Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kurian Joseph, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
Charandas Swami – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1549 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal Nos.1550 of 2007 and 1586 of 2008
Decided On : 10-04-2017
(b) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Quality of evidence required for recording finding of guilt – Supreme Court should be loath to overturn concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below. (Para 42)
1994 Supp(2) SCC 707; 2016 (12) Scale 892; (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Relied upon
AIR 1977 SC 2046; (2002) 7 SCC 728; (2016) 1 SCC 550; (2015) 11 SCC 378; (2014) 6 SCC 745; (2015) 11 SCC 178; AIR (1934) 1947 Privy Council 67; (1976) 1 SCC 828; (1999) 4 SCC 370; English Reports 168 Crown Cases, Liverpool Summer Assizes, 1838; (2003) 11 SCC 241; (2002) 2 SCC 490 – Referred
(c) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – Courts below concurrently holding that the deceased was last seen with accused 3 and thereafter only his dead body was found – Finding neither assailable nor perverse. (Para 44)
(d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – ‘Fact’ not limited to "actual physical material object" and it need not be self-probatory – Instantly an unknown burnt body recovered by police – Accused 3 disclosing his involvement in disposing the body of the deceased – Taking the police to the spot of dumping of the body – Place being the same from where recovery was made – Leading to identification of the body – Disclosed fact recorded in panchnama proved by Pancha witness PW 30 – PW 30 inimical with accused – Courts below rightly relying upon evidence of PW 30 only for proving the panchnama. (Para 45, 46, 48)
(2005) 11 SCC 600; (2000) 6 SCC 269; (2015) 1 SCC 253; 1962 Supp (2) SCR 830 – Relied upon
(1972) 1 SCC 249 – Referred
(e) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Identity of dead body – Place of dumping of dead body as disclosed by accused 3 same as the place of recovery of unknown body by police – Discovery of golden teeth and key to the room of deceased – Finally, DNA test conclusively establishing the body to be that of deceased dying a homicidal death. (Para 49)
(f) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Presence of accused at the place of crime – Circumstantial and ocular evidence establishing presence of accused at place of crime. (Para 51, 52, 53, 54)
(g) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Courts below returning a finding that accused 1 was the mastermind of the conspiracy to murder the deceased. (Para 60)
(2014) 7 SCC 291; (1995) 1 SCC 142; (2012) 9 SCC 696 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
Five accused were convicted by the trial court u/s 302 r/w 120-B, 364 and 201 IPC and sentenced to death penalty for the murder of one Gadadharanandji.
The High Court has upheld the conviction of accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. The High Court, however, has acquitted Accused No.4 of the said offences. The High Court commuted the death sentence awarded by the Sessions Court to a sentence of life imprisonment for the aforementioned four accused.
Finding of the Court:
Link connecting the chain of events and the link between Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 was complete in all respects, pointing to the guilt only of the said accused.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
These appeals have been filed by the Accused No.1 (Criminal Appeal No.1586 of 2008), Accused No. 2 (Criminal Appeal No.1549 of 2007) and Accused No. 5 (Criminal Appeal No.1550 of 2007) against the judgment and final order of the High Court of Gujarat dated 1st September, 2006. The High Court has upheld the decision of the Sessions Court, convicting Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 for offences under Sections 302 r/w 120-B, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and for the murder of one Gadadharanandji. The High Court, however, has acquitted Accused No.4 of the said offences. The High Court commuted the death sentence awarded by the Sessions Court to a sentence of life imprisonment for the aforementioned four accused. Accused No.3 has not filed any appeal before this Court against the impugned judgment.
2. The factual matrix of the case in hand, as gleaned from the pleadings and submissions of the parties as also the record, is as under:
(a)The Board of Trustees of the Swami Narayan sect of Vadtal Gadi Temple comprises of 8 members, including the Chairman and Chief Kothari, who handle the administration and financial management of the temples run by the sect.
(b)One Gadadharanandji was elected as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees on 11th April 1998. At that point in time, one Bhakti Dasji was the Chief Kothari and Narayan Shastri (Accused No. 1) was the Assistant Kothari. Charandas Swami (Accused No.2) was informally working as an assistant to Accused No. 1, while Madhav Prasad (Accused No.3), Ghanshyam (Accused No.4, now acquitted) and Vijay Bhagat (Accused No.5) were henchmen of Accused Nos.1 and 2.
(c)On 16th April, 1998, an agenda was circulated for a meeting of the Board of Trustees to be held on 22nd April, 1998, wherein the Chairman, Gadadharanandji, proposed to transfer the Kotharis away from the Vadtal Temple. That move was not approved by the rival camp. They also feared of being exposed of their misdeeds and maladministration.
(d)On 3rd May, 1998, Gadadharanandji went missing from the temple premises. The next day i.e. 4th May, 1998, a burnt body was found in a ditch at Barothi Village, in the neighbouring State of Rajasthan which was subsequently identified as that of Gadadharanandji. A post mortem of the body revealed that the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation.
(e)Meanwhile, one of the deceased's disciples, Jatin Bhagat (PW3) filed a missing person complaint about the sudden disappearance of Gadadharanandji with the local police on 5th May, 1998. This complaint was transferred to the local crime branch and then the state crime branch. PW3 subsequently filed a petition before the High Court of Gujarat, which transferred the investigation of the case to the CBI on 5th October 1998.
(f) The CBI eventually on 29th October, 1998 registered a new FIR against some persons, including the Appellants, for kidnapping Gadadharanandji. During the course of investigation, all the five accused were arrested in connection with the disappearance of Gadadharanandji.
(g)The investigation established the chain of events leading to the disappearance of Gadadharanandji. According to the prosecution, the accused kidnapped Gadadharanandji from the Vadtal Temple complex, took him in a blue car/van to the Navli Temple complex where they procured a call girl for him, after which they sedated and then strangled him. However, this chain of events was at odds with the panchnama drawn at the behest of Accused No. 3 wherein he is stated to have confessed that he himself kidnapped Gadadharanandji from the temple, drove him to his (Accused No. 3) house in Vadtal and then strangled him there using the deceased's 'khesiya' (cloth usually placed around the neck). Accused No.3 also claimed that he returned with the deceased's body in his car to Vadtal, informed Accused No.1 about the deed and then took Accused No.5 along with him to Rajasthan where they disposed of the dead body of deceased by throwing it in a d
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
