Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Murder but Alters Robbery Charge: Jagdish vs. State (22 February 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 22 February 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1532

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

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a case involving murder and robbery, examining the evidence and legal arguments presented to determine the culpability of the accused. The core issue revolved around whether the prosecution had successfully proven the charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench, composed of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case began with a First Information Report (FIR) filed on 06 March 2009, at Police Station Losal, Sikar District, Rajasthan. The complainant, Shiv Bhagwan, reported that his cousin, Ram Chandra, had been hired to drive his Bolero vehicle on 05 March 2009. Ram Chandra was seen at the bus stand interacting with 3-4 individuals who wanted to go to Kuchaman. After leaving with these individuals, Ram Chandra did not return home. The next morning, Shiv Bhagwan learned from a co-villager, Durga Ram, that Ram Chandra had been seen fighting with 3-4 people at the Kuchaman bus stand.

On 06 March 2009, at approximately 3:00 a.m., the Ratangarh police intercepted Ram Chandra’s Bolero vehicle, which was being driven rashly. Two individuals fled the vehicle, but one, Jagdish, was apprehended. Prakash and a juvenile were also detained in the vehicle. Blood stains were found on the back seat, along with glasses and blood-stained clothing. Upon the disclosure statements of Jagdish and Prakash, Ram Chandra’s body was discovered in an old well near the Rajpura bus stand.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

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

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 392, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for robbery.
• Section 397, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with robbery or dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that:

• Shiv Bhagwan identified Jagdish and Prakash as the individuals he saw with the deceased, Ram Chandra, on 05 March 2009.
• The Bolero vehicle was intercepted with blood stains, and the accused were present in the vehicle.
• The dead body of Ram Chandra was discovered based on the disclosure statements of Jagdish and Prakash.

The defense argued that:

• The identification of Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh was conducted more than 13 months after the incident.
• The recovery of a car key from Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh was not substantiated by evidence.
• There was no evidence to prove that Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh was involved in the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appellants Jagdish and Prakash were guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Whether the appellants Jagdish and Prakash were guilty of armed robbery under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Whether the appellant Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh was guilty of murder and robbery.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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 court relied on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to uphold the conviction for murder against Jagdish and Prakash.

✓ The court relied on Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to establish the common intention of Jagdish and Prakash in committing the crime.

✓ The court relied on Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to convict Jagdish and Prakash for robbery.

✓ The court did not find sufficient evidence to convict Jagdish and Prakash under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860*, which deals with armed robbery.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the direct evidence of identification by Shiv Bhagwan, the presence of the accused in the vehicle with blood stains, and the discovery of the body based on their disclosure statements. The court also considered the lack of evidence against Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh, specifically the delayed identification parade and the unsubstantiated car key recovery, which led to his acquittal.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the evidence against Jagdish and Prakash to be strong, while the evidence against Bablu was weak and unsubstantiated. The court also noted that there was no evidence to prove that Jagdish and Prakash had committed armed robbery. The Supreme Court stated that:

“These facts, Shiv Bhagwan’s identification of the appellants – Jagdish and Prakash in the test identification parade, and the dock identification as the persons he had seen with the deceased – Ram Chandra on 05.03.2009, establish the prosecution’s against the appellants – Jagdish and Prakash, beyond doubt.”

“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.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Jagdish and Prakash for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The court altered the robbery charge from Section 397 to Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, due to lack of evidence for armed robbery.
• Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh was acquitted due to insufficient evidence and a delayed identification parade.
• The judgment highlights the importance of timely and reliable identification procedures in criminal cases.
• The case underscores the need for concrete evidence to support charges of armed robbery.

Directions

The Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal of the appeals filed by Jagdish and Prakash would not prevent them from filing representations for premature release or remission. Any such representation would be considered and decided in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the court must rely on concrete evidence to prove the charges against the accused. The court also emphasized that a delayed identification parade and unsubstantiated evidence cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The court also differentiated between robbery and armed robbery, stating that there must be evidence of use of arms for the accused to be convicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Jagdish and Prakash regarding their murder convictions but altered their robbery charge from armed robbery to simple robbery. Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh was acquitted due to lack of evidence. The judgment underscores the importance of reliable evidence and timely identification procedures in criminal cases.