# STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1155
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-12-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2248 of 2010
- **Bench:** Indu Malhotra, R. Subhash Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-nct-of-delhi-v-shiv-charan-bansal-ors-33637
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

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 faci

## Text

_Characters 0–39,853 of 70,502. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39853 for what follows._

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 instant appeal by the State
and the complainant - Held: The present case is one where the
prosecution has alleged that there was a criminal conspiracy to
murder the deceased by all the accused - The crime was not
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1157
committed at the spur of the moment, but was preceded by
meticulous planning where each of the accused played a separate
role to achieve the common illegal object of carrying out the
murder of the deceased - The manner and circumstances in which
the offence was committed, and the level of involvement of the
accused persons were relevant factors - Each conspirator played
his separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve
the common purpose - Each one was aware that he has a part to
play in the general conspiracy, to accomplish the common object
- Conspiracy is mostly proved by circumstantial evidence by taking
into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances indicating
the guilt of the accused, rather than adopting an approach by
isolating the role played by each of the accused - The acts or
conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer
their concurrence as to the common design and its execution - In
cases of criminal conspiracy, better evidence than acts and
statements of co-conspirators is hardly ever available - There was
ample material brought on record which created a grave suspicion
about the involvement of SCB, LM, SS in the murder of the deceased
- Accordingly, Sessions Court is directed to frame charges against
SCB under s.302 r/w s.34 IPC and s.120B and s.201; LM under
s.302 r/w s.34 and s.120B; and against SS under s.302 r/w s.34
and s.120B and ss.25, 27, 54 and 59 of Arms Act - Penal Code,
1860 - s.302 r/w s.34.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.227, 228 - Scope of
- Held: The Court while considering the question of framing
charges under s.227 has the power to sift and weigh the evidence
for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case has been made out against the accused - If the material
placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the
accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be
fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial -
At this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and
cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is
being conducted.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.223, 386, 391 - Held:
s.223 provides that persons accused of the same offence, committed
in the course of the same transaction, must be jointly charged and
tried - In the instant case, on account of the inconsistency in
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
framing charges by the Sessions Court against the six accused, the
trial got truncated - The trial with respect to three accused i.e. SB,
NM and JSS proceeded in the absence of the other three accused
viz. SCB, LM and SS - This was a case of criminal conspiracy
based on circumstantial evidence - Since the trial in the instant
case got truncated, it is necessary that the trial of the remaining
three accused proceeds forthwith in accordance with law - With
respect to the other three accused i.e. SB, NM and JSS the trial
was conducted in the absence of the other three alleged coconspirators - The order of acquittal with respect to SB and NM
is pending before the High Court - s.386 defines the powers of
the appellate court in dealing with appeals - Under clause (a) of
s.386, the High Court may reverse the order of acquittal and direct
that further enquiry be made, or the accused may be re-tried, or
may find him guilty and pass sentence thereon - As an appellate
Court, the High Court may take further evidence while considering
the appeals under s.391, if it is considered necessary, and take
additional evidence on record. The High Court may also permit
recording of statements under s.313 if considered necessary - High
Court may take up the pending appeals in the case of SB, NM and
JSS, after the conclusion of the trial of SCB, LM and SS, the
remaining accused by the Sessions Court in this case.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C.
At the stage of framing charges under S.227 and S.228 Cr.P.C,
the Court is required to consider whether there was sufficient
material on record to frame charges against accused-SCB,
accused-SS, accused-LM and accused-RS. The prosecution
alleged that the offences u/S. 120B, S.302 r.w. S.120B/34, S.201
IPC and S.25 of the Arms Act ought to have been framed. The
Court while considering the question of framing charges under
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C has the power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The
test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts
of each case. If the material placed before the court discloses
grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly
explained, the court will be fully justified in framing charges and
proceeding with the trial. The probative value of the evidence
brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1159
charges. The Court is required to evaluate the material and
documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be
a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter, the
evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted.
