# PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITTAL v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ANR

- **Citation:** [2015] 3 S.C.R. 876
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-03-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.2194 of 2011
- **Bench:** Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, N.V. Ramana
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/pawan-kumar-monu-mittal-v-state-of-utiar-pradesh-anr-30551
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860- ss. 3021149, 404, 148, 201, 212,
411 - Murder - Sales officer of Indian Oil Corporation on
inspection of petrol pump of accused no. 1 found
irregularities in the dispensation of fuel - Sales and supplies
D to the petrol pump suspended, which were later restored
on payment of fine - Month later, sales officer being
suspicious again inspected the petrol pump of the accused
- However, the next day sales officer found dead - Car of
E A-7 and A-4 intercepted by police constable while they were
transporling the dead'body of sales officer to dispose it of
- Confessional statement made by A-7 and A-4 to the
constable about commission of crime and involvement of
other accused - On basis thereof, arrest of the accused and
F recoveries made at their instance -
Conviction and
sentence of all the accused under the various provisions
of Penal Code - However, the High Courl modified death
sentence of accused no. 1 to life imprisonment while
upholding the order of conviction and sentence of A-2, AG 4, A-5, A-7, A-8 and acquitting A-3 and A-6 - Interference
with - Held: Not called for - Motive behind the brutal murder
of the deceased trustworlhy- Nexus between the accused
H
876
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITIAL v. STATE OF 877
UTIAR PRADESH
to do away with the deceased as well as their participation A
in the crime established beyond reasonable doubt - Place
of incident was proved - Evidence on record trustworthy
and consistent, pointing to the guilt of the accused - Minor
discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses would not
come in the way of the other strong circumstantial evidence,
B
cumulatively taken together, forming a complete chain of
events - Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution
clearly proved the chain of events connecting the accused
to the guilt of the commission of the offence - Arms Act - c
s. 25, 30.
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 25, 27 - Confession made
by accused before the police - Admissibility of - Held:
Statements made by an accused before police official which
amount to confession is barred uls. 25 - However, in view D
of s. 27 whatever information given by the accused in
consequence of which a fact is discovered only would be
admissible in the evidence, whether such information
amounts to confession or not - On facts, confession given
.by the accused is not the basis for the courts below to E
convict the accused, but it is only a source of information
to put the criminal law into motion - Thus, the accused
cannot take shelter u/s. 25.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
F
HELD: 1.1 The statements made by an accused
before police official which amount to confession is
barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. This
prohibition is, however, lifted to some extent by Section G
27 of the Act whereby, whatever information given by
the accused in consequence of which a fact is
discovered only would be admissible in the evidence,
whether such information amounts to confession or
not. The basic idea embedded under Section 27 of the H
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 3 S.C.R.
A Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by
subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the
principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made
on the strength of any information obtained from a
prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee .that the
B information supplied by the prisoner is true. The
information might be confessional or non~inculpatory
in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it
becomes a reliable information. The "fact discovered"
as envisaged under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
C embraces the place from which the object was
produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but
the information given must relate distinctly to that
effect. [Paras 25, 26, 27] [898-F-G; 899-B-F]
D
1.2 In the instant case, accused Nos. 4 and 7
disclosed the names of their co-accused at whose
instance various incriminating materials including
pistols, cartridges, bullets, blood stained articles were
recovered. Simply denying

## Text

_Characters 0–39,237 of 54,231. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39237 for what follows._

A
B
c
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 876
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITTAL
v.
STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.2194 of 2011 etc.)
MARCH 11, 2015.
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 3021149, 404, 148, 201, 212,
411 - Murder - Sales officer of Indian Oil Corporation on
inspection of petrol pump of accused no. 1 found
irregularities in the dispensation of fuel - Sales and supplies
D to the petrol pump suspended, which were later restored
on payment of fine - Month later, sales officer being
suspicious again inspected the petrol pump of the accused
- However, the next day sales officer found dead - Car of
E A-7 and A-4 intercepted by police constable while they were
transporling the dead'body of sales officer to dispose it of
- Confessional statement made by A-7 and A-4 to the
constable about commission of crime and involvement of
other accused - On basis thereof, arrest of the accused and
F recoveries made at their instance -
Conviction and
sentence of all the accused under the various provisions
of Penal Code - However, the High Courl modified death
sentence of accused no. 1 to life imprisonment while
upholding the order of conviction and sentence of A-2, AG 4, A-5, A-7, A-8 and acquitting A-3 and A-6 - Interference
with - Held: Not called for - Motive behind the brutal murder
of the deceased trustworlhy- Nexus between the accused
H
876
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITIAL v. STATE OF 877
UTIAR PRADESH
to do away with the deceased as well as their participation A
in the crime established beyond reasonable doubt - Place
of incident was proved - Evidence on record trustworthy
and consistent, pointing to the guilt of the accused - Minor
discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses would not
come in the way of the other strong circumstantial evidence,
B
cumulatively taken together, forming a complete chain of
events - Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution
clearly proved the chain of events connecting the accused
to the guilt of the commission of the offence - Arms Act - c
s. 25, 30.
