Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Councillor Murder Case: Rajender vs. State (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 24 October 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1147

Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can a conviction be upheld based solely on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving the murder of a Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) Councillor. The Court examined whether the chain of circumstances presented by the prosecution was complete and unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the accused. This case highlights the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials and the standards required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi, with Justice Shantanagoudar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

Atma Ram Gupta, an MCD Councillor, went missing on August 24, 2002. He left his home around 10:30 a.m., telling his wife, Sumitra Gupta (PW-18), that he was first going to the house of fellow Councillor, Sharda Jain (A-1), and then to a Congress Party rally. His driver, Prabhu Yadav (PW-17), drove him to Sharda Jain’s residence. Upon reaching there, the deceased instructed the driver to take the car back home. When he did not return by evening, his family filed a missing person report at 1 a.m. on August 25, 2002. His body was eventually discovered on August 31, 2002, in a sub-canal of the Bulandshar Rajwaha/Sanota Canal. A charge sheet was filed against nine individuals, including Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar (A-2), and Rajender (A-5).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar (A-2), Pushpender (A-3), Nirvikar (A-4), Rajender (A-5), and Roshan Singh (A-6) for offenses under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 364 (kidnapping) read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, and Roshan Singh were also convicted under Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 120-B of the IPC. The other three accused were convicted under Section 201 of the IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeals of Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, Rajender, and Roshan Singh, affirming their convictions, while acquitting the other accused. Roshan Singh (A-6) passed away during the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, and his appeal was dismissed as abated. Thus, the Supreme Court heard appeals filed by Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar (A-2), and Rajender (A-5).

Legal Framework

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

• Section 302, IPC: 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 364, IPC: This section deals with kidnapping or abduction in order to murder.
  “Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 120-B, IPC: This section defines the punishment for 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.”
• Section 201, IPC: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen the offender.
  “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34, IPC: This section defines 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.”

These sections are crucial for understanding the charges against the accused and the legal basis for their convictions.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and pointed unerringly to the guilt of the accused. Specifically, they highlighted:

• Sharda Jain (A-1):
  • She pointed out the place of murder.
  • The deceased was last seen alive in her company.
  • She gave no plausible explanation as to how and when the deceased parted company with her.
  • She made a false claim that she did not visit Ghaziabad on the day of the incident.
  • She misled the family members of the deceased about his whereabouts.
  • She had meetings with other accused prior to the incident.
  • Her conduct of visiting her driver’s house late at night was suspicious.
• Raj Kumar (A-2):
  • He visited Sharda Jain’s house with other accused prior to the incident.
  • He pointed out the place of murder.
  • His residence was near the place of murder.
  • He knew the other co-accused.
  • The deceased’s wrist watch was recovered at his instance.
• Rajender (A-5):
  • The deceased was last seen alive in his company.
  • He gave no plausible explanation as to how and when the deceased parted company with him.
  • He used to drive the car of another co-accused.
  • He made a false claim about never having visited the house of Sharda Jain.
  • He refused to participate in the test identification parade.

The defense argued that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They contended that:

• The evidence was not conclusive and had missing links.
• The prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy charge.
• The recovery of the wrist watch at the instance of Raj Kumar was doubtful.

The prosecution relied on the testimonies of various witnesses, including the deceased’s wife, driver, and police officials, to establish the chain of circumstances. The defense challenged the reliability of these witnesses and the evidence presented.

Innovativeness of the argument: The prosecution’s argument was innovative in using the mobile records to prove that Sharda Jain visited Ghaziabad on the day of the incident, despite the lack of a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the chain of circumstances was complete to prove the guilt of Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar (A-2), and Rajender (A-5).
2. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar (A-2), and Rajender (A-5) under Sections 302 and 364 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.
3. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar (A-2), and Roshan Singh (A-6) under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC.

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

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both sides and made the following determinations:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was used to emphasize that the burden of proof lies on the person having special knowledge of facts.
• Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was used to hold that objections relating to the mode or method of proof cannot be raised at the appellate stage.
• Sonu v. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570 was followed to conclude that an objection regarding the mode of proof of call detail records cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The consistent and reliable testimony of key witnesses, such as the deceased’s driver (PW-17) and Sharda Jain’s driver (PW-11).
• The proximity between the time the deceased was last seen with Sharda Jain and Rajender and the time of his death.
• The false claims and misleading statements made by Sharda Jain and Rajender.
• The discovery of the place of murder by Sharda Jain.
• The failure of Sharda Jain and Rajender to provide a plausible explanation for their actions.
• The mobile records of Sharda Jain showing her presence in Ghaziabad.

The Court emphasized that while circumstantial evidence must be complete, the failure of the accused to offer reasonable explanations can strengthen the prosecution’s case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that Raj Kumar was guilty, as the recovery of the wrist watch was found to be doubtful.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“A statement made by an accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. can be used as an aid to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution.”

“Particularly in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, such failure by itself can provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him.”

“The mode or method of proof is procedural and objections, if not taken at the trial, cannot be permitted at the appellate stage.”

The Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven the charges against Sharda Jain and Rajender, but not against Raj Kumar. The Court also held that while the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC was not proven, the acts of Sharda Jain and Rajender were done in furtherance of a common intention, attracting Section 34 of the IPC.

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to prove guilt in a criminal case if the chain of circumstances is complete and points unerringly to the guilt of the accused.
• The burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a plausible explanation for facts that are within their special knowledge.
• Objections regarding the mode of proof of electronic records cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage.
• The charge of criminal conspiracy requires proof of a criminal object, a plan to achieve it, and an agreement between two or more persons to cooperate.
• Actions done in furtherance of a common intention attract Section 34 of the IPC.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds of Sharda Jain (A-1) and Rajender (A-5) be cancelled, and they be taken into custody immediately to serve the remainder of their sentences. The bail bonds of Raj Kumar (A-2) were discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to prove guilt in a criminal case if the chain of circumstances is complete and points unerringly to the guilt of the accused. The Court also clarified that objections regarding the mode of proof of electronic records cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage. The Court also clarified that for attracting Section 34 of the IPC, it is not necessary to prove a conspiracy, but it is sufficient to show that the act was done in furtherance of common intention.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Sharda Jain (A-1) and Rajender (A-5), upholding their convictions for murder under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, and for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court acquitted Raj Kumar (A-2) of all charges. The Court found that the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B was not proven. This judgment reinforces the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials and the need for the accused to provide reasonable explanations for their actions.