[Para 32] [1175-B-F]
1.2 Criminal Conspiracy. The present case is one where
the prosecution has alleged that there was a criminal conspiracy
to murder the deceased by all the accused. The crime was not
committed at the spur of the moment, but was preceded by
meticulous planning where each of the accused have played a
separate role to achieve the common illegal object of carrying
out the murder of the deceased. A criminal conspiracy is
generally hatched in secrecy, and it is difficult, if not impossible,
to obtain direct evidence. The manner and circumstances in
which the offence has been committed, and the level of
involvement of the accused persons are relevant factors. Each
conspirator plays his separate part in one integrated and united
effort to achieve the common purpose. Each one is aware that
he has a part to play in the general conspiracy, to accomplish
the common object. In the facts of the instant case, there was
ample material brought on record which created a grave
suspicion about the involvement of SCB, LM, SS in the murder
of the deceased. [Para 32] [1176-D-G; 1177-A-F]
Accused-SCB. Both the Sessions Court and the High
Court have noted that all the witnesses have clearly attributed
the murder to SCB and his son SB. The motive of the crime
was to misappropriate the investments made by the deceased
in the committees of SCB. The son of the deceased has further
deposed that the further circumstance was on account of the
business dealings between the families of the deceased and SCB.
As per the case of the prosecution, the murder was contrived
by SCB and his son SB with NM and the other co-conspirators
being LM who arranged the contract killer-JSS, SS who provided
the weapon of offence which was recovered from his office, along
with live cartridges. The contemporaneous Call Detail Records
(CDRs) between SB and NM, who accompanied JSS-the contract
killer, would constitute strong material for framing the charge
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
against all the accused. The murder took place at about 4:30
p.m. NM from his cell phone made a call at 3:51 p.m. to SB on
his cell phone prior to the execution of the crime. After the
murder was committed, NM called SB on his cell phone at 4:48
p.m. These call records in quick succession immediately before
and after the murder was committed, lead to a grave suspicion
about the complicity of these accused. The Call Detail Records
reveal that the accused were in close contact and communication
with each other both before and after the occurrence. The record
of the Sessions Court show that the Call Detail Records of SCB,
which was a crucial piece of evidence was deliberately not placed
by the I.O. along with the Charge Sheet. The missing Call Detail
Records of only SCB creates a strong suspicion against him. The
records of the committees run by SCB were allegedly destroyed.
This would create a strong suspicion about the conduct of SCB.
In his disclosure statement, SCB stated that he had all the
records of the committees. However, two days later, he changed
his version and stated that the committee records have been
destroyed by his son SB. The prosecution has alleged that the
records of the committees were burnt/destroyed by the fatherson duo. The destruction of the records of the committees, which
would have revealed the substantial investments made by the
deceased is an incriminating factor. The conduct of SCB after
the murder was committed, is also of relevance. The police
apprehended SB on 29.03.2006 from his factory. SCB remained
absconding after the murder was committed on 21.03.2006, and
did not join the investigation despite efforts by the Police. He
was apprehended after more than one month. The said
circumstance of absconding immediately after the murder was
committed, would be admissible as relevant 'conduct' u/S.8 of
the Evidence Act. The materials gathered by the prosecution
raise a strong suspicion against both SCB and his son SB in
hatching the conspiracy for the murder of the deceased. [Para
32] [1179-A-H; 1180-A-H; 1181-A]
Accused-LM - The prosecution relied upon the statement
of nephew of the deceased. The said witness in his statement
u/S. 161 Cr.P.C, which was recorded soon after the murder
stated that NM, LM, SB and his friends used to threaten him
over the phone. The disclosure statement made by NM reveals
that initially he had asked LM to carry out the murder. LM had
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1161
full knowledge of the criminal conspiracy hatched to murder the
deceased. Soon after the murder took place, NM and LM were
absconding. Since LM did not join the investigation after the
commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused in
absconding would be admissible as relevant 'conduct' u/S. 8 of
the Indian Evidence Act. On 29.03.2006 i.e. eight days after the
murder tookplace, three of the accused viz. NM, LM and RS
were apprehended by the police while they were travelling in
an Esteem car. The police recovered incriminating objects i.e.
photo of the deceased which was given to the contract killer for
identification, goggles and black cap worn by the contract killerJSS to conceal his identity, from the car. The Call Detail Records
of LM reveal that from his cell phone, he was in communication
with JSS on his cell prior and subsequent to the commission of
the crime. The Courts below were unjustified in not framing the
charges u/S., 302 r.w. S.34, S120B IPC against accused LM.
[Para 32] [1181-F-G; 1182-A-F]
Accused-SS - As per the case of the prosecution, accusedSS provided the weapon of offence. Furthermore, after the crime
was committed, SS remained absconding for a period of 75 days.
The recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. an unlicensed 7.65
mm bore pistol along with two live cartridges from the office of
this accused creates a strong suspicion of his involvement in the
conspiracy. The Ballistic Report has certified that the three used
cartridges recovered from the site of occurrence, and the lead
retrieved from the body of the deceased, matched with the live
cartridges recovered from the house of accused-SS and were
fired from the unlicensed pistol recovered from house of
accused- SS. The circumstance of the weapon of offence being
found in the custody and possession of SS would be admissible
as "conduct" under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act,
irrespective of the statements made by the co accused. The
crucial recovery of the weapon of offence from the house of SS
was a very important circumstance in the chain of events, which
was sufficient to proceed against him in trial u/S. 302 r.w. S.34
and 120B IPC. The call detail records produced before the
Sessions Court, reveals the communication between NM and SS
on the date of the murder, which is relevant material as per
Section 8 of the Evidence Act. It is surprising that the Sessions
Court and the High Court having accepted the recovery of the
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
unlicensed weapon from the office of SS, charged him only with
the offence u/S. 25 of the Arms Act. [Para 32] [1182-G-H; 1183A-H]
Accused-RS. With respect to the discharge of RS, the
Order of the Sessions Court and High Court is not disturbed,
as there is not sufficient material to prosecute him. [Para 32]
[1184-A]
Accused-NM - He was charged u/S. 302 r.w. S.34, S. 201
IPC and S. 25 and 29(b) of the Arms Act by the Sessions Court.
The Sessions Court acquitted him. The challenge against his
acquittal is pending determination. [Para 32] [1184-B-C]
Section 223 of the Cr.P.C. provides that persons accused
of the same offence, committed in the course of the same
transaction, must be jointly charged and tried. In the present
case, on account of the inconsistency in framing charges by the
Sessions Court against the six accused, the trial has got
truncated. The trial with respect to three accused i.e. SB, NM
and JSS has proceeded in the absence of the other three accused
viz. SCB, LM and SS. The present case is one of criminal
conspiracy based on circumstantial evidence. For a case of
criminal conspiracy to be established, each link in the chain of
circumstances would get completed, only if the evidence
collected by the prosecution against all the accused was taken
into consideration holistically. Since the trial in the present case
has got truncated, it is necessary that the trial of the remaining
three accused proceeds forthwith in accordance with law. With
respect to the other three accused i.e. SB, NM and JSS the trial
was conducted in the absence of the other three alleged coconspirators. The Order of acquittal with respect to SB and NM
is pending before the High Court. S.386 Cr.P.C. defines the
powers of the appellate court in dealing with appeals. Clause (a)
of S.386 Cr.P.C. is restricted to the powers of the High Court
since an appeal against an Order of acquittal lies to the High
Court. The appellate court may direct the accused to be re-tried,
not only when it deals with an appeal against acquittal, but also
when it deals with an appeal against conviction. Under clause
(a) the High Court may reverse the Order of acquittal and direct
that further enquiry be made, or the accused may be re-tried,
or may find him guilty and pass sentence thereon. As an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1163
appellate Court, the High Court may take further evidence while
considering the Appeals u/S.391 Cr.P.C, if it is considered
necessary, and take additional evidence on record. The High
Court may also permit recording of statements u/S.313 Cr.P.C,
if considered necessary. The High Court may take up the pending
appeals in the case of SB, NM and JSS, after the conclusion of
the trial of SCB, LM and SS, the remaining accused by the
Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts,
Delhi is directed to frame charges against SCB u/S. 302 r.w. S.34
IPC and S. 120B, and S.201 IPC and proceed with the trial in
accordance with law; against LM u/S. 302 r.w. S.34 IPC and
S.120B IPC and proceed with the trial in accordance with law
and SS u/S.302 r.w. 34 IPC and S. 120B IPC, and S. 25, 27, 54
and 59 of the Arms Act. [Para 32] [1184-D-H; 1185-A-E-G; 1186A-B]
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 :
[1978] 1 SCR 257 ; Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel
v. State of Gujarat and Another (2019) SCC Online
SC 588 ; Isaac alias Kishore v. Ronald Cheriyan & Ors
(2018) 2 SCC 278 : [2018] 1 SCR 217 ; Alister
Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC
648 : [2012] 1 SCR 145 ; Asraf Ali v. State of Assam
(2008) 16 SCC 328 : [2008] 10 SCR 1115 - relied
on.