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 25, 27 - Confession made
by accused before the police - Admissibility of - Held:
Statements made by an accused before police official which
amount to confession is barred uls. 25 - However, in view D
of s. 27 whatever information given by the accused in
consequence of which a fact is discovered only would be
admissible in the evidence, whether such information
amounts to confession or not - On facts, confession given
.by the accused is not the basis for the courts below to E
convict the accused, but it is only a source of information
to put the criminal law into motion - Thus, the accused
cannot take shelter u/s. 25.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
F
HELD: 1.1 The statements made by an accused
before police official which amount to confession is
barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. This
prohibition is, however, lifted to some extent by Section G
27 of the Act whereby, whatever information given by
the accused in consequence of which a fact is
discovered only would be admissible in the evidence,
whether such information amounts to confession or
not. The basic idea embedded under Section 27 of the H
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 3 S.C.R.
A Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by
subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the
principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made
on the strength of any information obtained from a
prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee .that the
B information supplied by the prisoner is true. The
information might be confessional or non~inculpatory
in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it
becomes a reliable information. The "fact discovered"
as envisaged under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
C embraces the place from which the object was
produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but
the information given must relate distinctly to that
effect. [Paras 25, 26, 27] [898-F-G; 899-B-F]
D
1.2 In the instant case, accused Nos. 4 and 7
disclosed the names of their co-accused at whose
instance various incriminating materials including
pistols, cartridges, bullets, blood stained articles were
recovered. Simply denying their role without proper
E explanation as to the knowledge about those
incriminating material would justify the presumption
drawn by the courts below to the involvement of the
accused in the crime. The confession given by the
F accused is not the basis for the courts below to convict
the accused, but it is only a source of information to
put the criminal law into motion. Hence, the accused
cannot take shelter under Section 25 of the Evidence
Act. [Para 28] [899-F-H; 900-A]
G
1.3 The motive behind the brutal murder of the
deceased as brought forward by the prosecution is
trustworthy in the light of material available on record.
Considering the evidence on record, there is no dou_bt
H that the accused No.1 bore grudge and with the
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITTAL v. STATE OF 879
UTTAR PRADESH
assistance of other accused, murdered the deceased. A
On the fateful day, the deceased visited the petrol pump
of accused No.1, where he was brutally murdered, is
evident from the evidence of PW 4, Manager of a Petrol
Pump, P.W.5 and P.W.8. [Para 29) [900-B-C, F-G; 901-C-
~
B
1.4 The findings by the courts below that the
accused conspire"d to commit the offence of murder of
the deceased is accepted. The nexus between the
accused to do away with the deceased, has been C
established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable
doubt. On fac1s, the nexus between the accused as well
as their participation in the crime is well established
beyond reasonable doubt and there is nothing on
record to suggest that the accused were unnecessarily D
implicated by the police. [Para 30) [901-F-G; 902-F]
1.5 The recovery of bullets from the tank of the
Automobiles Company and from behind their petrol
pump along with blood stained cloth cumulatively E
establish the place of incident to be the Automobiles
Company. Merely because all the bulle1s fired from the
gun did not hit the target and were not recovered from
the scene of offence, is no ground to conclude that the
incident did not take place. [Para 31) [903-B-D]
F
1.6 As regards the allegation of contradictions in
the statements of prosecution witnesses, no major
contradictions are found which require attention and
consideration. In the instant case, the evidence on G
record is trustworthy and consistent, and there is only
one view, which points to the guilt of the accused.
Minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses
as pointed out by the accused should not come in the
way of the other strong circumstantial evidence, H
880
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A cumulatively taken together, forms a complete chain of
events, pointing towards the guilt of the accused in the
commission of the crime. [Para 32] [903-D-E, G-H; 904A-B]
8
1.7 In cases where the direct evidence is scarce, the
burden of proving the case of prosecution is bestowed·
upon motive and circumstantial evidence. It is the chain
of events that acquires prime importance in such cases.
In the instant case, the evidence adduced by the
c prosecution clearly proves the chain of events
connecting the accused to the guilt of the commission
of the offence. The entire evidence brought on record
by the prosecution, is not only convincing, but is also
trustworthy. Even if the confession of accused Nos. 4
D and 7 made before PW 1 and PW 2, which is barred by
Section 25 of the Evidence Act, is not taken into account,
the other evidence on record adduced by the
prosecution, is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of
the offence. [Para 33] [904-B-C, F-H]
E
1.8 Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only
when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are
found to be incompatible with the innocence of the
F accused or the guilt of any other person. In the instant
case, on scrutiny of evidence on record, the prosecution
had established beyond reasonable doubt the complete
chain of events which points at the guilt of the accused.
