# SONU @ SUNIL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [2020] 4 S.C.R. 269
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-05-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2013
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kishan Kaul, K.M. Joseph
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sonu-sunil-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-34432
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860: ss.394, 460, 302 r/w s.34 - Robbery and
murder - Five accused including appellant - Case based on
circumstantial evidence - Prosecution case was that the victimdeceased resided alone in his house - On 9.9.2008, son of the
deceased (PW- 9) received information that his father had not opened
the door on that day - PW-9 went to his father's residence and
found him dead - Certain articles were missing from the almirah in
the house of deceased - On the basis of investigation, four accused
and appellant were charged with the offence of robbery and murder
- Appellant was charged under s.397 and under ss.11 and 13 of
Madhya Pradesh Adjiniyam also - Knife and other valuable articles
were recovered from the co-accused - Appellant was arrested two
months after the incident and a mobile phone was recovered from
him - Courts below relied upon the evidence of PW-5 who allegedly
overheard the conversation between the five accused regarding
conspiracy to commit robbery in the house of deceased - Conviction
of all the accused including appellant - On appeal, held: Appellant,
along with the others, were charged under the offences with the aid
of s.34 - The common intention must be for the very offence which
the accused is charged with - The finding by trial court in this case
was that there was a criminal conspiracy hatched to commit robbery
- Though there was a charge of causing death by strangulation,
the finding was that the death was caused as a result of the injuries
inflicted with the knife - The knife was, apparently, carried and
wielded by the co-accused - In fact, the recovery of the knife was
also effected from co- accused - Thus, guilt of appellant was based
only on the recovery of the mobile phone where the recovery itself
suffered from suspicion and doubt - There was discrepancy about
the number of mobile missing and mobile recovered from the appellant
- PW-5 had not taken name of the appellant - Essentially, evidence
of PW-5 and the recovery was relied on to hold that the chain of
269
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 269
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
circumstances was complete - Appellant was not mentioned as one
of the persons who used to visit the deceased's father though three
of the other accused were named - Moreover, no Test Identification
Parade was conducted - Thus, appellant is entitled to benefit of
doubt - Conviction of appellant set aside - Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti
Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981 - ss.11 and 13 - Evidence Act,
1872 - s.114.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the case of recovery of an article from an
accused person when he stands accused of committing offences
other than theft also, (in this instance murder), the tests are:
The first thing to be established is that the theft and murder forms
part of one transaction. The circumstances may indicate that the
theft and murder must have been committed at the same time.
But it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in
possession of the stolen property was the murderer; the nature
of the stolen article; the manner of its acquisition by the owner;
the nature of evidence about its identification; The manner in
which it was dealt with by the accused; the place and the
circumstances of its recovery; the length of the intervening period;
ability or otherwise of the accused to explain its possession. In
this case, applying the tests, it is found that the appellant has not
given any explanation as to how he came by possession of the
mobile. He has no explanation in his questioning under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; As far as length of
the intervening period is concerned, recovery was effected on
02.11.2008 whereas the date of the incident is 08.09.2008. That
means, a gap of less than two months. The arrest of the appellant
was effected on 01.11.2008, i.e., a day before the recovery; as far
as nature of the article is concerned, it was a mobile phone which
was capable of being transferred by mere

## Text

_Characters 0–39,873 of 57,550. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39873 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
269
SONU @ SUNIL
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2013)
MAY 29, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.394, 460, 302 r/w s.34 - Robbery and
murder - Five accused including appellant - Case based on
circumstantial evidence - Prosecution case was that the victimdeceased resided alone in his house - On 9.9.2008, son of the
deceased (PW- 9) received information that his father had not opened
the door on that day - PW-9 went to his father's residence and
found him dead - Certain articles were missing from the almirah in
the house of deceased - On the basis of investigation, four accused
and appellant were charged with the offence of robbery and murder
- Appellant was charged under s.397 and under ss.11 and 13 of
Madhya Pradesh Adjiniyam also - Knife and other valuable articles
were recovered from the co-accused - Appellant was arrested two
months after the incident and a mobile phone was recovered from
him - Courts below relied upon the evidence of PW-5 who allegedly
overheard the conversation between the five accused regarding
conspiracy to commit robbery in the house of deceased - Conviction
of all the accused including appellant - On appeal, held: Appellant,
along with the others, were charged under the offences with the aid
of s.34 - The common intention must be for the very offence which
the accused is charged with - The finding by trial court in this case
was that there was a criminal conspiracy hatched to commit robbery
- Though there was a charge of causing death by strangulation,
the finding was that the death was caused as a result of the injuries
inflicted with the knife - The knife was, apparently, carried and
wielded by the co-accused - In fact, the recovery of the knife was
also effected from co- accused - Thus, guilt of appellant was based
only on the recovery of the mobile phone where the recovery itself
suffered from suspicion and doubt - There was discrepancy about
the number of mobile missing and mobile recovered from the appellant
- PW-5 had not taken name of the appellant - Essentially, evidence
of PW-5 and the recovery was relied on to hold that the chain of
269
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 269
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
circumstances was complete - Appellant was not mentioned as one
of the persons who used to visit the deceased's father though three
of the other accused were named - Moreover, no Test Identification
Parade was conducted - Thus, appellant is entitled to benefit of
doubt - Conviction of appellant set aside - Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti
Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981 - ss.11 and 13 - Evidence Act,
1872 - s.114.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the case of recovery of an article from an
accused person when he stands accused of committing offences
other than theft also, (in this instance murder), the tests are:
The first thing to be established is that the theft and murder forms
part of one transaction. The circumstances may indicate that the
theft and murder must have been committed at the same time.
