2015 Supreme(SC) 195

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal – APPELLANT
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – RESPONDENTS
Criminal Appeal No. 2194 OF 2011
WITH
Rakesh Anand and Anr. – APPELLANTS
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – RESPONDENTS
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2195-2196 OF 2011
Shiv Kesh Giri @ Lalla – APPELLANT
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh – RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal No. 2198 OF 2011
Devesh Agnihotri – APPELLANT
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh – RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal No. 2199/2011
Rajesh Verma – APPELLANT
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh – RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal No. 2200/2011
Decided On : 11-03-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
Concurrent findings of the courts below should not normally be interfered with.
Doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events explained and applied.
Minor discrepancies should be ignored.
When prosecution establishes every link of the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, conviction must follow.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Concurrent findings of courts below – Interference warranted only when findings vitiated by grave error of law or by an error which leads to serious and substantial miscarriage of justice. (Para 24)

       (1976) 4 SCC 158; (1980) 2 SCC 465 – Relied upon

       (1966) 1 SCR 134; (1962) 3 SCR 338 – Referred

       (b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 and 27 – Confession before Police – Not admissible u/s 25 – Admissible to the extent of recovery made consequent upon such confession/statement – Such statement leading to discovery of a fact can be relied upon – Doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – Accused Nos. 4 & 7 disclosing names of co-accused who in turn led to recovery of various incriminating materials including pistols, cartridges, bullets, blood stained articles – Accused not explaining his knowledge of the fact – Courts below rightly drawing adverse inference. (Para 26, 27, 28)

       (2000) 6 SCC 269 – Relied upon

       (c) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Motive – Inspection by deceased resulting in suspension of licence and fine to the accused – Deceased again inspecting the petrol pump of the accused – Found dead the next day – Evidence on record establishing conspiracy of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt – No infirmity in conviction and sentence. (Para 29, 30)

       (d) Criminal trial – Discrepancies in evidence – Minor discrepancies bound to occur – Should be ignored. (Para 32)

       (1999) 8 SCC 649 – Relied upon

       (e) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Evidence on record pointing to only one view – Consistent with guilt of the accused persons – No infirmity in conviction. (Para 32)

       (f) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution establishing every link of the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt – Guilt of the accused persons established – No error in conviction. (Para 34, 35)

       Facts of the case:

       Father of appellant Monu Mittal (Accused No. 1) was the owner of a petrol pump namely M/s Mittal Automobiles situated at Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh.

       The deceased Manjunath was working as a Sales Officer with the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) at Gola.

       On 13.9.2005, the deceased inspected the petrol pump of Accused No. 1 and on finding some irregularities, the sales and supplies of the petrol pump were suspended by the IOC at his instance. However, the same were restored on 19th October, 2005 after the payment of fine of Rs.75,000/- by the owner of the petrol pump. Again on 19th November, 2005, the deceased, being suspicious of malpractices still being carried on by Accused No. 1, inspected the said petrol pump.

       On 20.11.2005, Vivek Sharma (Appellant - Accused No. 7) accompanied by another appellant Rakesh Kumar Anand (Appellant-Accused No.4) were caught with the dead body of deceased S. Manjunath. On interrogation, both accused Nos. 4 & 7 confessed that the deceased was shot dead by Pawan Kumar alias Monu Mittal (Accused No.1), Devesh Agnihotri (Accused No. 2), Sanjay Awasthi (Accused No.3), Lala Giri (Accused No.5), Harish Mishra (Accused No.6) at M/S Mittal Automobiles and they were carrying the dead body of the deceased in his car, to dispose of the same at an unknown place.

       The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused No.1 - Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal to death for offences u/s 302 r/w 149, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one year. He was also sentenced to 2 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default 3 months SI for the offence u/s 404, IPC and 6 months imprisonment u/s 30 of the Arms Act, 2 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs 5000/- u/s 404, IPC and in default to undergo 3 months S.I. The other accused, namely accused No.2 - Devesh Agnihotri, accused No.3 - Sanjay Awasthi, accused No. 4 - Rakesh Kumar Anand, accused No. 5 - Shivkesh Giri @ Lalla Giri, accused No. 6 - Harish Mishra, accused No. 7 - Vivek Sharma and accused No. 8 - Rajesh Verma were also convicted u/s 302 r/w Section 149, IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. They were further sentenced to suffer one year RI u/s 148, 5 years RI u/s 201, IPC, 5 years RI u/s 120 B IPC. Accused No.8 - Rajesh Verma was also convicted u/s 212, IPC and sentenced to 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months SI u/s 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to 1 year RI and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/-, in default to suffer SI for 3 months and 6 months RI u/s 30 of the Arms Act. Accused Rakesh Anand, Vivek Sharma and Pawan Kumar were also sentenced to 2 years RI u/s 411 IPC. All the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.

       The High Court partly allowed the appeal of Pawan Kumar (Accused No. 1) and modified his death sentence to life imprisonment u/s 302 r/w 149 but upheld the convictions for the other offences they are charged with. The appeals of the accused Devesh Agnihotri (A-2), Rakesh Anand (A-4), Shivkesh Giri @ Lalla Giri (A-5), Vivek Sharma (A-7) and Rajesh Verma (A-8) were, however, dismissed by the High Court. The appeals of other co-accused Harish Mishra (A-6) and Sanjay Awasthi (A-3) were allowed giving them benefit of doubt and acquitted them of all charges.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no scope of interfering with the concurrent findings of the courts below.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.