Thus, in the light thereof, the prosecution succeeded in
G proving its case against _the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt. [Paras 34,35] [905-A-C]
State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu 2000 (3) SCR 880:
(2000) 6 SCC 269; Rammi Vs. State of M.P 1999 (3) Suppl.
SCR 1 :(1999) 8 SCC 649; Bodhraj Vs. State of J & K 2002
H (2) Suppl. SCR 67:(2002) 8 SCC 45 - relied on.
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITTAL v. STATE OF 881
UTTAR PRADESH
Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar(1966) 1 SCR 134;
State of Punjab Vs. Barkat Ram (1962) 3 SCR 338; Mani
Vs. State of Ta milnadu 2008 (1) SCR 228:(2009) 17 SCC
273; Dafbir Kaur v. State of Punjab 1977 (1) SCR
280:(1976) 4 SCC 158; Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi
v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 2 SCC 465 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1966) 1 SCR 134
referred to.
Para 8
(1962) 3 SCR 338
referred to.
Para 8
2008 (1) SCR 228
referred to.
Para 15
1977 (1) SCR 280
referred to.
Paras 22, 24
(1980) 2 sec 465
referred to. - Paras 22, 24
2000 (3) SCR 880
relied on.
Para 26
1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 1
relied on
Para 32
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 67 relied on
Para 33
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 2194 of 2011 etc.
A
B
c
D
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2009 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) F
Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2007.
With
Crl. A. Nos. 2195-2196, 2198, 2199 & 2200 of 2011
G
S. K. Agarwal, P. C. Aggarwal, Jitendra Sarin, Pradeep
Aggarwal, Ram Niwas, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Ruchi ·
Kohli, Lal Pratap Singh, Nirmal Goenka, Nidhi Jaswal,
Anirudh Sharma, Mahesh Srivastava, Vaibhav M. H .
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A Srivastava, P. N. Puri, Shivam Sharma, Gautam Awasthi for
the Appellant.
Gaurav Bhatia, AAG, Kunal Verma, Kamini Jaiswal,
Shilpi Dey, Pragati Neekhra, Utkarsh Jaiswal for the
B Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. These appeals are directed
against a common impugned judgment dated 11th February,
C 2009 of the High court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, by
which the appeals of the appellants herein who are accused
of murdering one Manjunath, were dismissed.
2. Material facts of the case as per prosecution are that
D the father of appellant Monu Mittal (Accused No. 1) was the
owner of a petrol pump namely M/s Mittal Automobiles
situated at Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh.
The deceased Manjunath was working as a Sales Officer
with the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) at Gola. On
E 13.9.2005, the deceased inspected the petrol pump of
Accused No. 1 and on finding some irregularities, the sales
and supplies of the petrol pump were suspended by the IOC
at his instance. However, the same were restored on 19th
F October, 2005 after the payment of fine of Rs.75,000/- by
the owner of the petrol pump. Again on 191" November,
2005, the deceased, being suspicious of malpractices still
being carried on by Accused No. 1, inspected the said petrol
pump.
G
3. On 20.11.2005, when the Head Constable (Ram
Bhawan Singh) of P.S. Mahaoli, District Sitapur. along with
Constable Asha Ram (PW2) and Driver Braj Kishore was
on patrol duty on the National Highway, at about 8.00 am,
H one Maruti Car bearing No. UP 51 E 5176 was coming from
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITTAL v. STATE OF 883
UTIAR PRADESH [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
the direction of Maigalganj and upon seeing the police jeep, A
the Maruti Car suddenly turned back and tried to drive away
from that place. On suspicion, the Maruti Car was chased
and intercepted at about 8.30 am near Green Gold Dhaba.
One Vivek Sharma (Appellant - Accused No. 7) was driving
the car accompanied by another appellant Rakesh Kumar B
Anand (Appellant-Accused No.4) who was sitting on the
back seat besides a blood stained dead body of S.
Manjunath (deceased). On interrogation, both accused Nos.
4 & 7 confessed that the deceased was shot dead by
Pawan Kumar alias Monu Mittal (Accused No.1), Devesh C
Agnihotri (Accused No. 2), Sanjay Awasthi (Accused No.3),
Lala Giri (Accused No.5), Harish Mishra (Accused No.6) at
M/S Mittal Automobiles and they were carrying the dead
body of the deceased in his car, to dispose of the same at 0
an unknown place. Both the accused Nos. 4 & 7 were taken
into custody and a recovery memo (Ext. Ka·1) was prepared
and a case against all the accused under Sections
147, 148, 149,302 and Section 201 read with Section 34,
IPC, was registered on 20.11.2005.