But it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in
possession of the stolen property was the murderer; the nature
of the stolen article; the manner of its acquisition by the owner;
the nature of evidence about its identification; The manner in
which it was dealt with by the accused; the place and the
circumstances of its recovery; the length of the intervening period;
ability or otherwise of the accused to explain its possession. In
this case, applying the tests, it is found that the appellant has not
given any explanation as to how he came by possession of the
mobile. He has no explanation in his questioning under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; As far as length of
the intervening period is concerned, recovery was effected on
02.11.2008 whereas the date of the incident is 08.09.2008. That
means, a gap of less than two months. The arrest of the appellant
was effected on 01.11.2008, i.e., a day before the recovery; as far
as nature of the article is concerned, it was a mobile phone which
was capable of being transferred by mere delivery. No doubt, it
would contain a sim which may connect the phone with the
previous owner or person in possession. It is also common
knowledge, however, that it may be open to the person, who
possesses the mobile, to equip it with a new sim. It is not in
dispute that the two mobile phones were kept and they were not
mixed with any other similar looking mobile phones. [Paras 28,
29][290-D-H; 291-A-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
271
Baiju v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 522 :
[1978] 2 SCR 594; Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan
AIR 2001 SC 2342 : [2001] 3 SCR 656 - relied on.
1.2 The appellant, along with the others, were charged under
the offences with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. The finding by
the Trial Court in this case is that there was a criminal conspiracy
hatched to commit robbery. As far as Section 34 is concerned, it
proclaims the principle of vicarious criminal liability. The soul of
the Section, and the principle which underlies criminal liability
for the acts of another therein, is the shared intention or the
common intention to commit an offence. The common intention
must be for the very offence which the accused is charged with.
In this case, that though there is a charge of causing death by
strangulation, the finding is that the death was caused as a result
of the injuries inflicted with the knife. The knife was, apparently,
carried and wielded by the co-accused. From him, in fact, the
recovery of the knife was also effected which becomes all the
more reason to conclude that it will be totally unsafe to convict
the appellant of the charges of which he is found guilty including
Section 302 of the IPC based only on the recovery of the mobile
phone where the recovery itself suffers from suspicion and doubt.
Thus, in this case, as far as the appellant is concerned, the
evidence against him essentially consists of the recovery of the
mobile phone and there is discrepancy about the number. PW5
has not taken the name of the appellant. Essentially evidence of
PW5 and the recovery is relied on to hold that the chain of
circumstances is complete. The appellant is not mentioned as
one of the persons who used to visit the deceased's father though
three of the other accused were named. No Test Identification
Parade was conducted for the accused. In the facts of this case, it
would not be safe to uphold the conviction of the appellant. He
would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. [Paras 30, 34, 35][291F-H; 292-A-B; 294-D-F]
Hardev Singh and others v. State of Punjab AIR 1975
SC 179; Arun v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu
(2008) 15 SCC 501 : [2008] 17 SCR 279; Dharam Pal
v. State of Haryana (1978) 4 SCC 440 : Brijlal Pd.
Sinha v. State of Bihar (1998) 5 SCC 699 : [1998] 3
SONU @ SUNIL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
SCR 529; Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. (2004) 3 SCC
793 : [2004] 2 SCR 73 - relied on.
Ashish Jain v. Makrand Singh and others (2019) 3 SCC
770 : [2019] 1 SCR 345; Sunder Lal alias Sundera v.
