Supreme Court Orders Retrial in S.N. Gupta Murder Case: State of NCT of Delhi vs. Shiv Charan Bansal (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 5 December 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 1307

Judges: Indu Malhotra, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a court discharge an accused person when there is a strong suspicion of their involvement in a criminal conspiracy? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning the murder of S.N. Gupta. The court examined whether the High Court had correctly upheld the discharge of certain accused individuals despite significant circumstantial evidence suggesting their involvement in the crime. This judgment clarifies the threshold for framing charges in cases involving criminal conspiracy and highlights the importance of considering all evidence holistically.

Case Background

The case originates from the filing of F.I.R No. 200/2006 by Kanta Devi, the widow of S.N. Gupta, on 21 March 2006, at the Mangolpuri Police Station in Delhi. The FIR alleged offenses under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with violations of the Arms Act. Kanta Devi reported that on the same day, a man posing as a courier delivery person shot and killed her husband, S.N. Gupta, at their doorstep.

Rajesh Gupta, the son of the deceased, stated that his father was murdered due to financial disputes with Shiv Charan Bansal and his son, Sachin Bansal. Rajesh and his father had invested substantial amounts in chit fund committees run by the Bansals. They were also partners in M/s Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd., where the Bansals allegedly usurped their share. Satish Gupta, brother of the deceased, corroborated this, stating that the Bansals refused to return the money owed to him and his brother. Suresh Gupta, another brother, stated that Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann, and their friends had been threatening his son for money. Naveen Gupta, nephew of the deceased, also stated that he had been receiving threats from Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann, Sachin Bansal, and their friends.

The police investigation led to the arrest of several individuals, including Sachin Bansal, Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann, Rajbir Singh, and Joginder Singh Sodhi. The police recovered a pistol and cartridges from Shailendra Singh’s office. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirmed that the bullets recovered from the body of S.N. Gupta were fired from the pistol recovered from Shailendra Singh’s office. The handwriting on the envelope carried by the assailant matched that of Joginder Singh Sodhi.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court framed charges against Joginder Singh Sodhi for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and against Narendra Mann for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 201 of the IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. However, the Sessions Court discharged Lalit Mann, Rajbir Singh, and Shiv Charan Bansal. Shailendra Singh was charged only under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Sachin Bansal was charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act for the recovery of Narendra Mann’s licensed pistol from his factory.

The State and the complainant, Kanta Devi, filed revision petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging the discharge of Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann, and Rajbir Singh, and the limited charges framed against Shailendra Singh and Sachin Bansal. Shailendra Singh and Sachin Bansal also filed revision petitions challenging the charges framed against them. Narendra Mann also filed a revision petition challenging the charges against him.

The Delhi High Court upheld the discharge of Shiv Charan Bansal, Shailendra Singh, Lalit Mann, and Rajbir Singh. It directed that Narendra Mann, Sachin Bansal, and Joginder Singh Sodhi be charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120B of the IPC, and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, and substantively under Section 120B of the IPC alone.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with criminal conspiracy. It states that a criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 25 of the Arms Act: Deals with the punishment for possessing illegal arms.
• Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Outlines the procedure for discharge of the accused.
• Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Outlines the procedure for framing of charges.
• Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Defines the powers of the appellate court.
• Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Deals with the power of the appellate court to take further evidence.

Arguments

Prosecution’s Submissions:

• The prosecution argued that there was a criminal conspiracy to murder S.N. Gupta, involving all the accused.
• Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal had a motive to eliminate S.N. Gupta due to financial disputes and misappropriation of funds.
• Narendra Mann hired Joginder Singh Sodhi to carry out the murder.
• Lalit Mann was initially involved in the conspiracy.
• Shailendra Singh provided the weapon used in the murder.
• Rajbir Singh advised Narendra Mann not to use his licensed weapon.
• The Call Detail Records (CDRs) showed close communication between Sachin Bansal and Narendra Mann before and after the murder.
• The conduct of Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann, and Shailendra Singh in absconding after the murder indicated their guilt.