E
4. Mr. P.N. Saxena, Sub-Inspector took up the
investigation and in the presence of Ohan Raj Sahani (PW
3, landlord of the deceased) conducted inquest. He
collected blood stained seat covers and door mats (Ext. KaF
9) from the Maruti Car besides several other belongings of
the deceased, prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-8) and sent the
. dead body for post mortem. Thereafter, he transferred the
investigation to P.S. Gola, and Parmesh Shukla,
SHO(PW21) who took up further investigation, arrested G
Shivkesh Giri @ Lala Giri (Accused No. 5) on 22.11.2005.
He also recovered a wet blood stained cloth from behind
the Petrol Pump which was allegedly used in cleaning the
murder spot at the instance of Accused no 5. Three
cartridges of 32 bore (Ext. Ka-16) were also recovered from H
884
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A behind the Petrol Pump on his pointing. Based on the
confession of Lala Giri (Accused No. 5), he arrested the
other accused Pawan Kumar, Sanjay Awasthi, Rajesh
Verma and Harish Mishra at 6.50 p.m. near railway crossing
in a car bearing number UP 31 F4629. A revolver was
B recovered from accused Rajesh Verma, owner of the car
and a Pistol was recovered from accused Pawan Kumar
(Ext Ka-17). On 23.11.2005 at 8:30 am, the 10 recovered
the car of accused Pawan Kumar, his blood stained pant
from Punerbhoo forest, Kheri. The 10 also recovered three
C empty cartridges from the ·diesel tank of the Petrol Pump
on 24.11.2005 at 9:30 am on pointing of Accused No. 1
Monu Mittal. Accused No.2 - Devesh Agnihotri was also
arrested on the same day at 6:00 pm by TN Tripathi, SubD Inspector (PW 19) from Bheera and at his instance, four
empty cartridges (Ext. Ka-20) fired from the revolver of
accused No. 8 - Rajesh Verma werif recovered from the
house of one Jitendra Mishra uncle of Sanjay Awasthi (AE
~-
.
5. After investigation, the 10 submitted charge sheet,
and the case was committed for trial. The trial court framed
charges against all the accused u/s 147, 148, 302 r/w 149,
201 and 120 B, IPC. Additional charges u/s 404 and 411
F of IPC, Section 30 of the Arms Act were framed against
accused No. 1 - Pawan Kumar, charges u/s 212 IPC and
Sections 25/30 of the Arms Act were framed against
accused No.8 - Rajesh Verma. Also charges under Section
411, IPC were framed against accused No.7 -Vivek Sharma
G and Accused No. 4 - Rakesh Kumar Anand.
6. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused
No.1 - Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal to death for offences
u/s 302 r/w 149, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000/-, in
H default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one year.
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITTAL v. STATE OF 885
UTTAR PRADESH [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
He was also sentenced to 2 years RI and to pay a fine of A
Rs. 5000/-, in default 3 months SI for the offence u/s 404,
IPC and 6 months imprisonment u/s 30 of the Arms Act, 2
years RI and to pay a fine of Rs 5000/- u/s 404, IPC and in
default to undergo 3 months S.I. The other accused,
namely accused No.2 - Devesh Agnihotri, accused No.3 -
B
Sanjay Awasthi, accused No. 4 - Rakesh Kumar Anand,
accused No. 5 - Shivkesh Giri @ Lalla Giri, accused No. 6
- Harish Mishra, accused No. 7 - Vivek Sharma and
accused No. 8 - Rajesh Verma were also convicted u/s 302
r/w Section 149, IPC and sentenced to suffer life C
imprisonment. They were further sentenced to suffer one
year RI u/s 148, 5 years RI u/s 201, IPC, 5 years RI u/s
120 B IPC. Accused No.8 - Rajesh Verma was also
convicted u/s 212, IPC and sentenced to 3 years RI and to 0
pay a fine of Rs 5,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months SI
u/s 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to 1 year RI and to
pay a fine of Rs 1,000/-, in default to suffer SI for 3 months
and 6 months RI u/s 30 of the Arms Act. Accused Rakesh
Anand, Vivek Sharma and Pawan Kumar were also E
sentenced to 2 years RI u/s 411 IPC. All the sentences
were, however, directed to run concurrently.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the accused-appellants
preferred appeals before the High Court. The High Court F
by the impugned judgment dated 11.12.2009 partly allowed
the appeal of Pawan Kumar (Accused No. 1) and modified
his death sentence to life imprisonment u/s 302 r/w 149 but
upheld the convictions for the other offences they are
charged with. The appeals of the accused Devesh Agnihotri G
(A-2), Rakesh Anand (A-4), Shivkesh Giri @ Lalla Giri (A5), Vivek Sharma (A-7) and Rajesh Verma (A-8) were,
however, dismissed by the High Court. The appeals of other
co-accused Harish Mishra (A-6) and Sanjay Awasthi (A-3)
were allowed giving them benefit of doubt and acquitted H
886
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 3 S.C.R.
