ANUJ KUMAR GUPTA @ SETHI GUPTA versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 24-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 8 S.C.R. 435 
ANUJ KUMAR GUPTA @ SETHI GUPTA 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1575 of 2009) 
JULY 24, 2013 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 201 - Death of PW-6's 
A 
B 
son - Dead body recovered from river - Circumstantial 
C 
evidence -
Confessional statement made by accused-
appellant to Investigating officer PW-9 - Conviction of 
appellant by Courts below - Justification - Held: Justified -
From the evidence of PW-9, supported by version of PW-4 
(uncle of deceased), it is clear that at the instance of the 
D 
appellant and a co-accused, the body of deceased was 
recovered from a river stream - There were signs of marks 
on the neck of the deceased - The identity of the place where 
the dead body was lying, which was exclusively within the 
knowledge of.the appellant, was certainly admissible by virtue 
E 
of the application of s.8, rlw s.27 of the Evidence Act - In 
absence of any convincing explanation on behalf of the 
appellant as to under what circumstances he was able to lead 
the Police party to the place where the dead body was found, 
such recovery would act deadly against the appellant 
F. 
considered alongwith the rest of the circumstances 
demonstrated by the prosecution - Chain of circumstances 
complete in every respect in order to lead to the only 
conclusion that the appellant was squarely responsible for 
killing of the deceased- Evidence Act, 1872- s.8 rlw s.27-
G 
Applicability of. 
Based on the confessional statement made by 
accused-appellant before PW9, the Investigating Officer, 
the dead body of PW-6's son was recovered from a river. 
435 
H 
436 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A Apart from appellant, there were three other accused. The 
trial Court convicted the appellant and one co-accused 
'A' under Sections 364(A), 302, 201 and 120-B, IPC and 
imposed death penalty on them. The other two co-
accused were acquitted. The High Court upheld the 
B conviction of appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC 
but acquitted him of the charges under Section 364 and 
120-B IPC. While affirming conviction, the High Court 
commuted the death sentence imposed upon the 
appellant to imprisonment for life for the offence under 
c Section 302 IPC. The co-accused 'A' was however 
acquitted of all the charges. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended by the 
appellant that merely. based on the confessional 
statement of the appellant to PW-9, the Investigating 
D officer, he was convicted and the same was not in 
consonance with law. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. According to PW-9, he recorded the 
confession of the appellant. Though PW-9 would refer to 
very many statements alleged to have been admitted by 
the appellant and co-accused 'A', the only part of the 
admission, which can be noted and accepted as 
admissible in the evidence related to the identification of 
F the place where the dead body of PWS's son was found, 
based on the admission of the appellant and the co-
accused. From the evidence of PW-9, supported by the 
version of PW-4, it has come to light that at the instance 
of the appellant and the co-accused 'A', the body of the 
G deceased was recovered from Maldiha Dhar (river 
stream) and that at that time the eyes of the dead body 
and the tongue were protruding out. There were also 
signs of marks on the neck of the deceased. The identity 
of the place at the instance of the appellant and the co-
H accused, as to where the dead body of the deceased was 
ANUJ KUMAR GUPTA @ SETHI GUPTA v. STATE 
437 
OF BIHAR 
lying, which was exclusively within the knowledge of the 
A 
appellant, was certainly admissible by virtue of the 
application of Section 8, read along with Section 27 of the 
.J 
Evidence Act. [Paras 13, 15] [444-C, D-E; 445-C-F] 
1.2. In absence of any convincing explanation on 
B 
behalf of the appellant accused as to under what 
circumstances he was able to lead the Police party to the 
place where the dead body of the deceased was found, 
it will have to be held that such recovery of the dead 
body, which is a very clinching circumstance in the case c 
of this nature, would act deadly against the appellant 
considered along with rest of the circumstances 
demonstrated by the prosecution to rope in the appellant 
in the alleged crime of the killing of the deceased. Though 
the above incriminating circumstance was put to the 
D 
appellant in the 313 questioning where he had an 
oppo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.