State (NCT) of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru
(2005) 11 SCC 600 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 79 ; Kehar
Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) 3
SCC 609 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 24 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1978] 1 SCR 257
relied on
Para 32
[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 79
referred to
Para 32
[1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 24
referred to
Para 32
[2018] 1 SCR 217
relied on
Para 32
[2012] 1 SCR 145
relied on
Para 32
[2008] 10 SCR 1115
relied on
Para 32
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2248 of 2010.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2009 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 335 of 2008
With
Criminal Appeal No. 2247 of 2010.
Mrs. Aiswariya Bhati, R. Basant, Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advs., Braj
Kishore Mishra, Sanjiv Jha, Ms. Aparna Jha, Ms. Kriti Sondhi, Abhishek
Yadav, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Sachin Sharma, B. V. Balaram Das, Himanshu
Nailwal, Vishnu Pazhanganat, Ankur Garg (for Ms. Pallavi Pratap),
Sumeer Sodhi, Amitabh Sinha, Danish Aftab Chowdhury, Anil,
Imraj Rautela, Ankit Dhawan, Aroon Menon (for Yash Pal Dhingra),
V. K. Sidharthan, Vineet Bhagat, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeals have been filed by the State
(Criminal Appeal No. 2248 of 2010) and the complainant - Kanta Devi
(Criminal Appeal No. 2247 of 2010) to challenge the Order of
Discharge granted to Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann @ Nanhe,
Shailendra Singh and Rajbir Singh by the Delhi High Court.
2. The factual matrix from which the present Appeals arise from
is the filing of F.I.R No. 200/2006 by the Complainant Kanta Devi -
widow of late S.N. Gupta on 21.03.2006 with the Police Station
Mangolpuri, Delhi under Sections 120B, 302, 201 r.w. S.34 IPC and
Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act. The Complainant stated that
on 21.03.2006, she was in the house with her husband - S.N. Gupta.
At about 4:30 p.m., the doorbell rang, when a man aged between 25 to
30 years having a beard was standing at the gate, wearing spectacles
and a black cap on his head, carrying a bag on his shoulder. He said
that he had brought a courier from a bank addressed to S.N. Gupta,
and would hand it over to him personally. She informed her husband
about the courier. S.N. Gupta went to the main gate, while the informant
returned to the kitchen. She then heard the sound of 2 or 3 gunshots
from the gate. She rushed towards the gate and found that her husband
had fallen on the floor, and was bleeding on account of gunshot injuries.
She shouted for help, when the neighbours came and rushed her
husband to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he was declared dead. She
stated that she would be able to recognise the man who had shot her
husband.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1165
3. Sub-Inspector Dharambir Singh along with Constable Vijay
Kumar, and Constable Prasan Singh reached the spot, and recovered
3 used cartridges and blood-stained slippers from the scene of
occurrence.
4. On the date of occurrence, the I.O. recorded the statement
of Rajesh Gupta s/o the deceased u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. Rajesh Gupta
handed over the envelope to the Police which was carried by the
assailant addressed to his father S.N. Gupta at the time of the murder.
Rajesh Gupta clearly attributed the murder to Shiv Charan Bansal and
his son Sachin Bansal. He stated that he and his father S.N. Gupta
were members of several chit fund committees run by Shiv Charan
Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. Rajesh Gupta and his father S.N.
Gupta had put in a substantial amount of money in those committees.
He further stated that they were reluctant to return the money invested
in the committees to the deceased.
Rajesh Gupta further stated that he had entered into a
partnership with Sachin Bansal in the firm M/s Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd.,
which had its factory in Bahadurgarh. Rajesh Gupta stated that he
wanted to separate from the partnership because Shiv Charan Bansal
and his son Sachin Bansal had usurped the share of his father S.N.
Gupta - deceased and were now trying to usurp the factory at
Bahadurgarh. It was on account of these reasons that they have got
the murder of his father committed.
5. On the same date, the statement of Satish Gupta, brother of
the deceased was recorded u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that he
had invested in the committees run by Shiv Charan Bansal and his son
Sachin Bansal. He further stated that his brother late S.N. Gupta, had
invested large amounts of money in these committees. Shiv Charan
Bansal and his son were refusing to return the money owed to both
him and his brother. The deceased had told his brother that Shiv Charan
Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal wanted to grab the factory at
Bahadurgarh, and usurp a large amount of their share in the factory at
D-268, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, after the partnership had been
dissolved. He also attributed the murder of his brother - S.N. Gupta to
Shiv Charan Bansal and his son.
