Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Conspiracy Case: Suresh Thipmppa Shetty vs. State of Maharashtra (26 July 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 26 July 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 749

Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Can a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder stand when the alleged masterminds are acquitted, and there’s considerable doubt about the involvement of the convicted individuals? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately overturning the convictions of two individuals accused of conspiring to murder a businessman. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Mahendra Pratap Singh, a businessman, on 12 May 1995. The prosecution alleged that the original accused, A1, A2, and A7, were in the Colaba Police Station lockup from 23 September 1994 to 29 September 1994, and during this time, they conspired to abduct and murder the deceased. A1 and A7, real brothers running Saroj Petro Chemicals Limited, had a business rivalry with the deceased, which was cited as the motive for the murder.

On 12 May 1995, the deceased, along with his associate PW1, went to Hotel Garden in Panvel, where they met A3. A3 informed them that the person they were supposed to meet, “Sethji,” had gone to another hotel. Subsequently, the deceased, PW1, A3, and an unidentified shooter went to a farmhouse, where the deceased was shot and killed. The prosecution claimed that A2, A3, and A4 were involved in the conspiracy, with A2 booking a Maruti van and A4 visiting the crime scene before the incident.

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 13 May 1995. The Sessions Court convicted A4 under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and A2 under Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeals of A2 and A4, upholding their conviction. The State’s appeal against the acquittal of A1, A5, A6, and A7 was also dismissed. A3 passed away during the pendency of the appeal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted A4 under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and A2 under Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. Aggrieved by this order, A4, A2, A3, and the State of Maharashtra filed separate appeals before the High Court. The High Court dismissed all the appeals, upholding the convictions. Subsequently, A3 passed away. A4 and A2 then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with punishment for murder, and Section 120-B of the IPC, which pertains to criminal conspiracy.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.”

The legal framework also encompasses the principles of circumstantial evidence and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

Arguments

Submissions by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that they were not present in the car where the murder occurred. Their conviction was based solely on the conspiracy theory.
• They contended that the prosecution failed to establish a chain of events proving their involvement in the conspiracy. The main accused, A1 and A7, who had a rivalry with the deceased, were acquitted.
• The appellants highlighted the questionable conduct of PW1, who did not immediately report the incident to the police.
• They argued that it is unusual for a person committing a serious crime to leave an eyewitness alive.
• There was no evidence to link the appellants to the crime, and no motive for them to commit the murder was established.
• The testimony of PW7, who surfaced six months after the incident, was unreliable.
• PW2 did not identify A4 in cross-examination and admitted to being shown photographs of A2 and A4 multiple times.
• The actual shooter is still absconding, and the police fabricated the story to implicate the appellants.
• PW7’s statement about hearing multiple sounds contradicts PW1’s statement about two shots being fired from a small weapon.
• The money confiscated from A2’s account was not connected to A1 and A7.

Submissions by the Respondent (State):

• The State argued that the Sessions Court had discussed the role of the appellants based on witness testimonies and that the prosecution witnesses had identified them.
• The State contended that the conspiracy was clearly established.
• The State relied on the testimonies of hotel staff who recognized A2, proving the criminal conspiracy.
• The State also pointed to the bank transactions of A2 as evidence.
• The State cited Firozuddin Basheeruddin v State of Kerala, (2001) 7 SCC 596, to argue that conspiracy can be established through circumstantial evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed was:

• Whether the conviction of the appellants for conspiracy to murder can be sustained when the primary conspirators have been acquitted and there is reasonable doubt about their involvement.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 885 – The High Court relied on this case to state that criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. However, the Supreme Court stated that this case does not strengthen the prosecution’s case.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302 – The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that a person has a right not to be convicted of an offense not established beyond reasonable doubt. It also discussed the concept of reasonable doubt and how it should be based on evidence rather than speculation.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v Dharkole, (2004) 13 SCC 308 – This case reiterated the principle in Krishna Gopal (supra) regarding the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Firozuddin Basheeruddin v State of Kerala, (2001) 7 SCC 596 – The State relied on this case to argue that conspiracy can be established based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that the main conspirators in that case were convicted, unlike the present case.
• Sanjay Dubey v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 INSC 519 – The Supreme Court cited this case to reiterate that judgments are not to be read as statutes and are authorities only for what they actually decide.
• Sreenivasa General Traders v State of Andhra Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 353 – This case was cited in Sanjay Dubey (supra) to support the principle that judgments should not be read as statutes.
• M/s Amar Nath Om Prakash v State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 345 – This case was also cited in Sanjay Dubey (supra) to support the principle that judgments should not be read as statutes.
• BGS SGS Soma JV v NHPC Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 234 – This case was cited in Sanjay Dubey (supra).
• Chintels India Limited v Bhayana Builders Private Limited, (2021) 4 SCC 602 – This case was also cited in Sanjay Dubey (supra).
• Coffin v United States, 156 US 432 (1895) – The Supreme Court of the United States held that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
• Narendra Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 10 SCC 699 – The Supreme Court of India stated that the presumption of innocence is a human right.
• Ranjeetsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 – The Supreme Court held that the liberty of a person should not be interfered with unless there are cogent grounds.
• Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240 – This case was referred to in the context of judicial discretion, particularly in bail jurisprudence.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Punishment for murder.
• Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 885: The Court agreed with the law laid down in this case but found that it did not strengthen the prosecution’s case.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v Dharkole, (2004) 13 SCC 308: The Court reiterated the principle in Krishna Gopal (supra) regarding the standard of proof.
• Firozuddin Basheeruddin v State of Kerala, (2001) 7 SCC 596: The Court distinguished this case, noting that the main conspirators were convicted in that case, unlike the present case.
• Sanjay Dubey v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 INSC 519: The Court cited this case to reiterate that judgments are not to be read as statutes.
• Coffin v United States, 156 US 432 (1895): The Court agreed with the principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
• Narendra Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 10 SCC 699: The Court cited this case to support the principle that the presumption of innocence is a human right.
• Ranjeetsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294: The Court cited this case to support the principle that liberty should not be interfered with without cogent grounds.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and the presumption of innocence. The acquittal of the main conspirators, A1 and A7, significantly weakened the prosecution’s case against the appellants. The Court found several inconsistencies and doubts in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW1, PW2, and PW7. The absence of a clear motive for the appellants to commit the crime, coupled with the lack of direct evidence linking them to the murder, further solidified the Court’s decision to overturn the convictions.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the appellants were part of the conspiracy but rejected it due to lack of evidence and the acquittal of the main conspirators. The final decision was based on the principle that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court stated that when faced with reasonable doubt, it would lean in favor of the defense. The Court emphasized that life and liberty are not matters to be trifled with and that a conviction can only be sustained in the absence of reasonable doubt. The Court also reiterated the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

The Court quoted:

• “A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
• “The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”
• “Liberty of a person should not ordinarily be interfered with unless there exist cogent grounds therefor.”

Key Takeaways

• The acquittal of main conspirators significantly weakens the prosecution’s case against other accused individuals.
• The principle of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” remains paramount in criminal cases.
• The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right and must be upheld.
• Inconsistencies and doubts in witness testimonies can lead to the overturning of convictions.
• Courts will lean in favor of the defense when faced with reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. It also directed that any fines deposited by or realized from the appellants pursuant to the orders of the Sessions Court or High Court be refunded.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction for conspiracy cannot be sustained if the main conspirators are acquitted and there is reasonable doubt about the involvement of the other accused. This case reinforces the existing legal principles of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the convictions of Suresh Thipmppa Shetty and Sadashiv Seena Salian, accused of conspiring to murder, due to the acquittal of the main conspirators and the presence of reasonable doubt. This judgment reaffirms the importance of the principle of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and the presumption of innocence in the Indian criminal justice system.