State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 28; Sanwant
Khan and another v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC
54 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 1 SCR 345
referred to
Para 20
AIR 1954 SC 28
referred to
Para 23
AIR 1956 SC 54
referred to
Para 24
[1978] 2 SCR 594
relied on
Para 25
[2001] 3 SCR 656
relied on
Para 26
AIR 1975 SC 179
relied on
Para 30
[2008] 17 SCR 279
relied on
Para 30
(1978) 4 SCC 440
relied on
Para 31
[1998] 3 SCR 529
relied on
Para 32
[2004] 2 SCR 73
relied on
Para 33
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 57 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2012 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 455 of
2011.
Anukulchandra Padhan, Sr. Adv., Md. Farman, Salman Khan,
Advs. for the Appellant.
R.K. Rathore, Harsh Parasher, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
273
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
1. The appellant was tried with 4 others and was convicted under
Sections 394, 460 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the IPC', for short). He was
also found guilty of offences under Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya
Pradesh Dakaiti Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred
to as, 'Madhya Pradesh Adhiniyam'). The appellant was, in fact,
sentenced to death for the offence under Section 302 read with Section
34 of the IPC along with two other accused apart from a fine of
Rs. 5000/-. He was sentenced to 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment in
regard to the offence under Section 460 of the IPC. He was also handed
down a sentence of 10 years for the offence under Section 394 read
with Section 34 of the IPC. Still further, he was also sentenced to 7
years for the offence under Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh
Adhiniyam. By the impugned judgment, the High Court answered the
death reference by holding that in the circumstances, the death penalty
was not warranted. In place of death penalty, the High Court sentenced
the appellant and two other accused to life imprisonment and enhanced
the fine to Rs. 25,000/-. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed
otherwise. The prosecution case, in brief, appears to be as follows:
On 08.09.2008, in the night, Bharosilal (hereinafter referred to
as, 'the deceased', for short) was at his village Bilaua. He
was residing alone. One Abhay Sharma-PW9, who is the son
of the deceased, was informed by one Neeraj Bhargav that
his father has not opened the door on that day. On receiving
such information, PW9, who also turned out to be the
complainant, finally went to his father's residence and it was
found that his father was dead and the First Information Report
(FIR) was lodged on 10.09.2008. On the basis of the
investigation conducted, Kalli, Hariom, Veeru, Virendra and
the appellant came to be charged with the offences as noticed.
In fact, the appellant was charged under Section 397 of the
IPC also.
2. PW1 to PW15 were examined as prosecution witnesses.
Material objects were also produced. The following are the questions,
which were framed by the Trial Court:
SONU @ SUNIL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
"(i) Whether accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Sonu @ Sunil and
Hariom on the date of incident after sunset and before sunrise
after committing house tress pass in the residential house of
deceased Bharosilal, committed the murder of Bharosilal?
(ii)
Whether accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Sonu @ Sunil and
Hariom formed common intention to commit murder of
Bharosilal?
(iii) Whether accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Hariom and Sonu
@ Sunil in fulfilment of their common intention committed
murder of Bharosilal by strangulation and cutting by a chhuri
(knife)?
(iv) Whether accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Hariom and Sonu
@ Sunil by using deadly weapon in committing robbery,
committed the murder of Bharosilal and looted gold and silver
jewellery and two mobile phones of Nokia made from the
possession of Bharosilal?
(v)
Whether accused Veeru and Virendera along with accused
Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Hariom and Sonu @ Sunil, at the
house of accused Virendra Singh, Kushmah hatched
conspiracy of committing robbery in the house of Bharosilal?
(vi) Whether the accused persons committed the offence defined
and specified under Section 2(b) of MPDVPK Act and
committed the offence u/s 11/13 of the above said Act?"
3. The Trial Court found that it was a case entirely based on
circumstantial evidence. It noticed that the deceased had suffered the
following injuries:
"Injury No.1
Incised of 6x1.5x1 c.m. on the right side of
the chin.
Injury No. 2
Incised wound of 4 x 1 1⁄2 cm below 1 cm
from the injury no. 1.
Injury No. 3
Incised wound of 6 x 3 x 2cm left fore arm
anteriority middle.
Injury No. 4
Incised wound of 6 x 1 x 1cm, just 2cm below
injury no. 3.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
275
Injury No. 5
Incised wound of 6 x 1 x 1cm, just 2cm below
injury no. 4.
Injury No. 6
Incised wound on abdomen 3" below
measuring 3 x 2 x deep upto peritoneum, part
of intestine coming out from the wound."