A them of all charges. Against the said judgment passed by
the High Court, Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 8 filed the
present appeals before this Court.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants
B argued that the Courts below have committed a grave error
in convicting and sentencing the appellants on the very
evidence by which it acquitted the co-accused Harish Mishra
and Sanjay Awasthi of all the charges. The High Court relied
solely on the confessional statements of the accused/
C appellants made to the police which is inadmissible in
evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Taking support from a decision of this Court in Aghnoo
Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 SCR 134,. learned
counsel submitted that "a confession made to a police
D officer under any circumstances is not admissible in
evidence against the accused. It covers a confession made
when the accused was free and not in police custody, as
also a confession made before any investigation has
begun". Unfortunately, the High Court has not considered
E Section 25 of the Evidence Act in its true spirit and erred in
holding that the confessional statement of accused given
to the police officer is admissible, because the same was
• not made to the Investigating Officer but to some other
F police officer. Taking support from a decision of this Court
in State of Punjab Vs. Barkat Ram, (1962) 3 SCR 338,
learned counsel submitted that the confession made to any
member of the police, of whatever rank and at whatever
·time, is inadmissible in evidence as per Section 25 of the
G Evidence Act.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that the
impugned judgement is based only on conjectures and
surmises and not on any cogent and reliable evidence.
H There were no eyewitness to the occurrence and the case
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITTAL v. STATE OF 887
UTIAR PRADESH [N.V. RAMANA, J.)
of prosecution is based solely on the circumstantial A
evidence. The prosecution has completely failed to prove
the chain of events linking the accused appellants to the
commission of offence. There is no direct witness or
incriminating evidence against the appellants to establish
the motive of the accused to kill the deceased. The courts
B
below have ignored the fact that neither the Ballistic Report
(Ext. 61) nor the Serological Reports (Exts. Ka-60, 62, 62A)
support the case of prosecution. in the ballistic report, no
special characteristics were found and no conclusive
opinion was given that the shots were fired from the gun of C
the accused. The Ballistic Expert (Ext. Ka-61) clearly
mentioned in the report that "the individual characteristics
are absent" for giving a definite opinion. In the absence of
a firm expert opinion, it cannot be conclusively held that the 0
bullets recovered from near and around the scene of
offence were fired from the gun of accused No .1 Pawan
Kumar.
10. It is the contention of the learned counsel that
according to the Serological Report (Ext. Ka-60), no blood E
_was found on the cloth recovered from behind the petrol
pump which was allegedly used to clean the site of crime
as also the pant of the accused No. 1 (Exts. Ka-62 & 62A)
Pawan Kumar allegedly recovered from his car. Another F
crucial loophole that is evident from the prosecution story
is that the body of the deceased was stained with blood,
but no blood stains were reported to be found on the clothes
of accused No. 7 - Vivek Sharma and accused No. 4 -
Rakesh Kumar Anand who were allegedly carrying the dead G
body of the deceased in his car to dispose of the same.
Also another dubious circumstance sought to be proved by
the prosecution is that when the car in which accused No.7
- Vivek Sharma and accused No.4 - Rakesh Kumar Anand,
were carrying the dead body of the deceased was H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 3 S.C.R.
A intercepted, P.W.3 -
Dhanraj Sahni, landlord of the
deceased appeared from the crowd and recognized the
dead body. Learned counsel submitted that the landlord
was living far away from the site where the accused were
apprehended, and no reason is given by the prosecution
B for his presence at the spot where the car carrying the dead
body of the deceased was intercepted. This casts a doubt
on the prosecution story about the presence of the landlord
at that point of time.