6. The statement of Suresh Gupta, other brother of the deceased
S.N. Gupta, was also recorded on the date of the occurrence u/S. 161
Cr.P.C. He stated that he was running his own business, and that
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL & ORS.
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann and their friends would make threatening
calls to his son Naveen Gupta for money. Subsequently, Suresh Gupta
also received threats from these persons, who visited his house several
times to threaten him and his son, and stated that they would kill them
and other family members. On the advice of his brother late S.N. Gupta,
a complaint was lodged against Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann and their
associates at Mangolpuri Police Station. He stated that his brother had
been killed by Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann and his friends.
7. Naveen Gupta @ Cheenu s/o Suresh Gupta, nephew of the
deceased S.N. Gupta, in his statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C, stated that he
had been receiving threats from Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann, Sachin
Bansal and their friends as being the cause for the murder of the
deceased.
8. On 01.06.2006, the statement of Ajit Prasad Gupta - third
brother of the deceased, was recorded u/S.164 Cr.P.C., wherein he
deposed that he had participated in various Chit Fund Committees run
by Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. He stated that his
brother late S.N. Gupta had invested in most of the Committees run
by Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal, who were refusing to return
the money invested by the deceased.
9. On 31.05.2006, the statement of an independent witness
Ashok Kumar Agarwal was recorded u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. The said witness
stated that he had invested money in the committees run by Shiv Charan
Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. He further deposed that the deceased
S.N. Gupta had also invested a large sum of money in almost all the
committees run by accused - Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin
Bansal.
10. On 22.03.2006, the post mortem of the deceased was carried
out at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, wherein it was
recorded that the deceased was brought dead at 4:50 p.m.
The Autopsy Surgeon found three entry wound points on the chest
of the deceased. The lead of the bullets were recovered and handed
over to the Police. The post mortem records that the death was caused
by the following firearm injuries to the chest:
(i) entry wound of firearm present on the chest of size
1.5 cm x 104, 6.5 cm from midline and 6 cm above and
1 cm medial to the lt nipple;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1167
(ii) entry wound of firearm present over outer and upper
margin of Lt arcola of size 1.3 cm x 0.5 cm with collar
of abrasion fracturing around that;
(iii) entry wound of firearm present over lt. Hypochondrium
of size 1.6 cm x 1.0 cm.
It was recorded that the cause of death was shock due to assault
by firearm and injury to the chest viscera and aorta.
The Police recovered the three used cartridges from the spot of
occurrence. The lead taken out from the body of the deceased - S.N.
Gupta was sent for forensic analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
11. During investigation, Sachin Bansal was arrested on
29.03.2006. His disclosure statement was recorded. Narendra Mann,
his brother Lalit Mann, and the advocate - Rajbir Singh were arrested
on the same date, when they were traveling in an Esteem Car bearing
No. DL 3C AG 6565. A black photo frame, a black cap, black goggles,
and a photo of the deceased were recovered from the Esteem Car.
12. Narendra Mann made a disclosure and showed the shop from
where he purchased the caps and the goggles. He offered to get
Shailendra Singh arrested, stating that it was Shailendra Singh who had
given the weapon of offence i.e. unlicensed pistol to be used for the
murder. Narendra Mann got the Getz car recovered from the house in
his village, in which the contract killer - Joginder Singh Sodhi allegedly
travelled to the site of occurrence to murder S.N. Gupta.
A second set of black cap and goggles were recovered from the
Getz car. Narendra Mann also offered to get Joginder Singh Sodhi -
the contact killer arrested.
13. The unlicensed pistol along with two live cartridges were
recovered from the office of accused - Shailendra Singh i.e. Flat No.
A-11/35, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi.
14. Disclosure Statements were made by Lalit Mann, Rajbir Singh
and Sachin Bansal on 29.03.2006.
15. On 30.03.2006, Joginder Singh Sodhi - the contract killer was
arrested.
The Test Identification Parade ("TIP") was conducted on
10.04.2006. Joginder Singh refused to participate in the judicial TIP.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL & ORS.