4. The cause of death was found to be shock and hemorrhage
due to excessive bleeding caused by multiple wounds. The death was
caused within 36 hours of the postmortem report. The postmortem was
conducted on 10.09.2008. It cannot be disputed that the death was
homicidal and it was caused with the intent to commit murder. The Trial
Court further proceeded to find that the certain articles were found missing
from the almirah in the house where the deceased stayed. PW8 is wife
of the deceased. PW9, as already noticed, is one of the sons of the
deceased. PW13 held identification of the gold and silver jewellery and
the mobile phones, which according to them, belonged to the deceased.
The identified articles were belonging to the deceased. One hasli
(necklace) made of silver, one pair of earrings and two mobile phones
were identified. The contention of the accused that PW13, who held the
identification proceedings, deposed that at that time a Police Officer
was present, was rejected by finding that from the Identification MemoExhibit P21, it was clear that no Police Officer was present at the time
of the identification of the proceedings. The Court also relied upon the
evidence of PW8 and PW9, who were found to have not stated about
the presence of Police Officers at the time of the identification
proceedings. The evidence of PW9 and the evidence of PW8, were
also referred to, to find that the Police came to open the door. It was
opened and it was seen that the almirah was opened and goods/gold
articles were scattered, and out of the said goods, one hasli (necklace)
made of silver, one pair of gold earrings and two mobile phones, were
missing. The evidence of PW3-another son, was relied upon to find that
PW5 had overheard the conversation between all the accused which
was to the effect that the deceased was living alone and they were
making a plan for committing a loot in his house. No doubt, the Court
also noticed that PW1, who was cited by the prosecution, to prove the
said conversation, turned hostile. PW3 had also deposed that he was
told by PW5 about having overheard the conversation between the
accused. The evidence of PW3 was relied upon to find that both Virendra
and Veeru used to come to massage the body of his father and his father
SONU @ SUNIL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[K. M. JOSEPH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
used to say that they would be got employed. PW3 deposed about his
familiarity with accused Virendra, Veeru and Kalli present in the Court.
PW6- another son of the deceased, has deposed that Kalli used to come
to his village to sell ghee and used to sit and talk with the deceased and
used to massage the body of his father. The Trial court finds that Veeru,
Virendra and Kalli used to come and they were also acquainted with the
deceased and his family members. Thereafter, the Trial Court also
referred to the recoveries of the articles. From Hariom, one mobile phone
was recovered. From Kalli, the Chhuri (knife), used for committing the
offence, was recovered. From the appellant, another mobile phone of
Nokia Company, Model 5110, of black colour, upon which the Number
97321820 was written in red ink, was also seized. The evidence of PW9
was relied upon wherein he has deposed, that a Nokia Mobile on which
B.L. in English was written with red marker, and on the battery of the
same, Number 97321820 in red ink, had been written, was stolen. From
accused Virendra, the recovery of hasli (necklace) was effected. From
Veeru, one pair of gold earrings was seized. On the basis of the same, it
was found that the stolen property and weapon have been seized on the
statement of the accused, and that these circumstances, completed the
chain of circumstantial evidence. Reliance was placed on the deposition
by PW5, who had overheard the conversation between the accused
about the criminal conspiracy. PW7, a witness to the recovery statement
of the appellant-Exhibit P13 and also evidence of PW12- the Police
Inspector, who arrested the appellant, has been relied upon to prove the
statement leading to the recovery of the mobile from the appellant. The
following findings may be noted:
"In the above said analysis it is proved that there is criminal
conspiracy amongst the accused persons to commit theft or loot
in the house of deceased, on the basis of memorandum statement
of accused Hariom, the looted mobile is recovered/ seized from
the possession of accused Hariom on the basis of memorandum
of accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma and on producing by him one
blood stained sharp edged chhuri (knife) used in the offence has
been seized from the possession of accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma.
On the basis of memorandum statement of accused Sonu @ Sunil
and on producing by him the looted mobile Nokia is seized from
accused Sonu @ Sunil. In the same manner on the basis of
Accused Virendra one old and used hasli (necklace) made of
silver is seized from the possession of accused Virendra. On the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
277
basis of accused Veeru and on producing by him the looted
property i.e. one pair of earrings are seized by the police from the
possession of accused Veeru. All the four looted properties i.e.
two mobile phones, one hasli (necklace) and one pair of gold
earrings have been identified by Rukmani (PW-8) and Abhay
Kumar Sharma (PW-9) in identification proceedings and they
admitted that the same belong to them. All these circumstances
complete the chain of circumstances against the accused persons.
