CHARANDAS SWAMI versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 96 · Decided: 10-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 96 
CHARANDAS SWAMI 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1549 of2007) 
B 
APRIL 10, 2017 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND.A.M. KIIANWILKAR, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 r!ir ss. 120-B. 364 and 301 -
Murder - Prosecution case that Chairman of Board of Trustee of 
the temple proposed to transfer Kotharis fi'om the temple on account 
of misappropriation of.funds from the temple by them - Kotharis 
and their henchmen-uppellanl nos. 1-5 .. entered into conspiracy, 
kidnapped the ,Chairman and killed him - Thereafte1; accused 
transferred the body of the deceased lo the neighbouring State where 
they burned it to destroy the evidence - Conviction of accused no. 
1, 2, 3 and 5 u/s. 302 rlw ss. 120-B, 364 and 301 by courts below -
Howeve1; High Court acquilled accused no. 4 and co111111uted the 
death sentence awarded by trial court to life i111priso11111ent - On 
appeal held: Courts below rightly proved the guilt of the accused 
on the basis of motive. 'last-seen' theory. place o] murder and 
disposal of the body, panc/111ama at instance of accused no. 5, 
recove1y of the body of the deceased and the conduct of accused 
no. 3 - These circumstances complete the chain of events indicative 
of involvement of appellants in the commission of the crime and 
excluding any possibility of their innocence - It is not a case of 
. finding of guilt recorded in absence of any legal evidence or contrmy 
to the evidence available - Thus, inlelference with the co11clusio11 
reached by the courts below not called for - Evidence. 
s. 1208 - Conspiracy - Finding of conspiracy - Tenability of 
- Held: Compiracy is rarely hatched in the open - There need not 
be any direct evidence to establish the same - It can be a mat/er of 
inference drawn by the Court ajier considering whether the basic 
facts and circumstances on thi! basis of which il~ference is drawn 
have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and that no other 
conclusion except that <if the complicity <if accused to have agreed 
to commit an offence is evident. 
96 
CI-IARAND/\S SWAMI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
Evidence Act. 1872 - s. 27 - How much of ii1for111ation received 
fi·om accused may be proved - Admissibility of the disclosure made 
by accused no. 3 to the investigating officer about the location 
1vhere the dead body of deceased was dumped by him - When dead 
body was already recovered ji·om the same place and noted in the 
public records in the State - Held: Disclosure made by accused no. 
3 about the location where the dead body of the deceased was 
du111ped by him, was ad111issible u/s. 27 4 the Act. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
· HELD: 1. On analyzing the evidence and the judgments 
including the findings and conclusion recorded by both the Courts, 
there is no hesitation in upholding the order of conviction against 
accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 (appellants), by the High Court. }'or, the 
presence of 'G' in 'V' Temple complex on the day of incident, the 
evidence that he was last seen together with accused nu. 3 going 
from the Temple complex in a car, the recovery of a dead body in 
village 'B' in the neighboring State on the next day of 
disappearance of 'G', the disclosure made by accused no. 3 about 
the location as to where the dead body of 'G' was dumped by him 
in a village at 'B', discovery of the fact after subsequent medical 
examination that the dead body so recovered was of none other 
than that of 'G', the disclosure made by accused no. 5 of the 
location where 'G' was strangled at 'N' Temple complex, the 
conduct of accused no. 3 in misleading the investigating agencies, 
the burning of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime 
and then filing of a false insurance claim which was rejected by 
the insurance company, the strong motive for committing the 
murder of 'G' and the criminal conspiracy hatched in that behalf 
and executed, leave no manner of doubt about the involvement 
of the appellants in the commission of the crime. The opinion 
recorded by the courts below is accepted. It is not a case of finding 
of guilt recorded in absence of any legal evidence or contrary to 
the evidence available. The finding of guilt against the appellants 
is inescapable. Hence, there is no t:uigiblc reason to interfere 
with the final conclusion reached by the courts below. [Para 
6511151-1<'-U; 152-A-Cl 
2.1 Both the courts have concurrently found that the 
prosecution succeeded in establishing the fact that 'G' re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.