Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 723 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2030/2024

SANTOSH @ RAJESH @ GOPAL ..... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ..... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G E M E N T

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Five individuals, namely, Laadkunwar Bai, Jitendra Singh,

Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama, Meharban Singh and the appellant,

Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, were prosecuted for the murder of

Narayan Singh in the chargesheet arising out of First

Information Report No. 640/2011 dated 13.11.2011, registered

with Police Station – Industrial Area, District Dewas, Madhya

Pradesh, for offence(s) punishable under Sections 302, 34 and

120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25(1-B)(A) of

the Arms Act, 1959.

2. Three out of these five persons are related to the victim,

Narayan Singh. Laadkunwar Bai and Jitendra Singh are the wife Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by and son of the victim, Narayan Singh. Meharban Singh is the babita pandey Date: 2024.09.23 17:24:14 IST Reason:

father-in-law of Jitendra Singh, the son of Narayan Singh. The

remaining two persons, namely, Nirbhay Singh and the 2

appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, are allegedly hired

killers.

3. On 30.11.2017, the trial court acquitted Laadkunwar Bai and

Meharban Singh. However, Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama, Jitendra

Singh, and the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, were

convicted.

4. Following this, Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama, Jitendra Singh,

and the appellant filed appeals before the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh at Indore. During the pendency of the appeal,

Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama passed away, resulting in the

dismissal of his appeal as abated.

5. By the impugned judgment dated 18.10.2022, Jitendra Singh has

been acquitted. His acquittal has not been challenged.

However, the conviction of the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @

Gopal, was upheld, prompting him to file the present appeal.

6. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 13.11.2011, at

9.30 p.m., Rachna Bai, the mother of the victim, Narayan

Singh, deposed as PW-2 that both she and Narayan Singh were

sleeping at their house in Village Binjana, District Dewas,

Madhya Pradesh. Someone called out Narayan Singh’s name from

outside, prompting him to open the door. At that moment,

Rachna Bai (PW-2) heard a gunshot. She ran towards Narayan

Singh, and shortly after, a second gunshot was fired, striking

Narayan Singh in the chest, and causing him to fall. When

Rachna Bai (PW-2) went outside, she saw her daughter-in-law, 3

Laadkunwar Bai (Narayan Singh’s wife), and Jitendra Singh

(Narayan Singh’s son) standing on the opposite side of the

house. She also saw two individuals with their faces covered

fleeing the scene on a motorcycle.

7. The prosecution’s primary evidence against the appellant,

Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, also referenced in the impugned

judgment, is the recovery (Exhibit P-6) of a pistol and the

ballistic report (Exhibit P-57), which confirms that the

bullet (Exhibit B-1) recovered from the body of the victim,

Narayan Singh, was fired from the country-made pistol (Exhibit

A-1 and C-1). There is evidence to show that the pistol was

recovered (Exhibit P-6) from the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @

Gopal, and we would accept the said version of the

prosecution.

8. There are no eyewitnesses to the crime, implicating the

appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal. The case against the

appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, rests entirely on

circumstantial evidence.

9. Where the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, a

finding of guilt is justified only if all the incriminating

facts and circumstances are incompatible with the accused's

innocence. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence

so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but

the one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must show

that the act has been done by the accused within all human 4

probability.1

10. In Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharasthra,2 this

Court outlined five essential principles, often referred to as

the “golden rules”, which must be satisfied for circumstantial

evidence to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused:

“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

xxx xxx xxx (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”

11. The ballistic report (Exhibit P-57) connects the pistol

recovered (Exhibit P-6) from the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @

Gopal, with the bullet (Exhibit B-1) recovered from the body

of the victim, Narayan Singh. This is an inculpatory fact.

However, it is also the prosecution’s case that the said

1 Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 2 SCC 71. 2 (1984) 4 SCC 116.

5

discovery and recovery is attributable to the disclosure

statement (Exhibit P-35) provided by the co-accused, Nirbhay

Singh (since deceased). Such discovery and recovery at the

instance of an accused are governed by Sections 83 and 274 of

the Indian Evidence Act, 18725.

12. This Court, in Perumal Raja v. State, Represented By Inspector

of Police,6 has referred to Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of

Maharashtra,7 which elucidated the conditions required to be

satisfied under Section 27:

“Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It makes that part of the statement which distinctly leads to discovery of a fact in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence, to the extent it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered, admissible in evidence against the accused. The fact which is discovered as a consequence of the information given is admissible in evidence. Further, the fact discovered must lead to recovery of a

3 Section 8 of the Evidence Act reads:

“8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.— Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.”

4 Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads:

“27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.— Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

5 For short, “Evidence Act”.

6 [2024] 1 SCR 87.

7 (1976) 1 SCC 828.

6 physical object and only that information which distinctly relates to that discovery can be proved.”

The word, “distinctly”, used in Section 27 relates to the

discovered fact. Only that much which relates to the discovery

of a physical object is admissible. The rest of the testimony

is to be excluded. The facts proved by the prosecution,

particularly the admissible portion of the statement of the

accused, would give rise to two alternative hypotheses,

namely, (i) that the accused had himself deposited the

physical items that were recovered; or (ii) only the accused

knew that the physical items were lying at that place. The

second hypothesis is wholly compatible with the innocence of

the accused, whereas the first would be a factor to show the

involvement of the accused in the offence. The court has to

analyse which of the hypotheses should be accepted in a

particular case. Further, a fact already known to the police

is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

13. As the disclosure statement (Exhibit P-35) has led to the

arrest of the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, the

prosecution may take the benefit of Section 8 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. However, even assuming this to be the

case, the absence of any corroborative evidence directly

linking the appellant to the crime introduces a significant

gap in facts as alleged in the chain of circumstances. In our

view, this fails to establish a hypothesis of guilt that

conclusively excludes all other reasonable possibilities. 7

14. This Court, in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh,8 observed that

when any incriminating material is discovered based on a

disclosure statement, three hypotheses emerge: -

“26. We too countenance three possibilities when an accused points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was concealed by himself. One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there…”

15. In the present context, it is the prosecution’s case that the

location of the pistol was disclosed by the co-accused,

Nirbhay Singh (since deceased). However, to establish that the

appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, participated in the

murder, the prosecution must present further material and

evidence linking the appellant to the actual crime. While the

appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, may be guilty of an

offence under Section 201 of the IPC, the evidence provided by

the prosecution is insufficient to secure a conviction for the

murder of the victim, Narayan Singh, on 13.11.2011.

Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove that the

appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, is guilty of murder,

either individually or with shared common intention or in

conspiracy with the co-accused, Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama

(now deceased).

8 (2000) 1 SCC 471.

8

16. We, therefore, allow the present appeal and set aside the

conviction of the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal. The

appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, was granted bail by this

Court on suspension of sentence, vide order dated 08.04.2024.

The bail bonds and sureties furnished by the appellant,

Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, shall be treated as cancelled.

17. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

...............J. (SANJIV KHANNA)

...............J. (SANJAY KUMAR)

...............J. (R. MAHADEVAN) NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 19, 2024.