SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 66

SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

CITATION	2021 SCC Online SC 360
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	20 April, 2021
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Surendra Kumar
RESPONDENT	State of U.P.
BENCH	R.F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai And Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

INTRODUCTION

On April 20, 2021, the case “Surendra Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” was determined by the Indian Allahabad High Court. It was centered on legal matters concerning Uttar Pradesh’s criminal justice system. The court considered particular issues of law, evidence, and process in this case before rendering a decision that may have an impact on larger legal concepts that fall under the state’s authority as well as the parties concerned.
The core issues in this case involves evaluation of evidence presented, ensuring due process, and determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, Surendra Kumar, based on legal standards of proof and principles of justice.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Permission to leave granted. This appeal marks the end of a tragedy that along its course destroyed two families. The murder of a young woman who had only recently gotten married, in which suspicion was directed against her own husband, brother-in-law, and even father-in-law, who was one of the accused and met an unusual end while the case was pending. This Court has been requested to put an end to the case concerning Signature Not Verified, which has persisted for more than Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora. Date: April 24, 2021, 14:43:04 IST Two decades is the reason.
The appellants are brothers who live in Meerut District’s Mahal Village. On May 13, 1999, the appellant No. 2 Ramveer tied the knot with Kamla Rani, whose parents lived in the nearby village of Phlawada. On 8.8.1993, Kamla Rani, having spent a few days with her parents, was riding her brother-in-law Surendra Kumar’s (appellant No. 1) scooter back home. A few minutes after they set out on their journey, two armed bandits on the Phlawada to Bathnor road ambushed the scooter close to the forest, bringing Kamla Rani to the roadside sugarcane field of Quasim Ali. There, they shot her at close range and stole the gold and silver jewelry she was wearing. Next, Surendra Kumar took the scooter to Phlawada village to tell Kamla Rani’s father, Baldev, about the occurrence. After leaving the scooter with Kamla Rani’s father, Surendra went back to his own village and told his brother and other family members in the deceased’s married house in Village Mahal. The two boys then hurried to the police station with their father in tow. At about the same time, Dhan Singh (PW-1) and Karamveer (PW-2), who were in the vicinity of the incident, heard gunfire and proceeded towards the field where they saw two miscreants—who were not the appellants—remove jewelry from Kamla Rani’s body. The looters were confronted by PWs 1 and 2, but after brandishing their weapons, they both left the area.
The incident occurred at approximately 4.45 p.m., and Baldev Singh, the father of the dead Kamla Rani, filed a police report at Phlawada Police Station at 5:30 p.m. The appellants arrived at the police station in the meantime, along with their father Om Prakash. Page 3 of 23 Because the FIR claimed that the dead had been abused at the married residence, the appellants were placed under police lockdown. Four days later, all three of them were officially taken into custody by the police on suspicion of murder and conspiracy. Rajveer and Shiv Kumar, also known as Pappu, were also detained by the police during their investigation because they were thought to be the two robbers who were not identified to PWs 1 and 2 and who were taking jewelry off the deceased individual.
S.I. Ramachandra Singh (PW5) conducted the preliminary investigation, prepared the Panchnama (Exbt Ka-7) and sent the deceased corpse for autopsy. The PW-5 also confiscated a few jewelry pieces and the sealed luggage that was discovered next to the deceased. On 9.8.1993, the following day, SHO Amrat Lal took charge of the inquiry after returning from leave. He took the scooter from Baldev’s house and made a recovery memo for the scooter (Exbt Ka-2).
Two mandible bone fractures and two 2.0 cm by 2.5 cm firearm entry wounds that penetrated deep into the muscle, blackening and tattooing the area around the wound.
As previously mentioned, the inquiry turned up the identities of Rajveer and Shiv Kumar, who were both found not guilty by the High Court. Following the conclusion of the investigation, the I.O. filed the chargesheet (Exbt Ka3) against the five suspects. The Sessions Court filed a case and filed charges against Surendra Kumar u/s. 302/34 of I.P.C., Om Prakash and Ramveer u/s. 120B IPC, and Shivkumar and Rajveer u/s. Page 5 of 23 ~302/394 of IPC. The case against Om Prakash was dropped after he passed away during the trial, even though all five accused were tried concurrently.
Despite the lack of direct evidence linking the appellants to the crime, the Trial Court found the appellant No. 1 Surendra Kumar guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the appellant No. 2 Ramveer guilty under Section 120B IPC based on circumstantial evidence of the husband’s dissatisfaction with Kamla Rani, the alleged conspiracy hatched by him with his brother and father Om Prakash, the fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of appellant Surendra, in whose scooter she was returning from her parents’ house, and the appellants’ suspicious behavior. Additionally, accused Shiv Kumar and Rajveer were found guilty in accordance with Section 394, and the learned judge sentenced each of the four accused to the proper term.
Although the appellants’ conviction was upheld by the High Court in the brothers’ appeal, Rajveer and Shiv Kumar were found not guilty in a related criminal appeal.
The prosecution’s conspiracy theory regarding Kamla Rani’s murder was acknowledged by the High Court despite upholding the verdict. Additionally, the Court accepted the last saw evidence against appellant Surendra Kumar. The High Court rejected the brothers Surendra and Ramveer’s appeal because they did not provide a credible account of the incident’s facts. This led to the current dispute.

