreement between parties to commit an illegal act; mere knowledge or discussions are insufficient - Evidence of conspiracy was established through circumstantial evidence. (Paras 5 and 6)
(C) Evaluation of Evidence - The importance lies in the quality of evidence rather than the quantity - Evidence of witnesses, though limited, was considered credible and trustworthy. (Paras 10 to 14)
(D) Presence at Crime Scene - The involvement and actions of the appellants before and after the crime were found to indicate their guilt in the conspiracy. (Paras 16 to 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, involved in a criminal conspiracy, threatened and murdered a deceased in a public place due to personal disputes regarding an illicit relationship.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's judgement was upheld; the evidence presented by the prosecution demonstrated clear involvement in the conspiracy to commit murder.
Issues: The main issues included the existence of a conspiracy, sufficiency of evidence for conviction, and the reliability of witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that consistent witness testimonies, along with circumstantial evidence, firmly established the conspiracy. The appellants did not provide satisfactory explanations for their presence at the crime scene.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the incident and prosecution's case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding existence of conspiracy. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. circumstantial evidence pointing to involvement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. prosecution's burden and witness credibility. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. quality of evidence over quantity for conviction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. final assessment of conspiracy and affirming lower court's findings. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. conclusion and dismissal of appeals. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT [ PER A.M. BADAR, J] :-
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeals (DB) Nos. 273 of 1998 (R) and 262 of 1998 (R) affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.8.1998 and 31.8.1998 respectively passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 1997, by which and whereunder, the appellants in both these appeals stood convicted alongwith others, namely, Binod Kumar, Asgar Mian @ Asgar Ansari, Paiki Ramm @ Poki Ramm and Mantu Das under Sections 302 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ` IPC ’) and sentenced to undergo RI for life.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:
A. As per the case of the prosecution, Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (PW.7), informant/complainant was going alongwith Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased), to Rajganj, Dhanbad on his motorcycle at about 8.00 P.M. on 6.9.1996. When they reached near Sant Nirankari Chowk, they saw a scooter and a motorcycle parked at the side of the road and six persons including the appellants were standing in the close proximity thereof, and they signalled the complainant to stop. The complainant stopped his motorcycle and enquired as to why they were waiting. But within no time, Yakub Ansari and Dhiren Mahto - appellant took out their pistols from their waist and pointed towards them and asked why Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) was disturbing the working of the institute run by Binod Kumar. They threatened Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) to remain away from the institute. Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) asked the accused persons how they were related to running the affairs of the institute, which led to an exchange of hot words between the deceased and the accused persons. Accused Asgar started inflicting blows by means of a knife and told his companions to complete the task for which they had come. Immediately, Yakub opened fire at point blank range from his revolver on the left side of the neck of Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) due to which the deceased collapsed and died immediately. The informant/complainant being scared ran away from the place of occurrence, leaving his motorcycle at the spot. He met a police party to whom he narrated the incident. On the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant, a case under Sections 302 /120-B/379 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act , 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ ’) against the accused, including both the appellants, was registered vide FIR No. 175 of 1996. Thus, the investigation ensued accordingly.
B. After the conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all the accused, showing Yakub @ Ayub as an absconder. Accordingly, the trial vide S.T. No. 112 of 1997 commenced. The co-accused Yakub @ Ayub was apprehended later and was tried separately vide S.T. No. 405 of 1998.
C. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including Mithilesh Kumar Sinha (PW.1) – real brother of the deceased, Arvind Kumar (PW.2) – cousin of deceased, Dr. Dhiraj (PW.6), who conducted the post-mortem examination, Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (PW.7), informant/complainant and brother of deceased and Jagdish Prasad (PW.8), the Investigating Officer.
D. The defence also examined three witnesses. Gurpreet Singh Mittal (DW.1), was examined only to prove that there was no light in Sant Nirankari Bhawan at the