The accused persons have not produced any evidence in rebuttal
of the same. The defence did not explain the fact that the looted
property and weapon of offence have been recovered from their
possession in this situation it is clear that. The accused persons
hatched criminal conspiracy of committing loot in the house of the
deceased, accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Hariom and Sonu @
Sunil has committed murder of deceased before sun rises and
after sun set by entering in the house of the deceased.
From the criminal conspiracy and in fulfillment of the same
and from the seizure of weapon of offence and looted property
from the accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Hariom, Sonu @ Sunil
and no explanation of the same on behalf of defence it would be
presumed that accused Kalli @ Gopal, Sonu @ Sunil and Hariom
by entering in the house of deceased before sun rise and after sun
set has committed loot and in committing of the said loot has
committed the murder of deceased Bharosilal Sharma by inflicting
injuries with knife. Because at the time of committing loot all the
three accused persons Kalli @ Gopal, Hariom and Sonu @ Sunil
were present at the place of occurrence, all the three have also
committed loot and in committing of the said loot the murder of
deceased Bharosilal has been committed, from this it is clearly
concluded that there were common intention amongst the accused
persons Kalli @ Gopal, Hariom and Sonu @ Sunil to commit the
murder of deceased Bharosilal. Therefore, the offence u/s460/
302/34 against accused Kalli @ Gopal, Hariom and Sonu @ Sunil
are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
So far as the question of offence u/s 397/34 IPC against
accused Kalli @ Gopal, Hariom and Sonu @ Sunil is concerned
the weapon used in the offence knife is only seized from accused
Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, it is clear from the same that at the time
SONU @ SUNIL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[K. M. JOSEPH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
of incident a chhuri, used in the incident which is deadly and sharp
edged was in possession of accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. The appellant was found along with Hariom, guilty of the
offence under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the IPC, whereas,
Section 397 of the IPC was found proved against Kalli. The Trial Court
found Kalli guilty under Section 397 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Appellant was also convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the IPC. Thereafter, it was also found that the appellant and others
were guilty of the offences under Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya
Pradesh Adhiniyam, based on the offences proved otherwise.
6. The High Court, in appeal, proceeded to find that eleven
circumstances emerged before the Trial Court:
i.
The incident in connection with the loot took place on
08.09.2008 after locking the doors from inside in the house of
the deceased who was residing alone.
ii.
That the postmortem confirms the prosecution case. It is found
that it is natural that on 09.09.2008 when the deceased did
not appear to be seen and was not responding on knocking
the door, Neeraj Bhargava informed PW9 that he was not
responding. PW9 and PW8 departed to the place to know
about the welfare of the deceased.
iii.
Upon request of PW9, his neighbor-Phoolchand climbed
through the stairs and he found the deceased with blood on
his hand and was lying dead. He went to the Police Station
Bilaua for lodging the report which was recorded at about
11:30 P.M in night. The dead body was referred for
postmortem on the same day and the FIR was lodged in the
evening of 10.09.2008.
iv.
On 10.09.2008, Ashok Kumar(PW3), in his Case Diary
Statement, disclosed that the Cell Phone Number 9406586386,
generally used by his father, was also found missing. Another
Cell Phone Number 9928120429, which was made available
by son of deceased, was also found missing.
v.
Investigation was conducted by PW15 and initially names of
the assailants were not dictated by that time.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
279
vi.
The successor of PW15-(PW14) conducted subsequent
investigation. Statements of witnesses were recorded, call
details of stolen mobile sets from Cyber Cell was received.
On 18.10.2008, he came to know the names of assailants
from Cyber Cell. Within two days, arrests were made of the
accused, viz., Kalli, Hariom, Parihar, Virendra Kachhi and
Veeru. The Churri(knife) was seized from accused Kalli,
one necklace from Virendra, one pair of gold earrings from
Veeru.
vii. The accused cannot get benefit for the inaction/ latches of
the investigation.
viii. On 02.11.2008, D.P. Sharma-PW12, arrested appellant and
recovered from him one mobile phone bearing SIM No.
97321820.
ix.
As per medical evidence, it is clear that the deceased was
put to death by the accused or any one of them. Looking to
the nature of the incised wounds seen on the body of the
deceased, the death appears to be homicidal.
x.
Identification of properties, which were seized/ recovered in
between 18.10.2008 to 02.11.2008, was conducted on
10.12.2008, which cannot be said delayed because the persons
who have identified the articles, were the residents of Gwalior.
xi.
The motive of the incident is apparently clear. It was
committed for committing loot/theft, and during the incident
of theft, the deceased was killed by the accused.
7. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and
also learned counsel for the state. Learned Senior Counsel would complain
that there is no evidence against the appellant for convicting him for the
offences, he has been found guilty of. He complained that the Court's
below have erred in placing reliance upon PW-5 who allegedly overheard
the conversation between the five accused persons by standing outside
the house of one of them. He points out that the witness could not be
believed. It is pointed out that PW-1 who was cited by the prosecution to
prove the said conversation has not adhered to the version which was
sought to be attributed to him. It is highly improbable that PW-5 could
have overheard any such conversation. He pointed out that a clear
discrepancy in regard to the recovery of the mobile phone from the
SONU @ SUNIL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[K. M. JOSEPH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
appellant. In the memorandum relating the alleged recovery of the mobile
phone, what is stated is that the appellant took one mobile phone make
of Nokia of the deceased and he has hidden the same on the roof of his
house. The seizure memo reveals the following as what was recovered:
"
S.No.
Property
Signatures obtained on
packets or property
1.
One mobile phone of Nokia company of black
colour old and used, model No. 5110 made in
Finland CE 0188X no. 490541/30/26305416 is
written. Code No. 0502182 is written. B.L. is
written on the mobile in red ink and on its battery a
no. 97321820 is written with red ink. (some portion
not illegible).
''
8. He would then point out that the High Court, in the recital of
circumstances, has found that a Cell Phone Number 9928120429 was
found missing, and then he points out the eighth circumstance, which is
noted by the Court, is that one mobile phone, bearing SIM Number
97321820, was recovered from the appellant. Therefore, the phone that
was seized from the appellant was not the phone number which was
mentioned by the son of the deceased, PW-3, as was being used by his
father. He further pointed out about the mysterious maxi found at the
premises. In this regard, we may notice the following findings by the
Trial Court:
 "It is argued on behalf of defence that one blood stained and
sleeveless maxi of white colour having lines of brown colour, the
lower portion of the same is blood stained and the same is used is
seized by the police wide Ex P-6 from the place of occurrence,
while there was no woman present at the place of occurrence. In
such a situation, on account of seizure of maxi from the place of
occurrence, the presence of any woman at the time of the incident
is proved, but who was that woman, the prosecution did not produce
any evidence in this regard hence, the prosecution case is doubtful.
Only recovery/ seizure of blood stained maxi from the place of
occurrence does not make doubtful to the prosecution case. Human
blood was detected on the shirt of deceased and on the said maxi,
there is no evidence that there was blood of any other person on
the maxi. Because the wife of the deceased Rukmani Sharma is
alive and Rukmani Sharma (Pw-8) has admitted in her cross
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
281
examination that she used to go occasionally to the house/ place
of occurrence at Bilaua. In this sitation where there are visits of
the wife of deceased in the house then this probability could not
be denied that the said maxi would be of the wife of the deceased.
In this situation from the seizure of maxi from place occurrence
the incident could not be doubtful."
9. He would point out that the Investigating Officer admitted that
he did not carry out any investigation regarding the maxi. He would
further contend that there is no evidence, as far as the appellant is
concerned, to convict him of the offences. The evidence, even according
to the prosecution witnesses, show that the other accused, viz., Veeru,
Virendra and Kalli, were known to the prosecution witnesses as persons
who would frequent the house of the deceased. As far as the appellant
is concerned, there is no such evidence. In short, the contention is that
the case is one where the appellant is convicted without any evidence
and the injustice may be set right.
10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State supported the
judgment.
11. As already noticed the appellant stands convicted under Section
460, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 394 read with
Section 34 of the IPC. This is besides convicting the appellant under
Sections 13 and 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Adhiniyam. The case hinges
entirely on circumstantial evidence. Though eleven circumstances have
been enlisted by the High Court, the circumstances Nos. 2 and 3 relate
to the prosecution version as to the discovery of the death of the deceased
by his son and his wife. They relate to going to the place of his residence,
finding out the dead body and the lodging of the FIR. Circumstance No.
5 also does not amount to a circumstance. Equally, we are not convinced
that the circumstance No. 7, viz., that the accused cannot get benefit for
the inaction/latches of the investigation, can amount to a piece of
circumstantial evidence for the prosecution to discharge its burden to
prove the case against the accused.
12. The circumstances, which can be culled out, can be put as
follows:
The deceased died in his house where he was living alone,
as a result of shock and hemorrhage from 6 incised wounds as
noticed and proved by medical evidence. The death is homicidal
SONU @ SUNIL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[K. M. JOSEPH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
too. There were valuable articles, namely, a silver necklace, gold
earring and two mobile phones which were found missing too.
These articles have been recovered from the accused as already
mentioned. A knife stood recovered from Kalli, one of the accused.
The other valuable articles identified by the closed relative, namely,
his wife and his son stood recovered. From the articles so
recovered, one mobile phone was recovered from the appellant.
13. There is evidence of prosecution witnesses that out of the
five accused, viz., Kalli, Veeru and Virendra used to frequent the house
of the deceased. The over hearing of the conversation by PW-5 amongst
the accused prior to the death of the deceased about their plans to commit
loot/theft from the house of the deceased is another circumstance relied
upon.
WHETHER A MOBILE PHONE WAS RECOVERED BASED
ON STATEMENT BY APPELLANT
14. PW12 has deposed that on 01.11.2008, after arresting the
appellant and on enquiry in custody, he (appellant) made Statement-P13
to the effect that the looted mobile seized was hidden on the loft of his
room and he would recover the same. He further deposed that appellant
took the looted mobile from the loft and he prepared the Seizure Memo.
In the cross-examination, he states that the seized mobile was of the
deceased. He further stated that no documents were produced. He
denied that he had planted the mobile from anywhere and false
proceedings have been done. PW7 has been examined to prove, inter
alia, that he was called to the Police Station, and after 15 to 20 days of
the proceedings relating to the recovery of the knife from Kalli, enquiry
was made from the person, who he has told was Sonu-appellant. On
making enquiry, he gave an information in respect of the mobile. He
deposed that he has signed on the Statement-P13 [the Statement
purportedly to be under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(hereinafter referred to as, 'the Evidence Act', for short)]. He also admits
that he had signed on the Seizure Memo prepared based on the
Statement-P14. Thus, PW7 and PW12 prove that a statement was given
by the appellant while in custody. Based on the statement, a mobile
phone was recovered from the appellant. The recovery was from his
house. It was not from an open space.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
283
WHETHER
RECOVERED
PHONE
PROVED
AS
BELONGING TO THE DECEASED. EVIDENCE RELATED TO
THE MOBILE PHONE, RECOVERED FROM THE APPELLANT
15. PW3-son of the deceased has this to say:
On 10.09.2008, his brother told him that some persons had
committed murder of his father causing injuries with sharp-edged
weapon and took away goods/articles from the almirah. Along
with this, they also took away two mobile phones of his father.
The mobile phone of his father is 940655863866 which is of BSNL.
The sim of the same has been issued either from Dabra or Bilaua
(We are not concerned with this phone as this phone has been
recovered from another accused).
What is stated next is as follows:
The other phone bearing number 9920121429 make of MNokia was fitted with square LKD Red LED which had a light
while charging the mobile. The mobile was bought by him at
Bombay prior to three months ago when his father came to Bombay
so that information about him could be communicated. He,
however, also says in his cross-examination that he had stated in
his statement to the Police that when his father came to Bombay,
then, he had given him another phone of make Nokia which had
LED and showing light while charging the mobile. The mobile
number of the other phone was mentioned in Exhibit D1. He is
unable to explain as to why if such statement is not found in the
statement given by him to the Police. He said that again he is
unable to give the reason as to why it is not mentioned in the
statement to the Police that he had stated that the father had two
sims out of which one was of Vodafone which was purchased
from Bombay. Lastly, he states in further cross as follows:-
"Cross-examination by Sh. A.K. Shrotiya, Advocate for
Sunu@Sunil.
I could not tell the date on which I had given mobile phone to
my father the above said mobile I had purchased from Mahesh
Gahera, Mahesh Gahera is residing Bombay he lived at Bandra
the same was given in gift the EMI of the same. I could not tell
today I can not produce a receipt of the same as I was given
the above said mobile as gift to me by Mahesh Gahera, he
SONU @ SUNIL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[K. M. JOSEPH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
deals in mobile phone he as several sets of the same. My father
had another mobile phone made of Nokia EMI no of the same
I would not tell I neither have receipt of the same nor I could
produce the same."
16. PW9 is another son of the deceased, who has identified the
mobile phones. This is what he has to say in regard to the mobile phones:
The mobiles were of black colour and having old antenna.
On the battery of one mobile A-9406586386 is written in red ink
and on the other mobile on the back side it is written capital 'BL',
in English and number 97321820 was written with red marker.
He says that after 8 to 10 days, when they checked the goods,
they came to know that some articles had been stolen. He further
states that they had informed the Police by that day about the
theft of the mobiles. He and his mother went to identify the goods.