Defense’s Submissions:

• The defense argued that the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence and disclosure statements, which are not sufficient to frame charges.
• Lalit Mann had withdrawn from the conspiracy.
• Rajbir Singh only provided advice and was not involved in the conspiracy.
• Shailendra Singh had no knowledge that the weapon would be used for murder.
• Shiv Charan Bansal was not directly involved in the murder.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the discharge of Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann, and Shailendra Singh.
2. Whether there was sufficient material on record to frame charges against the accused for offences under Sections 120B, 302 read with 120B/34, 201 of the IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act: The Court considered the conduct of the accused, such as absconding after the murder, as relevant evidence.
• Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act: The Court noted that disclosure statements alone cannot be used to connect the accused with the crime.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [CITATION]: The Court used this authority to justify the framing of charges based on strong suspicion.
• Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Another [CITATION]: The Court relied on this to emphasize that a strong suspicion is sufficient for framing charges.
• Ghulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar [CITATION]: The Court used this case to define the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy.
• R. Venkatakrishnan v. CBI [CITATION]: The Court used this case to highlight that conspiracy is often proven by circumstantial evidence.
• State (NCT) of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that conspiracy is proved by the cumulative effect of circumstances.
• Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) [CITATION]: The Court used this case to explain that conspiracy requires some physical manifestation of the agreement.
• Isaac alias Kishore v. Ronald Cheriyan & Ors [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to justify the power of the appellate court to direct a retrial.
• Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The Court used this case to state that the appellate court may take further evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C.
• Asraf Ali v. State of Assam [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to state that the appellate court may take further evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence, the conduct of the accused, and the financial motive behind the crime. The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, a strong suspicion based on material evidence is sufficient to proceed with the trial. The Court was particularly critical of the High Court’s approach of isolating the roles of each accused instead of considering the evidence holistically.

Fact:Law:

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal principles. The factual aspects, such as the financial disputes, the conduct of the accused, and the circumstantial evidence, played a significant role in the Court’s decision. The legal considerations, such as the interpretation of criminal conspiracy and the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., also influenced the Court’s reasoning.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the strong circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the cumulative effect of all evidence to determine whether a prima facie case exists.

The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Court and the High Court were not justified in discharging Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann, and Shailendra Singh. The Court found that there was sufficient material to frame charges against them for offences under Sections 302 read with 34, 120B, and 201 of the IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Court directed the Sessions Court to proceed with the trial against these accused.

“The Court while considering the question of framing charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused.”

“A criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence.”

“The materials gathered by the prosecution raise a strong suspicion against both Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal in hatching the conspiracy for the murder of late S.N. Gupta.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this judgment.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, a strong suspicion based on material evidence is sufficient to proceed with the trial.
• The Court highlighted the importance of considering the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence in cases of criminal conspiracy.
• The conduct of the accused, such as absconding after the crime, is relevant evidence under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The Court stressed that the prosecution is not required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt at the stage of framing charges.
• The judgment underscores that the court should not isolate the role of each accused, but should consider the evidence holistically.
• The judgment clarifies the threshold for framing charges in cases involving criminal conspiracy and highlights the importance of considering all evidence holistically.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, was directed to frame charges against Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann, and Shailendra Singh under the relevant sections of the IPC and Arms Act and proceed with the trial.
• The Sessions Court was directed to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis and conclude it within six months.
• The Sessions Court was directed to report the progress of the case to the Supreme Court after three months.
• A copy of the judgment was to be forwarded to the High Court and placed in the file of the pending criminal appeals related to the case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that at the stage of framing charges, a strong suspicion based on material evidence is sufficient to proceed with the trial, especially in cases of criminal conspiracy. The Court clarified that circumstantial evidence should be considered cumulatively and not in isolation. This judgment reinforces the principle that the court should not isolate the role of each accused, but should consider the evidence holistically.

This judgment also clarifies the application of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing that the conduct of the accused, such as absconding after the crime, is relevant evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, overturning the Delhi High Court’s decision to discharge Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann, and Shailendra Singh. The Court directed the Sessions Court to frame charges against these accused and proceed with the trial. The Court emphasized that a strong suspicion based on material evidence is sufficient to frame charges, especially in cases of criminal conspiracy. The Court also highlighted the importance of considering the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused. This judgment reinforces the principle that the court should not isolate the role of each accused, but should consider the evidence holistically.