Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder and robbery case: Thakore Umedsing Nathusing vs. State of Gujarat (2024) INSC 198 (22 February 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 February 2024

Citation: (2024) INSC 198

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal in a case that relies solely on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in the case of *Thakore Umedsing Nathusing vs. State of Gujarat*. This case revolves around the conviction of several individuals for murder and robbery, a conviction that was initially overturned by the trial court but later reinstated by the High Court. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, examined the validity of the High Court’s decision and the principles governing the use of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Case Background

The case began with a complaint filed on March 1, 1990, by Vithalbhai Kachrabhai Barot (PW-1), reporting the murder of his son, Bharatbhai, a jeep driver. Bharatbhai’s body was found in a field in Dangiya village. The police registered a case, and the investigation commenced.

On March 2, 1990, a police sub-inspector (PSI), J.N. Chaudhary (PW-22), spotted a jeep speeding in Ahmedabad. When he tried to stop it, four people fled, but one, Laxmansing (A1), was caught. A1 allegedly confessed to the murder of the jeep owner and implicated four others (A2, A3, A4, and A5). The police seized the blood-stained jeep.

Following A1’s alleged confession, the police arrested A2, A3, and A4. A blood-stained knife was recovered at the instance of A2. Blood-stained clothes belonging to A3 were also recovered. Another knife was recovered based on information from A4. The police concluded that the accused had hired Bharatbhai’s jeep, murdered him, and then stolen the vehicle.

Two separate charge sheets were filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The accused were charged under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention), and Sections 396 and 397 (robbery and dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted A4 of all charges. It also acquitted A1, A2, A3, and A5 of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34, and Sections 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the trial court convicted A1, A2, A3, and A5 under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (robbery), sentencing them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000.

Both the accused and the State appealed the trial court’s decision. The accused appealed their conviction under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while the State appealed the acquittal of the accused on the charges of murder and dacoity.

The High Court of Gujarat allowed the State’s appeal and reversed the acquittal of A1, A2, A3, and A5, convicting them under Sections 302 (murder) and 396 (dacoity with murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court sentenced them to life imprisonment, while maintaining the fine and default sentence imposed by the trial court. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the accused.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: This section defines the punishment for murder. “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 392: This section defines the punishment for robbery. “Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery is committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.”
• Section 396: This section defines the punishment for dacoity with murder. “If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34: This section defines the concept of common intention. “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

The case also refers to the following sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

• Section 313: This section deals with the power of the court to examine the accused.
• Section 378(1)(b): This section deals with the power of the High Court to hear appeals against acquittals.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is also relevant in this case:

• Section 25: This section renders confessions made to a police officer inadmissible in evidence.
• Section 26: This section renders confessions made by a person in police custody inadmissible in evidence.
• Section 27: This section provides an exception to Sections 25 and 26, allowing for the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact.

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of the accused appellants:

• The prosecution failed to establish that the jeep belonged to the deceased.
• The incriminating articles recovered were not examined by the Forensic Sciences Laboratory (FSL).
• The prosecution failed to prove that A1 was present in the jeep when it was stopped by the police.
• The conviction of A2, A3, and A5 was based solely on the inadmissible confessional statement of A1.
• The High Court did not find the trial court’s view to be perverse or that two views were not possible.
• The High Court’s findings were based on conjectures and surmises, not tangible evidence.

Submissions on behalf of the respondent-State:

• The High Court correctly appreciated the circumstantial evidence and rightly convicted the accused.
• The High Court’s judgment should be upheld, and the appeals should be dismissed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for adjudication:

1. What is the scope of interference by a High Court in an appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused by the trial court?
2. What is the standard of proof required to bring home charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence?

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

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116* to highlight the five golden rules for cases based on circumstantial evidence and found that these rules were not followed by the High Court.
• The Supreme Court relied on H.D. Sundara and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581* to reiterate the principles governing the High Court’s power to interfere with an acquittal, stating that the High Court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s view was a possible one. The Court found that the High Court did not follow these principles.
• The Supreme Court relied on Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724* to support its view that the solitary circumstance of recovering blood-stained weapons is not sufficient to convict an accused for murder. The Court found that the recoveries in this case were doubtful and tainted.
• The Supreme Court relied on Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184* to emphasize that a confession of one co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence against another co-accused. The Court held that the High Court erred in relying on the confession of A1 against A2, A3 and A5.

The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence, which included the alleged recovery of the jeep, knives, and blood-stained clothes. The Court found that the confession of A1 was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court also noted that the High Court did not record any finding that the view taken by the trial court was perverse.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s judgment was based on conjectures and surmises, rather than substantive or reliable circumstantial evidence. The Court also found that the recoveries were doubtful and that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances.

The Supreme Court stated that the High Court did not adhere to the principles laid down for reversing an acquittal. The Court observed that the High Court should not have overturned the trial court’s acquittal unless the trial court’s view was perverse or not a possible view.

The Court also noted that the High Court had relied on the interrogation note of A1, which was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court, therefore, overturned the High Court’s judgment and acquitted the accused.

“It is trite that confession of an accused in custody recorded by a police officer is inadmissible in evidence as the same would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.”

“Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that A1 was present in the jeep owned by Bharatbhai (deceased), this fact in isolation cannot lead to an inference about culpability of the said accused for the offences of murder and dacoity.”

“From a thorough appreciation of the evidence available on record, we find that the prosecution miserably failed to lead reliable, tangible and convincing links forming a complete chain of incriminating circumstances so as to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the failure of the prosecution to establish a clear chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The Court emphasized the inadmissibility of the confession made to the police, the doubtful nature of the recoveries, and the lack of corroborative evidence. The Court was also critical of the High Court for reversing the acquittal without finding the trial court’s view to be perverse.

Fact:Law

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should exercise caution while reversing acquittals, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• Confessions made to police officers are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used to convict an accused.
• Recoveries of incriminating articles must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and must be corroborated by other evidence.
• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that point towards the guilt of the accused.
• The benefit of doubt should always go to the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court should not reverse an acquittal by a trial court unless the trial court’s view is perverse or not a possible view. The Supreme Court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles laid down for cases based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt should always go to the accused. This case clarifies the scope of appellate jurisdiction in cases of acquittal and the standard of proof required in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Conclusion

In *Thakore Umedsing Nathusing vs. State of Gujarat*, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, which had convicted the accused for murder and robbery. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal, as the prosecution’s case was based on inadmissible evidence and doubtful circumstances. This judgment reinforces the principles governing the use of circumstantial evidence and the limitations on the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court in cases of acquittal. The accused were acquitted of all charges.