Spread the love
Ravishankar Tandon v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation:2024 INSC 299
Date of Judgment:10th April 2024
Court:Supreme Court of India
APPELLANTRavishankar Tandon
RESPONDENTState of Chhattisgarh
Bench:Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta

Introduction:

The present case revolves around the conviction of four accused persons, namely Ravishankar Tandon, Amend Prasad Dulari, Dinesh Chandraki, and Satyendra Kumar Patre, for the murder of Dharmendra Satnami. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, primarily relying on the memorandum statements of the accused recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the subsequent recovery of the deceased’s dead body.

Facts of the Case:

1. On 2nd December 2011, Ramavatar (PW-1) lodged a missing person report after his son Dharmendra Satnami (deceased) went missing.

2. During the investigation, the police recorded the memorandum statements of the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, revealing their involvement in the murder of the deceased.

3. Based on these statements, the police recovered the deceased’s dead body from a pond at Village Bhatgaon on 3rd December 2011.

4. The post-mortem report confirmed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation, and the nature of death was homicidal.

5. The prosecution case alleged that the accused persons had conspired to kill the deceased for a sum of Rs. 90,000 and had executed the murder as per their plan.

6. The trial court convicted the accused persons for various offenses, including murder, criminal conspiracy, and causing disappearance of evidence.

7. The High Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeals filed by the accused persons.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the incriminating circumstances against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution leads to the only conclusion of the guilt of the accused persons.

3. Whether the recovery of the deceased’s dead body was a consequence of the information given by the accused persons in their statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Contentions of the Accused (Appellants)

1. The prosecution has failed to prove any of the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

2. The chain of circumstances does not lead to the only conclusion of the guilt of the accused persons.

3. The prosecution has failed to establish that the recovery of the deceased’s dead body was a direct result of the information provided by the accused persons in their statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Contentions of the Prosecution (Respondent):

The respondent (State) contended that the trial court and the High Court have concurrently held that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt based on cogent appreciation of evidence, and hence, no interference is warranted.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the accused persons and set aside their convictions and sentences. The key findings of the Court were as follows:

The prosecution failed to prove that the discovery of the deceased’s dead body from the pond at Bhatgaon was solely based on the disclosure statements made by the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The evidence revealed that the police and the witnesses were already aware of the deceased’s death and the location of his body before recording the statements of the accused persons under Section 27. The prosecution failed to establish that no one had knowledge about the existence of the deceased’s body at the place from where it was recovered before the accused persons made their statements. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-16) was silent on what information was given by the accused persons that led to the discovery of the deceased’s body and how it was subsequently recovered. The possibility of the documents related to Section 27 statements being created to implicate the accused persons could not be ruled out. The prosecution utterly failed to prove any of the incriminating circumstances against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances was not complete, leading to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused persons.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a significant reiteration of the well-established principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court emphasized that for such statements to be admissible, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the information provided by the accused persons led to the discovery of a fact that was distinctly within their knowledge and unknown to others.

In the present case, the Court found that the prosecution failed to meet this threshold, as the evidence suggested that the police and witnesses were already aware of the deceased’s death and the location of his body before recording the statements of the accused persons. This undermined the evidentiary value of the statements under Section 27, as the alleged “discovery” was not based on the information provided by the accused persons alone.

The Court’s emphasis on the strict adherence to the principles governing circumstantial evidence is also noteworthy. The Court reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to lead to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused persons. In the present case, the Court found that the chain of circumstances was not complete and did not conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused persons.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Ravishankar Tandon v. State of Chhattisgarh reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal principles and safeguards in criminal trials, particularly when dealing with circumstantial evidence and statements recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court’s insistence on strict compliance with these principles and its rigorous scrutiny of the evidence presented by the prosecution serve as a reminder of the paramount importance of upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that convictions are based on cogent and reliable evidence. By setting aside the convictions and acquitting the accused persons, the Supreme Court has upheld the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence and reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as the custodian of individual liberty and due process of law.

References:

1 Ravishankar Tandon and Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh on 2 January, 2023 (indiankanoon.org)

2. SCC Online 

3. RAVISHANKAR TANDON v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH | Supreme Court of India | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

This paper is written paper by shivam kumar sahu as intern in legal Vidhya 

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.


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

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