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
The Complainant - Kanta Devi identified him as the assailant
during the investigation of the case.
16. On 04.06.2006, Shailendra Singh was arrested. Shailendra
Singh identified the place from where the unlicensed pistol was
recovered.
17. During investigation, notice was issued to Shiv Charan Bansal
to join the investigation. However, Shiv Charan Bansal remained
absconding for over a month. He was apprehended on 25.04.2006.
18. During investigation, the Call Detail Records of the accused
were collected by the Investigating Officer on 09.06.2006.
We have perused the record of the Sessions Court, and find that
the Call Detail Records of Shiv Charan Bansal are missing from the
file.
19. The Charge Sheet was filed on 22.06.2006 against the
following 7 accused - Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann, Rajbir Singh -
advocate, Joginder Singh Sodhi, Sachin Bansal, Shiv Charan Bansal and
Shailendra Singh for offences under S.120B, 302, and 201 read with
S.34 IPC and S. 25 Arms Act.
20. The F.S.L Report records that the lead recovered from the
body of the deceased was fired from the pistol recovered from the
office of the accused - Shailendra Singh.
21. The envelope addressed to the deceased S.N. Gupta carried
by the contract killer - Joginder Singh Sodhi was recovered from Rajesh
Gupta s/o deceased S.N. Gupta. As per the report of the handwriting
expert, the specimen handwriting of Joginder Singh Sodhi matched the
writing on the envelope.
22. On 17.11.2006, the statement of Ramesh was recorded u/S.
161 Cr.P.C by the Police. He stated that he is a property dealer in Rohini,
Delhi and had arranged the flat for Shailendra Singh, which was
registered in the name of his wife Pooja Singh. Shailendra Singh used
the said flat for his financing business. The unlicensed pistol along with
two live cartridges were recovered from the office of Shailendra Singh.
23. The Forensic Report, Handwriting expert Report and the
Ballistic Report were placed on record along with a Supplementary
Charge on 26.11.2006.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1169
24. As per the case of the prosecution, the material gathered
during the investigation revealed a larger criminal conspiracy in which
all the accused persons had participated. Shiv Charan Bansal and his
son Sachin Bansal were in the business of running committees where
monies would be invested. S.N. Gupta - the deceased and his son
Rajesh Gupta had invested a substantial amount of money in these
committees. Rajesh Gupta had been in partnership with Shiv Charan
Bansal in a firm M/s Akash International which was subsequently
dissolved. Rajesh Gupta and Sachin Bansal were also running another
firm i.e. M/s. Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd., the factory of which was located
at Bahadurgarh. Rajesh Gupta and his father late S.N. Gupta had
invested a substantial amount of money in these businesses. The monies
invested in this firm by S.N. Gupta and his son were not returned by
Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal. The apprehension expressed
by deceased S.N. Gupta to his brother Suresh Gupta was that the
accused Shiv Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal might take over the
factory at Bahadurgarh. When S.N. Gupta and Rajesh Gupta would
demand return of their investment in the factory at Bahadurgarh, Shiv
Charan Bansal and Sachin Bansal would refuse on one pretext or the
other.
According to the prosecution, Narendra Mann had given seven
lakhs to Naveen Gupta - nephew of the deceased on the
recommendation made by Sachin Bansal. Together with interest, the
amount allegedly owed to Narendra Mann by Naveen Gupta worked
out to about fifteen lakhs. Narendra Mann demanded the amount owed
to him from Naveen Gupta and his father. Instead of repaying him the
money, they lodged a Complaint against him with the Police. Narendra
Mann spoke to Sachin Bansal, and asked him to return the monies which
were owed by Naveen Gupta, since he had lent the money only on
Sachin Bansal's recommendation.
As per the prosecution Sachin Bansal told Narendra Mann that
he too was owed money to the extent of over thirty lakhs by Naveen
Gupta.
A criminal conspiracy was hatched by Sachin Bansal and
Narendra Mann to eliminate S.N. Gupta, so that the monies invested
by S.N. Gupta in the committees run by his father Shiv Charan Bansal
and himself, could be retained by them, and he would then be able to
pay Narendra Mann the money owed to him by Naveen Gupta. Shiv
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL & ORS.
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
Charan Bansal offered to pay for the expenses involved in carrying
out the murder of S.N. Gupta.
