Supreme Court Upholds Convictions in Ex-MLA Murder Case: Somasundaram vs. State (2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Analysis of accomplice testimony and circumstantial evidence in a criminal conspiracy leading to murder.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Somasundaram @ Somu vs. The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police

Judgment Date: 03 June 2020

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 June 2020

Citation: Not available in the provided text.

Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, K.M. Joseph, V. Ramasubramanian (Three-Judge Bench)

Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of accomplices? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Somasundaram @ Somu vs. The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. This case involved multiple appeals against a High Court judgment that upheld the convictions of several individuals for the murder of a former Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). The Supreme Court, in this judgment, examined the intricacies of accomplice testimony, the application of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the validity of convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

Case Background

The case revolves around the disappearance of M.K. Balan, a former MLA, who was reported missing by his son on December 30, 2001, after his morning walk. The police investigation, initially led by PW66 and later by PW67, resulted in the arrest of several individuals starting with A5 on March 18, 2002. The prosecution’s case was that the accused had conspired to abduct the deceased for a large sum of money, and when he refused to comply, they murdered him. The body was then cremated using a false death certificate. The prosecution alleged that the accused A1 and A2 were the main conspirators, while the other accused abetted the crime. A key aspect of the prosecution’s case was the alleged mimicking of a political leader’s voice by A12 to spur A3 into action.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court framed charges against the accused under various sections of the IPC, including conspiracy (Section 120B), abduction (Section 365), extortion (Section 387), murder (Section 302), wrongful confinement (Section 347), and destruction of evidence (Section 201). The Trial Court convicted most of the accused except A12 and A18. The High Court confirmed the Trial Court’s judgment, except for acquitting A10. The matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court analyzed several key sections of the IPC:

• Section 120A IPC: Defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. It requires an overt act besides the agreement to constitute a criminal conspiracy.
• Section 141 IPC: Defines unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons with a common object to commit an offense.
• Section 149 IPC: Establishes vicarious criminal liability, making every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offense committed by any member in furtherance of the common object.
• Section 107 IPC: Defines abetment as instigating, conspiring, or intentionally aiding the commission of an offense.
  
  “A person abets the doing of a thing, who—(First) — Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly) —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly) — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
• Section 108 IPC: Defines an abettor as a person who abets either the commission of an offense or an act that would be an offense if committed by a person capable of committing an offense.
• Section 109 IPC: Provides for the punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed, and where no express provision is made for punishment.
  
  “An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment when it is committed in consequence of the instigation or in pursuance of the conspiracy or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that:

• The prosecution’s case was based on a conspiracy theory, which failed with the acquittal of A12.
• PW10 and PW11 were unreliable accomplice witnesses whose testimony lacked proper corroboration.
• There was no direct evidence linking the accused to the abduction or murder.
• The recovery of vehicles and other materials were not properly established.
• The prosecution shifted the burden of proof to the accused by relying on the fact that the body was not found.
• The statement under Section 164 of the CrPC is not a substantive evidence.

The respondent (State) argued that:

• PW10 and PW11 were not accomplices for the offense of murder and their evidence did not require corroboration.
• A1 and A2 were the principal conspirators, and the other accused aided them.
• The cumulative effect of all circumstantial evidence proved the guilt of the accused.
• The acquittal of A12 did not invalidate the charges under Section 109 of the IPC.
• The statement under Section 164 of CrPC could be used for corroboration.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the testimony of accomplice witnesses (PW10 and PW11) was reliable and sufficiently corroborated.
2. Whether the acquittal of A12 under Section 120B of the IPC impacted the conviction of other accused under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the IPC.
3. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Whether the recoveries made at the instance of the accused were valid and relevant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• R.V. Baskerville [1916 (2) KB 658]: Established the principle that the evidence of two accomplices cannot be used to corroborate each other.
• Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra Etc. v. K.S. Dalipsinghji and another Etc. [(1969) 3 SCC 429]: Reiterated that corroboration must be from an independent source and one accomplice cannot corroborate another.
• Chonampara Chellapan Etc. v. State of Kerala Etc. [(1979) 4 SCC 312]: Reaffirmed that corroboration must be in regard to material particulars and must relate to the crime as well as the identity of the accused.
• Kehar Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration) [(1988) 3 SCC 609]: Held that something more than a mere conspiracy, viz., some act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy, is required to be established for abetment by conspiracy.
• Ranganayaki v. State by Inspector of Police [(2004) 12 SCC 521]: Held that for an offence under Section 120B of the IPC, a charge under Section 109 of the IPC was unnecessary and inappropriate.
• Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1957 SC 637]: Explained that accomplice evidence must be reliable and corroborated in material particulars.
• Haroom Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra [AIR (1968) SC 832]: Emphasized that courts insist on corroboration in material respects as to the offense itself and also implicating each accused named by the accomplice.
• Sheshanna Bhumanna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra [AIR (1970) SC 1330]: Clarified that corroborative evidence must connect the accused with the crime.
• K. Hashim v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2005) 1 SCC 237]: Stated that corroboration must make it reasonably safe to believe the witness’s story that the accused was the one, or among those, who committed the offense.
• George and others v. State of Kerala and another [(1998) 4 SCC 605]: Held that a statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 CrPC cannot be used as substantive evidence.
• R. Shaji v. State of Kerala [AIR 2013 SC 651]: Explained the object of recording statements under Section 164 CrPC.
• Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2018) 10 SCC 593]: Summarized the principles governing interference by the Supreme Court in criminal appeals.
• Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab [(1976) 4 SCC 158]: Outlined the principles for interference by the Supreme Court in criminal appeals by special leave.
• Nanak Chand v. State of Punjab [AIR 1955 SC 274]: Discussed the distinction between Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC and that a person charged with an offence under Section 149 of the IPC cannot be convicted of the substantive offence without there being a specific charge.
• Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [AIR 1962 SC 876]: Spoke about the distinction between the offence of abetment by conspiracy and the offence of criminal conspiracy (Section 120A of IPC).
• Arjun Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh [AIR 2009 SC 1568]: Held that instigation may be by conduct and not necessarily in words.
• Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra [(1970) 1 SCC 696]: Dealt with Sections 34, 107 and 120B of the IPC.
• Chandran and Others v. State of Kerala [(2011) 5 SCC 161]: Held that the competency of an accomplice is not impaired, though, he could have been tried jointly with the accused and instead of so being tried, he has been made a witness for the prosecution.
• Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab [(1990) 4 SCC 692]: Held that the statement under Section 161 of the CrPC is not to be used for any purpose except to contradict the witness.
• Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and others [(1976) 2 SCC 17]: Held that the admissibility of speeches as documents depends on the identification of the speaker’s voice, accuracy of the recording, and relevance of the subject-matter.
• Vijayan v. State of Kerala [(1999) 3 SCC 54]: Held that showing photographs of the accused to witnesses before a Test Identification Parade deprives the identification of any value.
• Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and another [1991 Supp (1) SCC 271]: Held that the accused are entitled to request the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution when the best evidence has not been produced.
• State of W.B. v. Mir Mohamad Omar [(2000) 8 SCC 382]: Held that when more persons than one have abducted the victim, who is later murdered, it is within the legal province of the court to justifiably draw a presumption depending on the factual situation, that all the abductors are responsible for the murder.
• Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 2001 SC 1436]: Reaffirmed the principle laid down in State of W.B. v. Mir Mohd. Omar, holding that the court can draw a presumption that abductors are responsible for the murder.
• Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1956 SC 116]: Dealt with the effect of lack of a charge or defect in a charge in a criminal trial.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding that:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Reliability of Accomplice Testimony: The Court placed significant weight on the credibility of PW10 and PW11, finding their testimony to be consistent and corroborated by other evidence.
• Circumstantial Evidence: The Court emphasized the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence, which included the abduction, illegal confinement, murder, and subsequent cremation of the deceased.
• Absence of Explanation: The Court noted that the accused failed to provide any reasonable explanation for their actions or the disappearance of the deceased.
• Destruction of Evidence: The deliberate cremation of the body and the use of a false death certificate were seen as attempts to destroy evidence, further strengthening the prosecution’s case.
• Role of A1 and A2: The Court found that A1 and A2 were the main conspirators and that the other accused acted on their plan.

Key Takeaways

• Accomplice testimony, while requiring corroboration, can be a crucial piece of evidence in criminal cases.
• Circumstantial evidence, when strong and consistent, can be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The burden of proof remains on the prosecution, but the accused must provide a reasonable explanation for facts within their special knowledge.
• Deliberate attempts to destroy evidence can be used against the accused.
• Conviction under Section 109 of the IPC is valid even if the principal offender is also convicted under Section 109.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds of the appellants who had been released on bail were cancelled, and they were required to surrender within three weeks to serve their sentences.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that even when the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and accomplice testimony, the conviction can be sustained if the accomplices are found to becredible and there is sufficient corroborative evidence. The Court also clarified that the acquittal of one of the conspirators does not necessarily invalidate the convictions of other accused under Section 109 of the IPC if the conspiracy and abetment are established against them.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Somasundaram vs. State (2020) is a significant ruling that underscores the importance of accomplice testimony and circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. The Court’s meticulous analysis of the facts, the legal provisions, and the arguments presented by both sides led to the upholding of the convictions, ensuring that justice was served in the case of the murder of the former MLA. The judgment also clarifies the application of Section 109 of the IPC and the role of accomplice testimony in criminal proceedings.