Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Shantanu Sitaram vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 22 September 2017

Citation: 2017 INSC 807

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a conviction for murder be maintained when the conspiracy charge is not proven? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving a husband convicted of murdering his wife. This judgment clarifies the interplay between charges of conspiracy and substantive offenses in criminal law. The bench comprised of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan, with the judgment authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

Shantanu Sitaram (Accused No. 1) married Supriya on April 28, 1999. Their daughter, Mrunal, was born on March 22, 2000. Supriya had been living at her parents’ home in Karad with her daughter since December 10, 2000. On December 23, 2000, Shantanu took Supriya for a car ride at around 8:30 PM, without allowing her to change from her nightgown. Supriya and her nine-month-old daughter accompanied him in his car. When they did not return by 10:00 PM, Supriya’s father, Bhalachandra Phadnis (PW.29), called Shantanu’s house, only to be told they had not returned. Around 10:30 PM, near Shamgaon Ghat, Shantanu, carrying his daughter, flagged down Shambhaji Mane (PW.6), who was on a motorcycle. Shantanu told Shambhaji that he, his wife, and daughter had been robbed and assaulted by three persons and that his wife was still in the car. Shambhaji and others went to the car and found Supriya dead. The police were informed, and Shantanu and his daughter were taken to a police outpost. A case was registered under Sections 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Shantanu was later arrested along with Rafik (A2) and Deepak @ Ganesh S. Patil (A3). Recoveries of gold jewelry belonging to Supriya and other items were made at the instance of A2 and A3.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Shantanu (A1), Rafik (A2), and Deepak (A3) under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for murder, Section 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for causing disappearance of evidence and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for criminal conspiracy. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the three accused. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 appealed to the Supreme Court. Accused No. 2 did not challenge the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.” This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “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.” This section deals with acts done by several persons with a common intention.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen 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.” This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “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.” This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy.

These provisions are part of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is the primary criminal code of India.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of Shantanu (A1):

• The High Court acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, therefore, the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should not be maintained.
• The marriage between Shantanu and Supriya was a love marriage, and there was no marital dispute.
• The complaints of misbehavior by Shantanu were made at the instance of the Police, who failed to find the real culprit.
• Shantanu had no acquaintance with A2 and A3.
• Shantanu himself was injured in the alleged robbery and was hospitalized.
• The case is based on circumstantial evidence, and the chain of circumstances has not been fully proven.
• The defense of A1 was not properly considered by the trial court and the High Court.

Arguments on behalf of Deepak (A3):

• He adopted the submissions of A1.
• He had no friendship with A1 and was unnecessarily roped in by the Police.
• There is no evidence against him.

Arguments on behalf of the State:

• The prosecution has fully proved the guilt through oral evidence, medical evidence, and recoveries made.
• The chain of circumstances has been fully established, pointing to the guilt of the accused.

Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

• Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be upheld when the charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not proven.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities and legal provisions:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court used Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to determine the punishment for murder.
• The Court used Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to establish the liability of each person for acts done with common intention.
• The Court used Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to determine the punishment for causing disappearance of evidence.
• The Court observed that the failure to prove Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not affect the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the established chain of circumstances and the medical evidence. The court emphasized the recovery of gold ornaments and other articles at the instance of A2, which were linked to the crime. The fact that the accused were friends and were seen together before the incident further strengthened the prosecution’s case. The court also noted that the medical evidence corroborated the ligature marks on the deceased’s neck, which were consistent with the rope recovered at the instance of A2. The court found the defense of A1 that he was robbed by three unknown persons not credible.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual evidence presented, with legal considerations playing a secondary role.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the argument that since the charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not proven, the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should not be maintained. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that “The mere fact that evidence under Section 120B has not been proved does not in any manner affect the charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.” The court further noted that “A1 to A3 with common intention committed the crime which has been proved by the prosecution and the conviction of A1 to A3 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC cannot be faulted.” The court also highlighted that the medical evidence proved that “ligature marks on the neck of Supriya were possible by nylon rope recovered at the instance of A2.”

Key Takeaways

• A conviction for murder under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be upheld even if the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not proven, provided that the common intention to commit the crime is established.
• Circumstantial evidence, when strong and complete, can be sufficient to prove guilt.
• Medical evidence plays a crucial role in corroborating the prosecution’s case.
• Recoveries made at the instance of the accused can be strong incriminating evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Accused No. 1, Shantanu Sitaram, who was on bail, be taken into custody forthwith.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the failure to prove a charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not invalidate a conviction for murder under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, if the common intention to commit the crime is established through other evidence. This clarifies that the two charges are distinct and that the proof of one is not contingent on the proof of the other.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction of Shantanu Sitaram and Deepak @ Ganesh S. Patil for the murder of Supriya. The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstances, and the medical and recovery evidence corroborated the guilt of the accused. The court clarified that the acquittal under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not affect the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when common intention is proven.