C
11. The learned counsel strenuously contends that
another aspect that probablises the factum of manipulation
of the case by the prosecution to implicate the appellants
into the crime is that according to the prosecution case, in
all, eleven bullets were fired at the deceased, but according
D to the post-mortem report (Ext. Ka-14), the deceased had
suffered six firearm injuries, out of which there were two exit
wounds on his body and four bullets were recovered from
his body. There was no explanation coming forward from
the prosecution as regards not finding the other bullets. It
E is not possible to imagine that other seven bullets did not
hit anywhere at the place of incident. This fact clearly
establishes that the prosecution manipulated the
investigation. The prosecution thus totally failed to prove
F the place of occurrence and the recoveries alleged to have
been made from the scene of offence were planted for the
purpose of the case.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that the Courts
below have utterly failed to take into account the important
G material contradictions before convicting the appellants. PW
21 - · Parmesh Kumar Shukla, SHO was said to have taken
control of the case on the evening of 201h November, 2005
and he came to know about the place of incident only on
H 21•1 November, 2005 seems improbable. The same stood
PAWAN KUMAR@ MONU MITTAL v. STATE OF 889
UTTAR PRADESH [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
fortified by the fact that as per Rojanama (GD No. 38 dated A
21-11-2005) he had visited the alleged place of occurrence
i.e. petrol pump on 21.11.2005. Whereas in his deposition
before the Trial Court he denied to have gone there on 2111-2005 and he further stated that he went to the place of
occurrence for the first time only on 22-11-2005 in the
B
afternoon. It is, therefore, clear that the investigations are
tainted, vital and material portion has been deliberately
concealed. The deposition of PW 21 visiting the place of
occurrence on 22-11-2005 ought to have been rejected by
the Courts below. Once a mate~ial portion of the evidence C
of 1.0. is found to be false, no reliance could be placed on
his statement. Such material contradictions would not only
cast a doubt on his evidence, but discredits the entire case
of prosecution. Another discrepancy in the prosecution story D
pointed out by the learned counsel is that as per
prosecution, accused No.5- Lalla Giri was arrested by PW
21 on
22-11-2005 from Railway Station, whereas on 2111-2005 at about 3.15 p.m. mother of Lalla Giri (A-5) had
sent a telegram (Ext. Kha-2) to the DIG, Lucknow E
complaining therein that her son has been wrongfully
confined by the PS Gola since 20-11-2005. This
uncontroverted fact belies his arrest and thus the recoveries
allegedly made at his instance cannot be relied upon.
13. Learned counsel further contended that the Courts
F
below have wrongly attributed the motive for the crime
inasmuch as M/S Mittc:I Automobiles was sealed by the
deceased owing to alleged malpractices. It is admitted fact
that apart from Mittal Automobiles one more petrol pump G
L.D Service Station was inspected by the deceased on the
same day and samples taken were found to be adulterated,
but no investigation was carried out in this regard. In fact,
no adulteration was detected from the samples collected
from M/S Mittal Automobiles. As a matter of fact, Weights H
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 3 S.C.R.
A and Measurement Department conducted test of HSD (1150
ltrs.) from June, 2005 to 13.9.2005. Though the entries were
made in the Daily Stock Register of MIS Mittal Automobiles,
no corresponding entry was made in the main stock register
which resulted in stock variation which led to the sealing of
B the petrol pump. When M/S Mittal Automobiles clarified the
same by reply dated 18-10-2005, the petrol pump was
restored. The fine of Rs.75,000/- was paid in respect of
technical defaults in order to ensure that the supply is
restored. Hence, the motive part advanced by the
C prosecution is not proved and the Courts below have erred
in not appreciating this fact.
14. Learned counsel appearing for Accused No. 2 -
Devesh Agnihotri submitted that the appellant was wrongly
D implicated in the crime. The appellant has no previous
association with the prime acc~sed Monu Mittal. The
appellant-accused No. 2 was not even present at the
scene of crime at the relevant time as he was attending
marriage of his brother in law in District Etah which is far
E away from the place of occurrence. Moreover, there is no
incriminating evidence against accused No. 2.
15. On behalf of Accused No. 5-Lalla Giri it is
specifically argued that he has been wrongly convicted by
F the Trial Court merely because he was an ex-employee of
Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal (Accused No.1 ). Mere
recovery of empty cartridges at the instance of this
appellant-accused is of no consequence when there is no
evidence linking his participation in the crime. Moreover, the
G recovery of empty cartridges at the place of occurrence itself
is highly doubtful as they can easily be destroyed. In support
of the argument that in the absence of any link evidence,
the appellant cannot be convicted under Sectiqn 302, IPC
learned counsel relied on Mani Vs. State of Tamilnadu
H (2009) 17 SCC 273. Learned counsel further.argued that
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITTAL v. STATE OF 891
UTTAR PRADESH [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
at the most the case against the appellant cannot be A
beyond Section 201, IPC for which the maximum sentence
is 10 years. The appellant has already undergone about 9
Y, years imprisonment.
16. Learned counsel appearing for Accused No.4B
Rakesh Anand and Accused No. 7- Vivek Sharma submitted
that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of
events qua Accused Nos. 4 and 7 to bring home their
culpability. Both the courts below have gravely erred in
holding that the dead body of the deceased was recovered C
from the possession of these appellants on 20.11.20005 at
8.00 am. As per prosecution, at the time of their arrest,
the dead body of the deceased was bleeding, but admittedly
no blood was found on their clothes. No weapon, driving
licence, money etc. were found from their possession. No D
relation between these two accused and other accused has
been proved. Moreover, there was no examination of any
independent witness to support the story of prosecution that
the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the
possession of these two accused. Allegedly, there was a E
mob of about 100 to 150 people at that point of time, but
no independent witness has been examined to prove the
prosecution story, and in the absence of any independent
witness being examined, the confession statement and
F
consequent recovery, cannot be believed. Learned counsel
therefore submitted that it is in the interest of justice, the
appeals be allowed, as otherwise, the appellants would
suffer irreparable injustice, loss and injury.
