Supreme Court overturns conviction in kidnapping and murder case: Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan vs. State of Gujarat (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 1234

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J., Krishna Murari, J.

Can a conviction be sustained based on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession when the evidence is riddled with contradictions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the kidnapping and murder of a young boy. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of a complete chain of evidence and the unreliability of a disputed extra-judicial confession. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, and Krishna Murari, with Justice Krishna Murari authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On February 5, 2001, Paramhansh Mangal Yadav (PW-1) reported to the Kapodra Police Station that his 9-year-old son, Arjun, had been missing since February 4, 2001. Paramhansh had left for work at 8:00 am and returned for lunch at 2:00 pm, discovering Arjun was missing. Initial searches by the complainant and relatives were unsuccessful. Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan (Appellant No. 1) had initially joined the search but then disappeared. After about four days, Appellant No. 1 called Paramhansh, stating he was in Vapi. Suspicious, Paramhansh sent relatives to bring him back. Upon his return, Appellant No. 1 allegedly made an extra-judicial confession before about 50 people near Paramhansh’s house, stating he had kidnapped Arjun at the behest of Ramkeval Mutur Yadav (Accused No. 5). He confessed to taking Arjun on his bicycle to the railway station and handing him over to Ram Ashish and Shivnath (Appellant Nos. 2 and 3).

Following this, Appellant No. 1 was arrested on February 14, 2001. Paramhansh sent his brother-in-law, Sadhusharan (PW-9), and Jugeswar to Vapi to search for Appellant Nos. 2 and 3. They found them at Sanjay’s house in Vapi. Jugeswar informed Paramhansh, who then alerted the police. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were subsequently arrested from Sanjay’s residence.

On February 13, 2001, a mutilated, decomposed body was found in the agricultural farm of Naginbhai Kalyanji Patel (PW-15) and his son Sanjay Patel (PW-5). The body was sent for post-mortem to the New Civil Hospital in Surat and kept in the mortuary. The police alleged that the body was Arjun’s. They further stated that after his arrest, Appellant No. 1 disclosed the location where Arjun was left with Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, as well as the location of the bicycle used. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 also reportedly disclosed the location where Arjun was murdered and his body disposed of.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted the accused, citing doubts about the last seen theory, unreliability of the extra-judicial confession, contradictions in medical evidence, and lack of a complete chain of circumstances. The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision, convicting the appellants based on the testimonies of Kamlesh (PW-28) and Kashiben (PW-29) regarding the last seen theory and the extra-judicial confession, while selectively interpreting the medical evidence. The Supreme Court was then approached by the appellants against the High Court’s order.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other acts:

• Section 302 of the IPC: Deals with punishment for murder.
• Section 363 of the IPC: Addresses the offense of kidnapping.
• Section 364 of the IPC: Addresses the offense of kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
• Section 364-A of the IPC: Addresses kidnapping for ransom, etc.
• Section 365 of the IPC: Addresses kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person.
• Section 120-B of the IPC: Deals with punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 21 (1)(a) of the Arms Act: Pertains to offenses related to arms.
• Sections 3 and 5 of the Indian Explosive Act: Pertain to offenses related to explosives.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles of circumstantial evidence, noting that the prosecution must establish every link in the chain of circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, and all circumstances must point only towards the guilt of the accused.

The Court referred to the case of Sharad Birdichand Sharda v/s State of Maharashtra, which states that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be firmly established and point unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances must form a complete chain, leaving no other explanation except the guilt of the accused.

The Court also considered the “last seen theory,” referring to Bodh Raj Alias Bodha v/s State of Jammu and Kashmir, Rambraksh v/s State of Chhattisgarh, and Anjan Kumar Sharma v/s State of Assam, which state that the time gap between when the accused and deceased were last seen together and when the deceased is found dead must be minimal to exclude the possibility of any intervening event.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the High Court correctly overturned the trial court’s acquittal based on the following:

• Last Seen Theory: Kamlesh (PW-28) and Kashiben (PW-29) testified that they saw the Appellant No. 1 with Arjun before his disappearance. Kamlesh stated that he saw Arjun riding a bicycle and that Appellant No. 1 had spoken to Arjun while they were heading towards a video game shop. Kashiben stated that she saw Appellant No. 1 go to the terrace of Paramhansh’s house, where Arjun was also present, and that both of them came down. The prosecution argued that this evidence established that Appellant No. 1 was the last person seen with Arjun.
• Extra-Judicial Confession: The prosecution contended that Appellant No. 1 made an extra-judicial confession before about 50 people near Paramhansh’s house, admitting to kidnapping Arjun at the behest of Ramkeval Mutur Yadav (Accused No. 5). The confession included details about taking Arjun on his bicycle to the railway station and handing him over to Appellant Nos. 2 and 3.
• Recovery of the Dead Body: The prosecution argued that the dead body found in the agricultural farm was that of Arjun. They claimed that Appellant No. 1 disclosed the location where Arjun was left with Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, as well as the location of the bicycle used. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 also disclosed where Arjun was murdered and his body disposed of.