As per the version of the prosecution, Narendra Mann agreed
to the above proposal. He first asked his cousin brother accused - Lalit
Mann to carry out the murder of S.N. Gupta by disguising himself as
a Sikh. After initially agreeing, Lalit Mann subsequently backed out.
Thereafter, Joginder Singh Sodhi, who was running a shop below the
house of Lalit Mann, was asked by Narendra Mann to execute the
murder of S.N. Gupta, which was agreed by him on payment of Rs. 2
lakhs. Joginder Singh Sodhi was shown the photograph of S.N. Gupta,
and the exact location of his house.
It is alleged by the prosecution that accused Rajbir Singh, an
advocate, had allegedly advised Narendra Mann that he should not use
his own licensed weapon for committing the murder, but should use an
unlicensed weapon identical to it, since the police would seek to connect
the cartridges recovered from the site with the weapon.
Pursuant to the above conspiracy, Sachin Bansal took out a photo
of S.N. Gupta from his marriage album, and gave it to Narendra Mann.
He also showed Narendra Mann the house of S.N. Gupta and informed
him of S.N. Gupta's daily routine and further informed him that he
receives couriers, packets/letters in connection with his investment in
shares.
On the date of offence i.e. 21.03.2006, pursuant to the above
criminal conspiracy, Narendra Mann borrowed the Getz car from his
cousin, and the unlicensed pistol from Shailendra Singh with five
cartridges. He then took Joginder Singh Sodhi to the place of occurrence
in his Getz car by making him wear the goggles and cap, and gave an
envelope to be given to S.N. Gupta. He parked the car near the
apartment, and was waiting inside the car, while Joginder Singh went
to the house of the deceased - S.N. Gupta. Joginder Singh caused the
murder of S.N. Gupta by shooting him at point blank range. Narendra
Mann then helped Joginder Singh to get away.
25. As per the version of the prosecution, the incident occurred
on 21.03.2006, at about 4:30 p.m. Just prior to the incident at 3:51 p.m.,
accused - Narendra Mann from his mobile phone bearing No.
9818411470, made a call to the mobile phone of Sachin Bansal bearing
No. 9818119624. After the murder was committed, the accused -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1171
Narendra Mann called the accused - Sachin Bansal at 4:48 p.m. The
call records reveal that the accused - Narendra Mann and Sachin
Bansal were in continuous contact with each other, before and after
the occurrence of the incident.
26. The prosecution urged that, a prima facie case for offences
under Section 120B IPC read with 302 r.w. 120B/34 IPC, Section 201
IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was made out against accused -
Shiv Charan Bansal, Shailendra Singh, Lalit Mann and Rajbir Malik.
27. The Sessions Court vide Order dated 17.03.2008 held:
(i) That on the basis of the material brought on record, and
the circumstances of the case, there was common
intention between Narendra Mann and Joginder Singh
Sodhi in the act of killing S.N. Gupta. The Sessions
Court directed that Joginder Singh Sodhi be charged u/
S. 302 read with S.34 IPC. Narendra Mann was
charged u/S. 302 read with S.34 IPC and for the
offence punishable u/S. 201 IPC for causing
disappearance of the weapon of the offence after
allegedly taking it from the alleged contract killer -
Joginder Singh Sodhi. Narendra Mann was further
charged u/S. 25 of the Arms Act as he got the firearm
and ammunition recovered from the office of co-accused
Shailendra Singh. The material on record prima facie
showed that Narendra Mann, who was holding a
licensed firearm, handed over the same to Sachin
Bansal along with ammunition, which was got recovered
from the factory of Sachin Bansal. He was also charged
u/S. 29B of the Arms Act.
(ii) The Sessions Court however discharged Lalit Mann of
the alleged Offences u/S. 120B, 302 r.w. S. 34, 201 IPC
and u/S. 25 Arms Act, on the ground that the only
evidence which the prosecution had been able to place
on the file against accused - Lalit Mann @ Nanhe is
that he was found travelling in an Esteem car with the
accused Narendra Mann on 29.03.2006, which was 8
days after the murder took place. It is the case of the
prosecution that initially Narendra Mann had asked Lalit
Mann to carry out the job of murdering of S.N. Gupta.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL & ORS.
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
He later backed out of the same. Thereafter, the job of
carrying out the murder was assigned to accused -
Joginder Singh Sodhi. This would indicate that Lalit
Mann had disassociated himself from the alleged
conspiracy.