ISSUES RAISED

Is conviction of the appellant No. 1 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) right?
Is conviction of the appellant No. 2 under Section 120B IPC right?
The common judgment and order, dated 12.3.2019, is being challenged in this appeal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellants argued against their conviction for Kamla Rani’s murder, which was mostly predicated on circumstantial evidence.
Reliance on the evidence that was last viewed together was contested by the appellants. Although they argued that Surendra Kumar was not indisputablely guilty, he was the last person seen with the deceased before to her murder. The prosecution bears the burden of proof; the burden cannot be transferred to the accused only because they were last seen with the victim, as the defense maintained.
They emphasized the lack of concrete evidence connecting them to the offense, contending that the prosecution’s case rested exclusively on circumstantial evidence, which ought to rule out any other possibility than the accused’s guilt. They argued that the evidence put forth fell short of this requirement.
Due to their personal grudges against the appellants, the crucial witnesses (PWs 6 and 7) were questioned by the appellants, who also raised the possibility of prejudice and hidden agendas. The defense contended that the court shouldn’t have given the testimony any weight because it was unreliable.
The prosecution’s theory of a plot to assassinate Kamla Rani was refuted by the appellants. They maintained that there was no hard proof that the accused had come to a consensus or agreed to perpetrate the crime. The defense contended that the claimed motivation lacked sufficient evidence to warrant a conspiracy conviction.
The lower courts’ use of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which, in some circumstances, transfers the burden of proof to the accused, was questioned by the defense. Since the prosecution had not yet proved a prima facie case against them, they contended, this rule was applied wrongly in their situation.
These claims served as the foundation for the appellants’ appeal of their convictions and request for relief from the Indian Supreme Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents supported the conspiracy argument, claiming that the appellants and others were involved in a deliberate scheme that resulted in the murder. Taking into account the evidence that Surendra Kumar was last seen with the dead, the High Court approved this scenario.
The prosecution maintained that the evidence, despite being circumstantial, was sufficient to establish the appellants’ guilt. They cited the legal maxim that, in situations involving circumstantial evidence, all connections must be made in order to rule out any possibility other than the accused’s guilt.
The State emphasized testimony that suggested Ramveer’s (the husband) dissatisfaction with his wife’s appearance as a possible reason for the murder. But this motive was disputed since there was insufficient supporting evidence and because the witnesses might have been biased.
Witnesses PW1 and PW2, who were crucial in the case, testified that they witnessed someone else—not the appellants—carry out the heist following the murder. The respondents sought to make a connection between these findings and the appellants’ larger scheme.
The State argued that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which transfers the duty of elucidating some facts to the accused upon the proof of particular damning circumstances, had been rightly implemented by the lower courts. The High Court concluded that Surendra Kumar’s failure to provide a convincing account of what happened bolstered the evidence against him.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court of India addressed the murder of Kamla Rani, who was shot to death not long after leaving her parents’ house, in the case of *Surendra Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh* (April 20, 2021). The main point of contention was that she was the target of a plot to have her murdered by her husband Ramveer and his brother Surendra Kumar.
Based on circumstantial evidence, such as the last-seen theory, which holds that Surendra was the last person seen with Kamla Rani, the High Court had already upheld the brothers’ convictions. On appeal, though, the Supreme Court carefully considered the facts and the relevant legal precepts. Citing significant rulings such as *Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh* and *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra*, the Supreme Court underscored the need for a robust and definitive chain of evidence in instances based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution was unable to prove either a criminal plot or the brothers’ direct involvement in the murder, according to the court. Notably, the Court censured the lower courts for disproportionately depending on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to transfer the burden of proof to the defendant.

Ultimately, the convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court, which noted that the prosecution had not produced enough reliable evidence to establish the appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

ANALYSIS

It is important to keep in mind that when there is circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which guilt is to be inferred must first be fully established, and every fact that is established must only be consistent with the accused’s guilt theory. Once more, the conditions must be definitive in character and tendency, and they must be such that all other hypotheses except the one that is put out for proof are excluded. Stated differently, a chain of evidence needs to be so thorough as to preclude any plausible inference that could support the accused’s innocence, and it needs to demonstrate that the accused was, within the bounds of human possibility, the one who committed the deed.

It is now well established that the courts should proceed cautiously in cases involving circumstantial evidence, and a conviction should only be entered into the record in the event that all the pieces of the puzzle point to the accused’s guilt. If a chain of links isn’t formed, any one connection alone could raise suspicions, but it won’t be enough to prove an accused person guilty on its own.

CONCLUSION

Since the prosecution could not provide any evidence demonstrating a consensus or shared goal amongst the defendants, it is extremely unlikely that Kamla Rani was the victim of a plot to kill her because her husband did not like her. Even though Ramveer was unhappy with his wife, this does not prove that he planned to kill Kamla Rani with his brother Surendra and father Om Prakash, who passed away during the trial.

even if they are accepted, being upset with someone does not give enough of a reason to plan an elaborate scheme to have them killed. The Court below, however, disregarded this element when determining the murder’s purpose. We believe that the appellants should be provided with the benefit of the broken link, and that the motivation element in the chain of circumstances is unacceptable.

Considering the aforementioned, we believe that the High Court erred in its decision to find support for conviction based on unconvincing evidence, and that there are multiple gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence. There is a real chance that the appellants are innocent in this case, and the accused must always come out on top when there are conflicting arguments. As a result, the challenged decision is overturned, and both appellants are ordered to be released right away. In line with that, it is arranged.

REFERENCES

This Article is written by Titiksha Singh student of Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.