The appellants argued that the High Court erred in overturning the trial court’s acquittal because:

• Contradictions in Last Seen Theory: The testimonies of Kamlesh (PW-28) and Kashiben (PW-29) were contradictory. Kamlesh stated that Arjun was riding a bicycle, while Kashiben stated that Arjun was on the terrace of Paramhansh’s house. Kashiben did not mention Kamlesh’s presence. The accounts of the abduction were also inconsistent, with Kashiben’s account being particularly doubtful due to the distance between her house and Paramhansh’s house. Additionally, both witnesses failed to inform Paramhansh or the police about the presence and conduct of Appellant No. 1 despite knowing that Arjun was missing.
• Unreliable Extra-Judicial Confession: The extra-judicial confession was questionable because it was not mentioned in the initial complaint by Paramhansh (PW-1). The confession emerged only during the examination of Paramhansh (PW-1), Sadhusharan (PW-9), and Hiralal Yadav (PW-22). There were contradictions about the circumstances of the confession, such as the number of people present and the degree of coercion involved.
• Doubtful Identification of the Dead Body: Paramhansh (PW-1) did not testify that he identified the dead body as Arjun’s. The post-mortem report indicated that the minimum age of the deceased was around 16 years, while Arjun was 9 years old. The medical evidence regarding the bones was also inconclusive, with no DNA test conducted to confirm the identity.
• Incomplete Chain of Circumstances: The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the appellants to the crime. The time gap between when the accused and deceased were last seen together and when the death occurred was significant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal order passed by the trial court.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in relying upon the testimonies of PW-28 and PW-29 to establish the last seen theory.
3. Whether the High Court was correct in relying upon the extra-judicial confession made by Appellant No. 1.
4. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants. The Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the appellants to the crime. The evidence, particularly the last seen theory and the extra-judicial confession, was unreliable and riddled with contradictions.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Sharad Birdichand Sharda v/s State of Maharashtra [CITATION] to emphasize the stringent requirements for circumstantial evidence, stating that the circumstances must form a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused.
• The Court followed Bodh Raj Alias Bodha v/s State of Jammu and Kashmir [CITATION], Rambraksh v/s State of Chhattisgarh [CITATION], and Anjan Kumar Sharma v/s State of Assam [CITATION] to highlight that the time gap between when the accused and deceased were last seen together and when the deceased is found dead must be minimal to exclude the possibility of any intervening event.
• The Court followed Sahadevan v. State of T.N. [CITATION] to underscore that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and must be corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
• The Court followed Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION] to reiterate the principles for relying on extra-judicial confessions, emphasizing that they must be voluntary, truthful, and supported by a chain of cogent circumstances.
• The Court followed Tota Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION] to reiterate that an appellate court should not interfere with acquittals unless they are vitiated by manifest illegality or are perverse.
• The Court followed Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [CITATION] to emphasize that a presumption of innocence stands reinforced by the trial court’s acquittal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Inconsistencies in Testimony: The court found significant contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, particularly Kamlesh (PW-28) and Kashiben (PW-29), regarding the last seen theory. These inconsistencies undermined the credibility of their statements.
• Unreliable Extra-Judicial Confession: The alleged extra-judicial confession by Appellant No. 1 was deemed unreliable due to its absence in the initial complaint and the contradictions surrounding its circumstances. The court emphasized that such confessions must be corroborated by other evidence.
• Lack of Identification of the Body: The court noted that the complainant, Paramhansh (PW-1), did not identify the body as that of his son, Arjun. The post-mortem report also indicated a different age, further casting doubt on the identity of the deceased.
• Incomplete Chain of Circumstances: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the appellants to the crime. The time gap between when the accused and deceased were last seen together and the time of death was significant.
• Presumption of Innocence: The court emphasized that the trial court’s acquittal reinforced the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The High Court should not have interfered with the acquittals unless they were vitiated by manifest illegality or were perverse.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial Evidence: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish every link in the chain of circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. All circumstances must point only towards the guilt of the accused.
• Last Seen Theory: The time gap between when the accused and deceased were last seen together and when the deceased is found dead must be minimal to exclude the possibility of any intervening event.
• Extra-Judicial Confession: Extra-judicial confessions are weak pieces of evidence and must be corroborated by other prosecution evidence. They must be voluntary, truthful, and supported by a chain of cogent circumstances.
• Presumption of Innocence: An appellate court should not interfere with acquittals unless they are vitiated by manifest illegality or are perverse. The presumption of innocence is reinforced by the trial court’s acquittal.
• Importance of Credible Witnesses: The testimonies of witnesses must be consistent and reliable. Contradictions and inconsistencies can undermine the credibility of their statements.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be released from custody unless they are required to be detained in any other case in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish every link in the chain of circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, and all circumstances must point only towards the guilt of the accused. The Court also reiterated the importance of the last seen theory and the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions. This case reinforces the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with acquittals unless they are vitiated by manifest illegality or are perverse, and that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by the trial court’s acquittal. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case highlights the importance of adhering to the established principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan vs. State of Gujarat overturns the High Court’s conviction, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of evidence and the unreliability of a disputed extra-judicial confession. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of the presumption of innocence and the stringent requirements for circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the high standards of proof required to convict individuals, particularly in cases where the evidence is not direct.