The Murder Conspiracy Case: Shiv Charan Bansal Vs. The State of India

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.


  • 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.

Also Read: Legal Analysis: Sheikh Noorul Hassan vs. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh – Permissibility of Subsequent Pleading in Election Petition Proceedings


  • 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


  • 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 Number: Crl.A. No.-002248-002248 / 2010

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *