Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDU MALHOTRA, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
State of NCT of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2248 of 2010
With
Kanta Devi – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2247 of 2010
Decided on : 05-12-2019
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 227 and 228 – Discharge of accused by Court – Court while considering question of framing charges under Section 227 of Cr.P.C has power to sift and weigh evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against accused – Test to determine prima facie case would depend upon facts of each case – If material placed before court discloses grave suspicion against accused which has not been properly explained, court will be fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with trial – Probative value of evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at stage of framing charges – Court is required to evaluate material and documents on record with a view to find out if facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose ingredients constituting alleged offence – At this stage, there cannot be roving enquiry into pros and cons of matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted. (Para 32)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 227 and 228 – Framing of charge – A strong suspicion is sufficient for framing charges, which must be founded on some material – Material must be such which can be translated into evidence at stage of trial – Veracity and effect of evidence which prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged at this stage, nor is any weight to be attached to probable defence of accused at stage of framing charges – Court is not to consider whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of accused, or whether trial is sure to end in conviction. (Para 32)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 120B – Conspiracy – Conspiracy is mostly proved by circumstantial evidence by taking into account cumulative effect of circumstances indicating guilt of accused, rather than adopting an approach by isolating role played by each of accused – Acts or conduct of parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to common design and its execution – It is sufficient if there is a tacit understanding between conspirators for execution of common illegal object – In cases of criminal conspiracy, better evidence than acts and statements of co-conspirators is hardly ever available – For a case of criminal conspiracy to be established, each link in chain of circumstances would get completed, only if evidence collected by prosecution against all accused was taken into consideration holistically. (Para 32)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 – Murder, conspiracy and disappearance of evidence – Discharge of accused by High Court – There is ample material brought on record which creates a grave suspicion about involvement of accused in murder of deceased – All witnesses have clearly attributed murder to two accused – Motive of crime was to misappropriate investments made by deceased in committees of accused – Call Detail Records reveal that accused were in close contact and communication with each other both before and after occurrence – Ballistic Report has certified that used cartridges recovered from site of occurrence and lead retrieved from body of deceased, matched with live cartridges recovered from house of accused – Prosecution has made out a strong prima facie case and materials on record are sufficient to frame charges against accused – Appeal Partly allowed. (Para 32)
(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 386 and 391 – Retrial and additional evidence – Appellate court may direct accused to be re-tried not only when it deals with appeal against acquittal, but also when it deals with appeal against conviction – As an appellate Court, High Court may take further evidence while considering Appeals u/S.391 Cr.P.C, if it is considered necessary and take additional evidence on record – High Court may also permit recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, if considered necessary. (Para 32)
Facts of the case:
Present Criminal Appeals have been filed by State (Criminal Appeal No. 2248 of 2010) and complainant – Kanta Devi (Criminal Appeal No. 2247 of 2010) to challenge order of discharge granted to accused persons by Delhi High Court. As per case of prosecution, material gathered during investigation revealed a larger criminal conspiracy in which all accused persons had participated.
Findings of Court:
Court must enquire whether persons are independently pursuing same unlawful object or whether they have come together for the pursuit of the unlawful object. The offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of the agreement. However, same need not be proved, nor is it necessary to prove actual words of communication. It is sufficient if there is a tacit understanding between conspirators for execution of common illegal object.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court has the authority under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C to sift and weigh evidence solely for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case has been established against the accused. The evaluation at this stage is limited to the material on record, and the court is not required to conduct a detailed weighing of evidence or assess its credibility (!) (!) .
The test for framing charges depends on whether the material discloses a grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been adequately explained. If such suspicion exists and is supported by material that can be translated into evidence at trial, the court is justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. The probative value of evidence cannot be scrutinized at this stage, and the court's role is to evaluate whether the facts, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence (!) (!) .
A strong suspicion based on material is sufficient for framing charges, even if the evidence is not yet fully proven. The veracity and weight of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged at this stage, nor is it necessary to determine the likelihood of conviction. The focus is on whether some material exists that can be developed into evidence during the trial (!) (!) .
The elements of criminal conspiracy include an agreement between two or more persons, with the agreement relating to an illegal act or an act to be committed by illegal means. Such conspiracy is often proved through circumstantial evidence, considering the cumulative effect of circumstances indicating guilt. Acts or conduct must reflect a conscious and clear understanding of a common design, and it is sufficient if there is a tacit understanding among conspirators for executing their common illegal object (!) (!) (!) .