17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Accused G
No. 8 -Rajesh Verma argued that the appellant was merely
an employee of an Urban Co- operative Bank and had no
previous enmity or motive to kill the deceased as he had
no interests in the business of Petrol Pump. His name H
892
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 3 S.C.R.
A neither figured in the confessional statement of the accused
nor in the F.l.R. According to the prosecution, the licensed
revolver of Accused No. 8 was recovered on 22~11-2005,
but it was not even sealed at the spot despite the 1.0. having
specific knowledge about its use. There was no specific
B evidence to establish the date, time and place of it being
sealed. Only the oral assertion of 1.0. that the weapon was
sealed a couple of days later by him, shows the possibility
of revolver or bullet being changed, thereby wrongly
implicating the accused in the crime. There was also no
C evidence of conspiracy against this appellant nor was any
evidence to establish the intention, knowledge or prior
meeting of the appellant with the other accused to commit
the crime. The 1.0. in the cross examination admitted that
0
the appellant neither used his revolver nor was present at
the time of occurrence. There is also no absolute evidence
of appellant giving his revolver to the prime accused. The
appellant was ar. active worker of a political party and his
political rivals being inimical towards him he was falsely
E implicated, but the Courts below have failed to take into
consideration this aspect.
18. Learned counsel appearing for all the accusedappellants strongly contended that the Courts below have
F committed grave error in convicting and sentencing the
accused. The impugned judgment is not based on the true
principles of law. It is not only gravely erroneous, but also
against the material available on record. The alleged
circumstances do not form a complete chain of events
G linking the accused to the commission of the crime, and the
incriminating circumstances having not been proved by the
prosecutjon, in accordance with law, the impugned judgment
is, liable to be set aside.
H
19. Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned Additional Advocate
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITTAL v. STATE OF 893
UTTAR PRADESH [NV. RAMANA, J.]
General appearing for the State, on the other hand, A
supported the impugned judgment and submitted that this
is an unfortunate case where an Officer of the Indian Oil
Corporation was brutally murdered by the accused for
honestly carrying out his duties. This incident has shocked
the entire nation and has shaken the confidence of B
thousands of aspiring officers. He submitted that Accused
No. 1 Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal had developed grudge
against the deceased because he inspected the petrol
pump run by him on 13.9.2005 and pointed out certain
irregularities, and on his intimation to IOC (Ext. Ka-34), the C
sales and supplies of the pump were suspended. The
supplies were, however, restored only after payment of fine
on 191h October, 2005. The deceased again visited the petrol
pump of the accused on 19th November, 2005 for inspe.ction D
and thereafter he was not seen alive.
20. The learned AAG, on behalf of the prosecution,
submitted that the incriminating articles including empty
cartridges (Ext. 13) fired from the licensed pistol of Accused
No. 1, blood stained earth (Ext. Ka 60) recovered from the E
petrol pump of Accused No. 1 and on his pointing out, the
mobile instrument of the deceased was recovered from the
forest (Ext. Ka 21 ). The Ballistic Expert in his report clearly
mentioned that the bullets found in the body of the
deceased were fired from the licensed pistol of Accused No.
F
1. The irregularities committed by the petrol pump were writ
large inasmuch as certain important documents and other
materials which were necessarily required to be kept in the
show room were not found, when the police along with IOC G
official and official of Weights and Measurements
Department inspected. Moreover, some articles used for
tampering of the seals of the machines and tank were
found.
21. Learned AAG contended that the involvement of H
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A accused Rakesh Anand (Accused No.4) and Vivek Sharma
(Accused No.7) has been proved beyond all reasonable
doubt as they were caught by patrolling police officials PW1Head Constable Ram Bhawan, PW2 - Constable Asha Ram
while they were carrying the dead body of the deceased in
B his car. This fact is corroborated by the independent
witness Dhanraj Sahni-PW3, the landlord of the deceased.
