Supreme Court Acquits Conspiracy Accused in Hospital Shooting Case: Taqdir vs. State of Haryana (2022)

Date of the Judgment: March 02, 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Can a person be convicted of criminal conspiracy based on weak circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a man was accused of conspiring to murder his political rival. The court examined the evidence and determined whether the prosecution had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment clarifies the standard of evidence required for proving criminal conspiracy.

The Supreme Court of India, in a three-judge bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, delivered the judgment. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Rakesh alias Kala, who was shot inside a hospital. The appellant, Taqdir, had lost panchayat elections to Rakesh and allegedly held a grudge against him. On June 21, 2010, Rakesh was admitted to a hospital in Bahadurgarh. The next day, a group of assailants entered the hospital and shot Rakesh. The prosecution alleged that Taqdir was the main conspirator behind the murder. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on CCTV footage from the hospital and the testimony of eyewitnesses.

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Dharambir, Rakesh’s father, who stated that he saw the accused outside the hospital with firearms. The police seized the hard disk of the hospital’s CCTV system, which contained footage of the incident. The hard disk was taken into custody by the police, and the data was later transferred to a pen drive and compact disc. The prosecution contended that the CCTV footage showed the assailants entering the hospital, going to Rakesh’s room, and then fleeing the scene.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court found 10 accused persons guilty of the offences and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The convicted accused then appealed to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court upheld the conviction of five accused, including Taqdir, while acquitting the others. The High Court relied heavily on the CCTV footage and the fact that Taqdir had a motive to harm Rakesh due to the election loss. The High Court concluded that Taqdir was the main conspirator behind the murder. The High Court stated that the electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footages was completely supported by the requisite requirements of law and could be read as evidence on record. The High Court was of the view that four assailants had stormed into the hospital and into the room occupied by the deceased; and as evident from the CCTV footages; and the accused were carrying arms with them; and by using those firearms they had caused the death of the deceased Rakesh alias Kala. The High Court further found that the present appellant Taqdir was the brain behind the entire episode and was the main conspirator, at whose instance, the offence was committed.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The relevant sections of the IPC are:

• Section 148: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 302: Punishment for murder.
• Section 307: Attempt to murder.
• Section 449: House-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with death.
• Section 120-B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.

The relevant section of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is:

• Section 65-B: Admissibility of electronic records.

Section 120-B of the IPC deals with criminal conspiracy, which is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act. The prosecution must prove that there was an agreement and that the accused was a party to it. Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, allows for the admissibility of electronic records as evidence, provided certain conditions are met. The prosecution relied on the CCTV footage as evidence, which was admitted under this provision.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments

• The appellant, Taqdir, argued that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove his involvement in the conspiracy.
• He contended that the fact that he lost the election to the deceased was not a strong enough motive to implicate him in the murder.
• The appellant emphasized that he was not part of the group of assailants who entered the hospital and that there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime.
• The appellant’s counsel submitted that the absconding accused Mukesh was later apprehended and separately tried; and that by subsequent order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the concerned Trial Court, said accused was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The State of Haryana argued that Taqdir had a strong motive to harm Rakesh due to the election loss.
• The prosecution contended that Taqdir was the mastermind behind the conspiracy and that the other accused acted at his behest.
• The State relied heavily on the CCTV footage, which showed the assailants entering the hospital and committing the crime.
• The prosecution highlighted the fact that one of the accused, Mukesh, belonged to Taqdir’s party.

The prosecution argued that the conspiracy could be inferred from the circumstances, including Taqdir’s motive, the involvement of Mukesh, and the coordinated nature of the attack. The prosecution relied on the fact that the Santro car used in the crime was stolen two days before the incident, and that this was part of the conspiracy to eliminate Rakesh.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant, Taqdir, for the offences punishable under Sections 302/307/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The Court did consider the following legal provisions:

• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Attempt to murder.
• Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: House-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with death.
• Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
• Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Admissibility of electronic records.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Taqdir was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence linking him to the conspiracy. The Court found the prosecution’s case to be weak, relying on a slender thread of motive and circumstantial evidence. The acquittal of the absconding accused, Mukesh, further weakened the prosecution’s case, as it was alleged that Mukesh was a key player in the conspiracy and belonged to Taqdir’s party. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between Taqdir and the actual commission of the crime.

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence, but ultimately rejected them due to the lack of concrete proof. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to prove Taqdir’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court stated, “We see force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and find the material on record to be completely inadequate to return a finding of guilt against appellant Taqdir with the aid of Section 120-B of the IPC, read with Sections 302/307 IPC.” The Court also noted, “merely because the appellant had lost in the elections that by itself could not be categorized as a motive to be the foundation for the crime in question.” The Court further observed, “Apart from such slender thread of motive, there was nothing against the appellant nor was it the case of the prosecution that the appellant was part of the group of four assailants who had stormed into the hospital.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that a conviction for criminal conspiracy requires more than just a weak motive and circumstantial evidence.
• The prosecution must prove a clear link between the accused and the commission of the crime.
• The acquittal of a key accused can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case.
• This judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, Taqdir, be set at liberty unless his custody was required in connection with any other crime.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction for criminal conspiracy cannot be based on weak circumstantial evidence and a slender motive. The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to link the accused to the actual commission of the crime. This judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no change in the previous position of the law; rather, the judgment clarifies the evidentiary standards required for proving criminal conspiracy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court acquitted Taqdir, the main accused in the hospital shooting case, due to insufficient evidence to prove his involvement in the criminal conspiracy. The Court found the prosecution’s case to be weak, emphasizing that a slender motive and circumstantial evidence are not enough for a conviction. This judgment underscores the importance of concrete evidence in proving criminal conspiracy and reinforces the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Criminal Conspiracy
  • Murder
  • Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872
  • Section 65-B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Taqdir vs. State of Haryana case?

A: The main issue was whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Taqdir was guilty of criminal conspiracy in the murder of Rakesh alias Kala.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision?

A: The Supreme Court acquitted Taqdir, stating that the evidence was insufficient to prove his involvement in the conspiracy.

Q: What evidence did the prosecution rely on?

A: The prosecution relied on CCTV footage, the fact that Taqdir had lost the election to the deceased, and the involvement of an accused from Taqdir’s party.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court find the evidence insufficient?

A: The Supreme Court found the motive to be weak and the evidence to be circumstantial, lacking a direct link between Taqdir and the crime. The acquittal of Mukesh further weakened the prosecution’s case.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future cases?

A: This judgment emphasizes that a conviction for criminal conspiracy requires more than just a weak motive and circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must prove a clear link between the accused and the commission of the crime.

Q: What is the significance of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

A: Section 120-B deals with criminal conspiracy, which is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act. The prosecution must prove that there was an agreement and that the accused was a party to it.

Q: What is the significance of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

A: Section 65-B allows for the admissibility of electronic records as evidence, provided certain conditions are met. The prosecution relied on the CCTV footage as evidence, which was admitted under this provision.