Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case: Sonu @ Amar vs. State of Haryana (2017)

Date of the Judgment: July 18, 2017
The Supreme Court of India, in a criminal appeal, addressed the issue of circumstantial evidence in a case involving abduction and murder. The Court examined whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the chain of circumstances presented. The judgment highlights the importance of corroborative evidence and the admissibility of electronic records in criminal trials. The bench comprised Justices S. A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, with the majority opinion authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

The case revolves around the abduction and murder of Ramesh Jain. On December 26, 2005, Dinesh Jain (PW-1) reported to the Ganaur Police Station that his father, Ramesh Jain, was missing. According to the First Information Report (FIR), Ramesh Jain stayed back at his rice mill on December 25, 2005, while Dinesh Jain went home. When Ramesh Jain did not return home, his family began searching for him.

On January 9, 2006, Dinesh Jain and Ashok Jain (PW-3) informed the police that they received a call from a person named Bunty, who demanded a ransom of Rs. 1 crore for Ramesh Jain’s release. The caller instructed them to purchase a new mobile phone for further communication. Later, the family received threatening letters and found some of Ramesh Jain’s belongings near Bai crossing, as directed by the caller.

Following this, the police arrested several individuals, including Pawan (A1), Surender (A2), and Dharmender @ Bunty (A3), on January 20, 2006, at the Tibetan Market in Delhi. Amar @ Sonu (A5) and Parveen (A4) were arrested on January 22, 2006, near the bus stand at Ganaur Chowk. During the investigation, Parveen (A4) disclosed that Ramesh Jain had been murdered and buried at the Baba Rude Nath temple. Surender (A2) also disclosed that Dr. Rampal (A6) administered injections to keep Ramesh Jain unconscious. The dead body of Ramesh Jain was exhumed from the temple premises on January 22, 2006.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The accused were tried for offences punishable under Section 120 B (criminal conspiracy), 364 A (kidnapping for ransom), 302 (murder), 328 (causing hurt by poison), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, A2 was charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, convicted A1 to A5 for the aforementioned offences and sentenced them to life imprisonment. A6 was convicted under Sections 328 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

All the convicted accused filed appeals before the High Court. Dinesh Jain (PW-1) also filed an appeal for enhancement of the sentence and challenged the acquittal of Manish (A7). The High Court dismissed all the appeals, upholding the convictions and sentences. A1, A2, A4, and A5 then approached the Supreme Court by filing appeals against the confirmation of their conviction and sentence.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• ✓ Section 120B, IPC: This section deals with criminal conspiracy, defining it as an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act that is not illegal by illegal means.
• ✓ Section 364A, IPC: This section pertains to kidnapping for ransom, specifying the punishment for those who kidnap or abduct any person and keep them in detention for ransom.
• ✓ Section 302, IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder, which is the intentional killing of another human being.
• ✓ Section 328, IPC: This section deals with causing hurt by poison, etc., with intent to commit an offense.
• ✓ Section 201, IPC: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• ✓ Section 25 of the Arms Act: This section deals with punishment for certain offences related to illegal possession of arms.

The Court also considered Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which pertains to the admissibility of electronic records. Specifically, sub-section (4) of Section 65B requires a certificate for the admissibility of electronic records.

Arguments

The arguments presented by the appellants (A1, A2, A4, and A5) and the respondent (State of Haryana) are summarized below:

Arguments by the Appellants:

• Pawan (A1):
  • A1’s counsel argued that A1 was arrested from his house and not from Tibetan Market, Delhi, relying on the testimonies of DW2 and DW5.
  • It was contended that the application filed by A1 to take his voice sample was rejected by the Trial Court.
  • The calls made by A1 were justified as they were to his brother (A4) and his brother’s partner (A2).
• Surender (A2):
  • A2’s counsel argued that the recovery of the country-made pistol and cartridges was doubtful.
  • It was contended that the dead body recovered was not of Ramesh Jain but of a priest.
• Parveen (A4):
  • It was argued that the evidence against A4 was insufficient.
• Sonu (A5):
  • A5’s counsel argued that A5 was arrested from his house and not from the bus stop.
  • It was contended that the wallet recovered from A5’s shop was from a public place accessible to everyone.
  • It was argued that the CDRs were not admissible under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as they were not certified as required by sub-section (4).

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Haryana):

• The State argued that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• It was submitted that the recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused were crucial evidence.
• The State contended that the CDRs were admitted in evidence without any objection from the defense and the objection regarding admissibility cannot be raised at the appellate stage.
• It was argued that the objection of the accused was regarding the mode or method of proof and not the admissibility of the document.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants was primarily regarding the admissibility of the CDRs, challenging the established procedure of admitting electronic evidence in court.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the key issues addressed by the Court can be summarized as follows:

1. Whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence.
2. Whether the Call Detail Records (CDRs) were admissible in evidence without a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
3. Whether the objection regarding the admissibility of the CDRs could be raised at the appellate stage.
4. Whether the accused was competent to waive the requirement of mode of proof of the CDRs.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases

Legal Provisions

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

View of Authorities

The Court’s view of the authorities is as follows:

• ✓ Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab: The Court followed the principles regarding interference in criminal appeals.
• ✓ Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan, Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra: The Court applied the principles related to circumstantial evidence.
• ✓ Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer: The Court followed this case on the admissibility of electronic records and held that the judgment has to be retrospective in operation.
• ✓ State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu: The Court noted that this case was overruled by Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer.
• ✓ Padman v. Hanwanta: The Court followed this case regarding the requirement to raise objections at the trial court.
• ✓ R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Visweswaraswami: The Court followed this case to distinguish between objections regarding admissibility and mode of proof.
• ✓ Chainchal Singh v. King Emperor: The Court distinguished this case and held that it does not lay down a general proposition that an accused cannot waive an objection of mode of proof in a criminal case.
• ✓ Shaikh Farid v. State of Maharashtra: The Court distinguished this case and held that it is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
• ✓ Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji: The Court followed this case regarding the timing of objections to the mode of proof.
• ✓ P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal: The Court followed this case regarding the timing of objections to the admissibility of evidence.
• ✓ I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab: The Court discussed the doctrine of prospective overruling as laid down in this case.
• ✓ Weeks v. United States, Wolf v. Colorado, Mapp v. Ohio, Linkletter v. Walker: The Court referred to these cases while discussing the doctrine of prospective overruling.
• ✓ R. v. Governor of H.M. Prison Brockhill, ex p. Evans (No. 2): The Court referred to this case while discussing the principle of prospective overruling.
• ✓ K. Madhav Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh: The Court referred to this case while discussing the doctrine of prospective overruling.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the consistent chain of circumstantial evidence, which included the recovery of the dead body, the ransom demands, the disclosure statements of the accused, and the corroborative call detail records. The Court emphasized the importance of the disclosure statements and the recoveries made pursuant to those statements. The Court also noted that the CDRs were admitted without objection, and the objection regarding the lack of a certificate was related to the mode of proof, not the admissibility of the document itself. The Court also noted that the accused can waive the mode of proof.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal principles, with a slightly greater emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations, but rejected them based on the consistent evidence and the legal principles. The final decision was to uphold the conviction, as the evidence established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• ✓ “The Trial Court relied on the testimonies of PW1 and PW3, the recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused and the CDRs of the mobile phones of the accused, the deceased and PW 1 to conclude that the prosecution established that the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.”
• ✓ “The crucial test, as affirmed by this Court, is whether the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking the document.”
• ✓ “Admissibility of a document which is inherently inadmissible is an issue which can be taken up at the appellate stage because it is a fundamental issue. The mode or method of proof is procedural and objections, if not taken at the trial, cannot be permitted at the appellate stage.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

The Court’s decision clarifies that objections regarding the mode of proof of electronic records must be raised at the trial stage. It also clarifies that an accused can waive objections regarding mode of proof.

This judgment has implications for future cases involving electronic evidence. It reinforces the importance of raising objections at the appropriate stage and clarifies the legal position on the admissibility of electronic records.

There were no new doctrines or legal principles introduced in this case. The Court applied the existing principles of circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of electronic records.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Objections regarding the mode of proof of documents, including electronic records, must be raised at the trial stage and cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage.
• ✓ An accused can waive objections regarding the mode of proof in a criminal case.
• ✓ The judgment emphasizes the importance of a consistent chain of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• ✓ Electronic records are admissible in evidence, but the mode of proof must be adhered to.
• ✓ This judgment reinforces the importance of proper procedure in criminal trials, especially regarding the admissibility of evidence.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that objections regarding the mode of proof of electronic records must be raised at the trial stage and cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage. The Court also held that an accused can waive objections regarding mode of proof.

This case did not introduce any new legal principles. However, it clarified the application of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the principle of waiver in relation to the mode of proof of electronic records. The Court’s decision overruled the previous position of law established in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, which was overruled by Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sonu @ Amar vs. State of Haryana (2017) upheld the conviction of the accused in an abduction and murder case. The Court emphasized the importance of a consistent chain of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of electronic records, and the need to raise objections regarding the mode of proof at the trial stage. The judgment clarifies that an accused can waive objections regarding mode of proof. This case serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving electronic evidence and highlights the importance of procedural compliance in criminal trials.