The case involves allegations of a criminal conspiracy to murder, with evidence suggesting premeditation and planning involving multiple accused persons. The evidence includes statements of witnesses, communication records, recovered weapons, forensic reports, and conduct after the crime, all of which collectively indicate involvement in the conspiracy (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The absence or destruction of certain records and evidence, such as call detail records and committee records, along with the conduct of accused persons—such as absconding after the crime—are considered relevant conduct under the Indian Evidence Act, which supports the inference of involvement in the conspiracy (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that at the stage of framing charges, the focus is on whether the material discloses a prima facie case, not on establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court is also aware of the need for a holistic evaluation of evidence, especially in conspiracy cases, where direct evidence is often scarce, and circumstantial evidence plays a crucial role (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court has remitted the matter for further proceedings, directing the trial to be conducted expeditiously against specific accused persons, with charges to be framed under relevant sections of law based on the evidence available (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The trial process may involve additional evidence and statements, including recording of statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and the appellate court retains the authority to take further evidence or re-try accused if necessary (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores that the decision to frame charges is based on a preliminary assessment of material that indicates a reasonable suspicion, and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. The case demonstrates the importance of circumstantial evidence and conduct in establishing a conspiracy and involvement in criminal acts (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeals have been filed by the State (Criminal Appeal No. 2248 of 2010) and the complainant - Kanta Devi (Criminal Appeal No. 2247 of 2010) to challenge the Order of Discharge granted to Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann @ Nanhe, Shailendra Singh and Rajbir Singh by the Delhi High Court.
2. The factual matrix from which the present Appeals arise from is the filing of F.I.R No. 200/2006 by the Complainant Kanta Devi - widow of late S.N. Gupta on 21.03.2006 with the Police Station Mangolpuri, Delhi under Sections 120B, 302, 201 r.w. S.34 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act. The Complainant stated that on 21.03.2006, she was in the house with her husband - S.N. Gupta. At about 4:30 p.m., the doorbell rang, when a man aged between 25 to 30 years having a beard was standing at the gate, wearing spectacles and a black cap on his head, carrying a bag on his shoulder. He said that he had brought a courier from a bank addressed to S.N. Gupta, and would hand it over to him personally. She informed her husband about the courier. S.N. Gupta went to the main gate, while the informant returned to the kitchen. She then heard the sound of 2 or 3 gunshots from the gate. She rushed towards the gate and found that her husband had fallen on the floor, and was bleeding on account of gunshot injuries. She shouted for help, when the neighbours came and rushed her husband to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he was declared dead. She stated that she would be able to recognise the man who had shot her husband.
3. Sub-Inspector Dharambir Singh along with Constable Vijay Kumar, and Constable Prasan Singh reached the spot, and recovered 3 used cartridges and blood-stained slippers from the scene of occurrence.
4. On the date of occurrence, the I.O. recorded the statement of Rajesh Gupta s/o the deceased u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. Rajesh Gupta handed over the envelope to the Police which was carried by the assailant addressed to his father S.N. Gupta at the time of the murder. Rajesh Gupta clearly attributed the murder to Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. He stated that he and his father S.N. Gupta were members of several chit fund committees run by Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. Rajesh Gupta and his father S.N. Gupta had put in a substantial amount of money in those committees. He further stated that they were reluctant to return the money invested in the committees to the deceased.
Rajesh Gupta further stated that he had entered into a partnership with Sachin Bansal in the firm M/s Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd., which had its factory in Bahadurgarh. Rajesh Gupta stated that he wanted to separate from the partnership because Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal had usurped the share of his father S.N. Gupta - deceased and were now trying to usurp the factory at Bahadurgarh. It was on account of these reasons that they have got the murder of his father committed.
5. On the same date, the statement of Satish Gupta, brother of the deceased was recorded u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that he had invested in the committees run by Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. He further stated that his brother late S.N. Gupta, had invested large amounts of money in these committees. Shiv Charan Bansal and his son were refusing to return the money owed to both him and his brother. The deceased had told his brother that Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal wanted to grab the factory at Bahadurgarh, and usurp a large amount of their share in the factory at D-268, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, after the partnership had been dissolved. He also attributed the murder of his brother - S.N. Gupta to Shiv Charan Bansal and his son.
6. The statement of Suresh Gupta, other brother of the deceased S.N. Gupta, was also recorded on the date of the occurrence u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that he was running his own business, and that Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann and their friends would make threatening c
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
