STATE OF NCT OF DELHI versus SHIV CHARAN BANSAL & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1155 · Decided: 05-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDU MALHOTRA, R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1155
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
v.
SHIV CHARAN BANSAL & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2248 of 2010)
DECEMBER 5, 2019
[INDU MALHOTRA AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.227 – Appeal by State
and complainant against the discharge of accused persons –
Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased was murdered in his
house – The alleged contract killer came as a courier boy wearing
black cap and goggles – The wife of the complainant identified
him in investigation – As per the version of son/nephew and
brothers of the deceased, the deceased had invested a substantial
amount of money in committees run by accused-SCB and his son
accused-SB which they were reluctant to return and were also
trying to usurp share of the deceased in a factory – Statement of
another brother of the deceased was that he and his son were
receiving threatening calls from accused-NM, accused-LM and
their associates and that these accused were responsible for murder
of deceased – NM, LM and accused-Advocate-RS were arrested
when they were travelling in a car and black photo frame, black
cap, black goggles and a photo of the deceased were recovered
from the car – NM got the Getz car recovered from the house in
his village, in which the contract killer – JSS allegedly travelled
to the site of occurrence to murder the deceased – The unlicensed
pistol along with two live cartridges were recovered from the office
of accused-SS – During investigation, the Call Detail Records of
the accused were collected by the Investigating Officer – As per
the version of the prosecution, NM had asked his cousin brother
LM to carry out the murder – After initially agreeing, LM
subsequently backed out – Thereafter, JSS was asked to execute
the murder – F.S.L Report recorded that the lead recovered from
the body of the deceased was fired from the pistol recovered from
the office of SS – As per the report of the handwriting expert, the
specimen handwriting of JSS matched the writing on the envelope
which allegedly was carried by JSS to the house of the deceased
– NM borrowed a car, unlicenced pistol with five cartridges and
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1155
1155
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
took JSS to the place of occurrence and waited in the car for JSS
while he went to murder the deceased and then helped JSS to get
away – NM was in continuous contact with accused-SB before and
after the incident – The records of the committees run by SCB were
allegedly destroyed by him – This would a strong suspicion about
the conduct of SCB – The destruction of the records of the
committees, which would have revealed the substantial investments
made by the deceased was an incriminating factor – The
circumstance of absconding of accused immediately after the
murder would be also admissible as relevant ‘conduct’ under s.8
of the Evidence Act – The contemporaneous Call Detail Records
(CDRs) between SB and NM, who accompanied JSS would also
constitute strong material for framing the charge against all the
accused – Charge Sheet was filed against all the accused –
Sessions Court held that there was common intention between NM
and JSS in the act of killing the deceased – However LM was
discharged as there was not sufficient evidence to connect him with
the crime – With respect to RS, it was held that evidence was not
sufficient to frame charges against him as he had only tendered
advice to NM to the effect that he should not use his licensed pistol
for carrying out the murder – With respect to SS, the Sessions Court
held that the unlicensed pistol along with two live cartridges were
recovered from his office and charged him only for the offence u/
S. 25 of the Arms Act for keeping an unlicensed firearm in his
possession – Sessions Court discharged SCB since the prosecution
had collected evidence against him only in the form of disclosure
statements from the accused persons after arrest – Sessions Court
charged SB for the offence u/S. 25 of the Arms Act, since he got
the licensed pistol belonging to NM recovered from his factory
premises – Sessions Court held that the prosecution failed to make
out a prima facie case against RS, LM, SCB who were discharged
– The State and the complainant filed Revision before the High
Court – High Court held that NM, SB, JSS were to be charged u/
s.302 read with s.34 IPC read with 120B IPC – The Judgment of
the Sessions Court ordering discharge of SCB, SS, LM, RS was
affirmed by the High Court – Hence the 

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