His mother was called first and he went later.
It is to be remembered that PW3 says he had given the
mobile in question prior to 3 months ago when deceased came to
Bombay. The deceased was staying alone. It is PW9 now who
has identified by the number written in the battery.
17. PW8 is the mother. She says first, on the next day, Police
Officer came and they opened the room and they saw that almirah was
opened and articles were scattered. Out of the articles, one hensli
(necklace made of silver), gold earrings and two mobile phones of Nokia
Company, were stolen. Except this, no article was stolen. She says that
identification of the articles was got done by her. In cross-examination
on behalf of Kali alias Gopal, she says that on 11th or 12th, she came to
know about the articles which were stolen. She says that in her statement
to the Police, she has stated that on the next day of incident, the almirah
was opened and the articles were scattered and, then, she came to know
that her goods had been stolen. She had not made any complaint anywhere
in respect of her stolen goods. She denies allegation that they have
concocted a false story of goods being stolen after 8 to 10 days of the
incident for creating evidence. In this regard, it may be noticed that in
the evidence of PW9-son, he has stated that after going to the lower
room on the next day, he saw the almirah on that day. Articles were
lying outside. Therefore, they guessed that something had been stolen.
At that time, it could not be known what had been stolen. After 8 to 10
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
285
days, when they checked the goods, they came to know that some articles
had been stolen.
18. In the Recovery Memo of the phone from the appellant, it is
stated as follows:
One mobile phone of Nokia company of black colour mode
no. 5110, made in Finland, followed by a certain number, code
number is shown as 0502182 was written, BL is written on the
mobile in red ink and, on its battery, the number 97321820 is written
with red ink.
19. According to the deposition of PW3, the recovery of phone
which is attributed from the appellant, was bearing number 9920121429.
The High Court has, in the impugned judgment, found that another Cell
Phone Number 9928120429, which was made available by his son-PW3,
was found missing. Thereafter, the finding by the High Court is that D.P.
Sharma, ASI arrested the accused and on 02.11.2008 recovered from
him one mobile phone bearing sim number 97321820. It is clear that the
finding by the High Court that recovery was made from the appellant of
one mobile phone sim number 97321820, is clearly contrary to the version
of PW3 who purchased or was gifted the phone which he allegedly
gave to his father. Even, according to the Recovery Memo, the Number
97321820 is shown as the number on the battery of the mobile phone.
The number, which is allegedly provided by PW3, is the Number
9920121429.
20. In Ashish Jain v. Makrand Singh and others1, it is held as
follows:
"28. We find substance in the argument of the learned Amicus
Curiae that this identification was not done in accordance with
due procedure. It is evidence from the testimony of several of the
examined pledgors, such as PWs 15, 16 and 28, that the
identification procedure was conducted without mixing the
recovered jewellery with similar or identical ornaments...."
21. In this case also in regard to the mobile phone only the two
mobiles were kept for identification and it was purportedly identified as
noticed by PW9 besides PW8. In the identification conducted by PW13,
1 (2019) 3 SCC 770
SONU @ SUNIL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[K. M. JOSEPH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
it is come out that two mobile phones were not mixed with any other
mobile phones.
22. What is the effect of recovery of the mobile proceeding on
the basis that it belonged to the deceased? Section 114 of the Evidence
Act with illustration (a) reads as follows:
"114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. -
The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks
likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course
of natural events, human conduct and public and private business,
in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
Illustrations
The Court may presume-
(a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after
the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing
them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;"
23. The scope of this provision has been considered by this Court
on various occasions. In Sunder Lal alias Sundera v. State of Madhya
Pradesh2, both the accused and deceased were seen together. After the
alleged murder, the accused went with the article belonging to the
deceased for pledging/selling it. In the circumstances, the Court took the
view that the ornaments were established to be the ornaments worn by
the deceased. No explanation was forthcoming how the accused came
to be in possession on the very same day on which the alleged murder
was committed. On this, the Court took the view that the conviction
under Section 302 of the IPC, based on the circumstances, was correct.
24. On the other hand, in Sanwant Khan and another v. State of
Rajasthan3, one Mahant Ganesh Das, who was a wealthy person, used
to live in a temple of Shri Gopalji along with another person. Both of
them were found dead. The house had been ransacked and boxes and
almirah opened. It was not known at the time who committed the offence.
Investigation resulted in arrest of the appellant, and on the same day, he
produced a gold khanti from his bara, where it was found buried in the
ground. Another accused produced a silver plate. The Court found that
there was no direct evidence.