In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has pronounced a judgment in The Murder Conspiracy Case, pitting Shiv Charan Bansal against The State of India. The case involves allegations of a criminal conspiracy to eliminate S.N. Gupta for monetary gains, with multiple accused facing scrutiny in the intricate legal battle.
Facts
- The lead of the bullets recovered and handed over to the Police.
- A complaint lodged against Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann, and their associates at Mangolpuri Police Station.
- Statement of Ramesh recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
- Refusal of Shiv Charan Bansal and his son to return the money owed to Ramesh and his brother.
- Recovery of black photo frame, cap, goggles, and a photo of the deceased from the Esteem Car.
- Statements of Naveen Gupta regarding threats from Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann, and others.
- Recovery of unlicensed pistol and live cartridges from Shailendra Singh’s office.
- Issuance of notice to Shiv Charan Bansal for investigation.
- Collection of Call Detail Records of the accused by the Investigating Officer.
- Incident date mentioned as 21.03.2006 at about 4:30 p.m.
- Handwriting expert report matching Joginder Singh Sodhi’s writing on the envelope.
- Identification of assailant by the Complainant – Kanta Devi during investigation.
- Arrest of Joginder Singh Sodhi – the contract killer.
- Autopsy findings of three entry wound points on the chest of the deceased.
- Allegations of a criminal conspiracy to eliminate S.N. Gupta for monetary gains.
- Recovery of the envelope addressed to S.N. Gupta from Rajesh Gupta.
- Test Identification Parade conducted on 10.04.2006.
- Challenges by the State and the Complainant against Order of Discharge granted to certain individuals by the Delhi High Court.
- Filing of F.I.R No 200/2006 by the Complainant Kanta Devi under various sections including Arms Act.
- Recovery of an unlicensed pistol and cartridges from Shailendra Singh’s office in Rohini.
- Details of financial investments and disputes among the deceased, Rajesh Gupta, and Shiv Charan Bansal.
- Statements of various family members and witnesses regarding the investments, threats, and conspiracies.
- Involvement of multiple accused in the larger criminal conspiracy based on investigation findings.
- The Sessions Court discharged Lalit Mann of the alleged Offences u/S. 120B, 302 r.w. S. 34, 201 IPC and u/S. 25 Arms Act.
- Lalit Mann was acquitted primarily on the ground that the allegations against him were circumstantial in nature, and there was no direct evidence to prosecute him.
- The disclosure statements of the accused persons including Narendra Mann and Lalit Mann are not sufficient evidence to connect Lalit Mann with the crime of killing S.N. Gupta.
- The Judgment of the Sessions Court ordering discharge of Shiv Charan Bansal, Shailendra Singh, Lalit Mann, and Rajbir Singh was affirmed by the High Court.
Analysis
- The evidence points towards Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann, Shailendra Singh, and others being involved in the murder of S.N. Gupta.
- Witness statements attribute the murder to Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal.
- The recovery of the murder weapon from Shailendra Singh’s office and its ballistic match with the crime bullets raises suspicion.
- Various witnesses and evidence suggest a strong prima facie case for framing charges against the accused.
- Circumstantial evidence like call detail records, absconding behavior, and destruction of committee records point towards conspiracy.
- Accused Lalit Mann’s involvement in the conspiracy is highlighted through call records and witness statements.
- Shiv Charan Bansal’s conduct post-murder, including absconding, adds to the suspicion of his complicity.
- Accused Narendra Mann’s communications before and after the crime create a grave suspicion of his role.
- The missing call detail records of Shiv Charan Bansal contribute to suspicions against him.
- The prosecution’s case of criminal conspiracy is supported by planning, motives, and actions of the accused.
- Irregularities in framing charges against certain accused are highlighted, urging a reevaluation of the trial’s direction.
- The prosecution must demonstrate the meeting of minds of two or more persons for committing an illegal act or an act by illegal means.
- The material presented by the prosecution should be capable of being translated into evidence during the trial.
- The court must determine if the individuals involved are independently pursuing the same unlawful objective or if they have joined forces for this purpose.
- A strong suspicion, supported by material, is adequate for framing charges under Sections 227 or 228 of the Cr.P.C.
- In cases of conspiracy, an agreement between two or more individuals to commit an illegal act is crucial.
- Conspiracy is largely proven through circumstantial evidence, considering the collective circumstances indicating the guilt of the accused rather than individual roles.
- Criminal conspiracies are usually planned in secrecy, making direct evidence hard to obtain.
- The High Court, as an appellate body, has the authority to consider further evidence and statements under specific sections of the Cr.P.C.
- To establish Criminal Conspiracy, there must be an agreement between two or more persons.
- This agreement must pertain to carrying out either an illegal act or an act that is legal but done through illegal means.
- The trial of the accused was conducted in the absence of three alleged co-conspirators.
- As the trial got truncated, it is essential for the trial of the remaining three accused to proceed promptly.
- This trial should be conducted in accordance with the law and without any further delays.
Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF
Decision
- The appellate court may direct the accused to be re-tried in case of both appeal against acquittal and conviction.
- The High Court under clause (a) can reverse the Order of acquittal and direct further enquiry, re-trial, or find the accused guilty and pass sentence.
- The Order of acquittal regarding Sachin Bansal and Narendra Mann is pending before the High Court.
- The Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts is directed to proceed with the trial against the accused in accordance with the law.
- Charges are to be framed against Shiv Charan Bansal under specific sections of the IPC, and the trial is to progress accordingly.
- Progress of the case needs to be reported to the Court after three months.
- Charges to be framed against Lalit Mann under specified sections of the IPC for trial to proceed.
- Fixing a time schedule for trial and ensuring a day-to-day basis trial to conclude within six months is mandated.
- Charges to be framed against Shailendra Singh under specific sections of the IPC and the Arms Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts.
Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration
Case Title: STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002248-002248 / 2010