Accused No. 2 - Devesh Agnihotri's involvement is evident
from the confession of the co-accused, namely accused
No. 7 - Vivek Sharma an.d accused No.4 - Rakesh Kumar
c Anand and also by accused No.8 - Rajesh Verma, who
confessed that his revolver was used by accused No. 2 -
Devesh Agnihotri for the commission of crime. After his
arrest, he confessed to the commission of the crime and
0
also led to the recovery of four empty cartridges shot from
the revolver of accused No. 8 - Rajesh Verma. Also
accused No.2 - Devesh Agnihotri along with accused No.4
- Rakesh Kumar Anand were earlier charge sheeted for an
offence u/s 307 IPC in 1998 which is sufficient to establish
E their nexus. Accused No.5 - Lalla Giri's involvement came
to light from the confession made by accused No.7 - Vivek
Sharma (A-7) and accused No.4 - Rakesh Kumar Anand,
at whose instance accused No.5 - Lalla Giri was arrested
on 22.11.2005, from the Railway Station while he was trying
F to abscond. Accused No.5 - Lalla Giri, led to the recovery
of three cartridges from behind the petrol pump and three
more from the tank of the petrol pump. This clearly explains
that accused No.5 - Lalla Giri, has played an active role in
the conspiracy. in and commission of the crime. Accused
G No.8 - Rajesh Verma was arrested along with Accused No.
1 - Pawan Kumar and other accused when he was taking
them in his car on 22.11.2005 and a revolver with two live
and four missing cartridges were recovered from his
possession. Those four cartridges were recovered at the
H instance of accused No.2 - Devesh Agnihotri. Thus, in the
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITIAL v. STATE OF 895
UTTAR PRADESH [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
light of confessional statements of the accused and the A
recoveries made at their instance, their involvement in the
crime is established by the prosecution beyond all
reasonable doubt. Therefore, no interference is warranted
with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Trial
Court as well as the High Court, upon appreciation of entire
B
evidence on record.
22. Learned AAG, placing reliance on Dalbir Kaur v.
State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158 and Shivnaravan
Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 2 C
sec 465 finally submitted that when the cumulative effect
of the evidence against the accused persons is sufficiently
convincing for the trial court as well as the High Court to
have come to the conclusion that the offence with which
the accused were charged were established against them D
beyond all reasonable doubt, unless there is substantial
question of law involved, this Court should refrain from
interfering with the concurrent findings of fact given by the
Courts below.
23. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length and carefully perused the material on record.
E
24. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate
General for the State that in view of the concurrent findings F
on facts recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the
High Court, this Court should not interfere with such
findings, unless there is substantial question of law involved.
Before dealing with the above contention, it is appropriate
to refer to the judgments in Da/bir Kaur v. State of Punjab G
(1976) 4 SCC 158 and Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi
v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 2 SCC 465, wherein this
Court laid down the guidelines.
In Dalbir Kaur (supra) it was held as under:
H
896
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A
"8. Thus the principles governing interference by this
Court in a criminal appeal by special leave may be
summarised as follows:
(1) that this Court would not interfere with the
B
concurrent finding of fact based on pure appreciation
of evidence even if it were to take a different view on
the evidence;
(2) that the Court will not normally enter into a
c
reappraisement or review of the evidence, unless the
assessment of the High Court is vitiated by an error of
law or procedure or is based on error of record,
misreading of evidence or is inconsistent with the
evidence, for instance, where the ocular evidence is
o
totally inconsistent with the medical evidence and so
on;
E
F
G
H
(3) . that the Court would not enter into credibility of the
evidence with a view to substitute its own opinion for
that of the High Court;
(4) that the Court would interfere where the High Court
has arrived at a finding of fact in disregard of a judicial
process, principles of natural justice or a fair hearing
or has acted in violation of a mandatory provision of
law or procedure resulting in serious prejudice or
injustice to the accused;
(5) this Court might also interfere where on the proved
facts wrong inferences of law have been drawn or
where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly
perverse and based on no evidence.
It is very difficult to lay down a rule of universal
application, but the principles mentioned above and
those adumbrated in the authorities of this Court cited
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITIAL v. STATE OF 897
UTIAR PRADESH [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
supra provide sufficient guidelines for this Court to A
decide criminal appeals by special leave. Thus in a
· criminal appeal by special leave, this Court at the
hearing examines the evidence and the judgment of the
High Court with the limited purpose of determining
whether or not the High Court has followed the B
principles enunciated above. Where the Court finds
that the High Court has committed no violation of the
various principles laid down by this Court and has made
a correct approach and has not ignored or overlooked
striking features in the evidence whi<::h demolish the C
prosecution case, the findings of fact arrived at by the
High Court on an appreciation of the evidence in the
circumstances of the case would not be disturbed.
9. Much time, energy and expense could be saved if D
the principles enunciated above are strictly adhered to
by counsel for the parties and they confine their
arguments within the four corners of those principles
and they cooperate in this sound and subtle judicial
method without transgressing the limits imposed by the E
decisions of this Court on its power to interfere with the
concurrent findings of fact."
In Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi (supra), it was
held as under:
F
" ... On a perusal of the record and judgment of the High
Court we are clearly of the opinion that these appeals
are concluded by findings of facts.