Supreme Court Revises Conviction in Murder and Robbery Case: Jagdish vs. State (2023) INSC 123

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 February 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 123

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh

Can a conviction under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, be upheld without clear evidence of such attempt? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a murder and robbery. The Court upheld the conviction for murder and robbery under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC, respectively, but acquitted one of the accused and modified the conviction of the other two. This judgment, delivered by a bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh, clarifies the application of Section 397 of the IPC and its distinction from Section 392 of the IPC.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Ram Chandra, who was found dead in a well near Rajpura bus stand. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Shiv Bhagwan, the cousin of the deceased, on 06.03.2009 at the Losal Police Station, Sikar District, Rajasthan. Shiv Bhagwan stated that on 05.03.2009, he saw Ram Chandra at the bus stand interacting with 3-4 individuals who wanted to hire his Bolero vehicle to go to Kuchaman. Ram Chandra left with these individuals but did not return home that night. The next morning, Shiv Bhagwan learned from a co-villager, Durga Ram, that Ram Chandra was seen fighting with 3-4 people at Kuchaman stand, Losal.

On 06.03.2009, at around 3:00 a.m., the Bolero vehicle was intercepted by the Ratangarh police. Two individuals fled the vehicle, but one, Jagdish, was apprehended. Prakash and a juvenile were detained in the vehicle. Blood stains were found on the back seat, and blood-stained clothes were seized. Based on the disclosure statements of Jagdish and Prakash, the dead body of Ram Chandra was discovered in a well near the Rajpura bus stand.

Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh was arrested later on 13.05.2010 from Gangapur City Jail, more than a year after the incident. The prosecution’s case against him relied on the identification by Shiv Bhagwan in a test identification parade and the recovery of a car key, which was not matched with the vehicle.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, Jagdish and Prakash, were initially convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for murder, and Section 397 of the IPC for robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. The High Court upheld these convictions. However, the Supreme Court, after hearing the appeals, modified the convictions of Jagdish and Prakash. The Supreme Court acquitted Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh, setting aside his conviction.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section prescribes the punishment for murder.
  “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance 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.”
• Section 392, Indian Penal Code, 1860: 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 be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.”
• Section 397, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
  “If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.”

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

• Appellants Jagdish and Prakash:
  • The appellants challenged their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove their involvement in the murder beyond reasonable doubt.
  • They contended that their conviction under Section 397 of the IPC was not justified, as there was no evidence that they attempted to cause death or grievous hurt while committing the robbery.
• Appellant Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh:
  • The appellant argued that his arrest was made more than a year after the incident.
  • The identification parade was conducted after 13 months of the incident.
  • The recovery of a car key was not credible evidence, as it was not matched with the vehicle.
  • The dock identification by Shiv Bhagwan was not reliable.
• Respondent (State of Rajasthan):
  • The State argued that the evidence presented, including the identification by Shiv Bhagwan, the recovery of the body based on the disclosure statements of Jagdish and Prakash, and the blood stains in the vehicle, established the guilt of all the appellants.
  • The State contended that the appellants were rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 397 of the IPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of Jagdish and Prakash under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC was justified.
2. Whether the conviction of Jagdish and Prakash under Section 397 of the IPC was justified.
3. Whether the conviction of Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh was justified.

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 refer to any specific cases or books in this judgment.

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered the following judgment:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Reliability of Evidence: The Court placed significant weight on the testimony of Shiv Bhagwan, who identified Jagdish and Prakash. The recovery of the body based on the disclosure statements of Jagdish and Prakash and the presence of blood stains in the vehicle further solidified their involvement in the crime.
• Lack of Evidence for Section 397, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court found that there was no evidence to support the conviction under Section 397 of the IPC, which requires proof of an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt during the robbery.
• Doubtful Evidence against Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh: The Court found the evidence against Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh to be weak and unreliable, primarily due to the delay in his arrest, the late identification parade, and the lack of corroboration for the recovered car key.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the evidence presented and the legal requirements of the relevant sections of the IPC. The Court emphasized the need for clear evidence to support a conviction, particularly under Section 397 of the IPC. The Court also highlighted the importance of reliable identification and timely investigation in criminal cases.

The Supreme Court stated, “Their appeals, challenging the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, are dismissed.”

The Supreme Court further stated, “However, in the absence of evidence, their conviction under Section 397 of the IPC, and that too with the aid to Section 34 of the IPC, is not warranted and is contrary to law. Instead, they are convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC…”

The Supreme Court also stated, “Given the divarication and divergence, we are not inclined to accept the dock identification of Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh by the complainant/informant – Shiv Bhagwan, as the sole basis to uphold the conviction of Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Conviction under Section 397 of the IPC requires clear evidence of an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt during the robbery.
• The prosecution must present reliable evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• Identification parades should be conducted promptly, and any delay can raise doubts about the reliability of the identification.
• The recovery of material evidence must be corroborated to be considered credible.
• Dock identification alone may not be sufficient to uphold a conviction.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh be released forthwith, unless he is required to be detained in any other case in accordance with law. The Court also clarified that the dismissal of the appeals filed by Jagdish and Prakash would not prevent them from filing representations for premature release/remission, which would be considered and decided in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction under Section 397 of the IPC requires clear evidence of an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt during the robbery. The Supreme Court clarified that in the absence of such evidence, the conviction should be under Section 392 of the IPC, which deals with robbery, and not under Section 397 of the IPC. This judgment reinforces the principle that every element of a criminal offense must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Jagdish and Prakash for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. However, it modified their conviction under Section 397 of the IPC to Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as there was no evidence of an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. The Court acquitted Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh, giving him the benefit of doubt due to the lack of reliable evidence against him. This judgment underscores the importance of clear evidence and reliable investigation in criminal cases.