Summary
Convictions arising from the abduction, confinement, murder and clandestine cremation of a former legislator were sustained. Credible accomplice testimony, recoveries, independent witnesses and a false death certificate established the prosecution case despite destruction of the body. Acquittal on conspiracy did not defeat liability for substantive offences or abetment. Two appeals were withdrawn; the remaining appeals were dismissed, with surrender directed within three weeks.
Issues
- How accomplice evidence and circumstantial corroboration should be assessed.
- Whether absence of the body prevented proof of murder.
- Whether conspiracy acquittals defeated the remaining convictions.
- Whether abduction and confinement followed by murder supported an inference against the accused.
Provisions considered
- Section 133 and section 114, illustration (b), Indian Evidence Act, 1872Competency of accomplices and the prudential requirement of corroboration were considered together. (¶¶ 59, 60, 65, 66, 67, 153)
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Applied after the prosecution established foundational facts of abduction, confinement and subsequent death; the prosecution retained its burden of proving guilt. (¶¶ 142, 143, 144, 153)
- Sections 107 and 109, Indian Penal Code, 1860Distinguished instigation, intentional aid and abetment by conspiracy; substantive and abetment liability survived conspiracy acquittals. (¶¶ 36, 44, 45, 46, 136, 138, 139, 148, 153)
- Sections 362, 364 and 365, Indian Penal Code, 1860Forced movement constituted abduction; differing purposes could attract both offences, with liability for aid supported under section 109. (¶¶ 75, 76, 77, 142, 150, 151, 153)
Held
- An accomplice is competent without a pardon. Ordinarily, credible accomplice evidence should receive independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused; every detail need not be separately proved. On these facts the witnesses were credible, and the convictions of A14 and A17 were sustained even without separate corroborative recoveries. (¶¶ 65, 66, 67, 122, 127, 144, 153)
- A witness statement recorded under section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence. It may corroborate or contradict the witness, but cannot alone sustain conviction when its maker resiles at trial. (¶¶ 68, 69, 70, 71)
- The false death certificate, evidence of cremation, independent witnesses and recoveries established the death and implicated the accused. Non-production of the body and absence of medical evidence did not defeat this circumstantial case; the disputed cassettes and handwritten paper were excluded by agreement. (¶¶ 105, 106, 110, 113, 114, 115, 121, 141)
- Acquittal of the appellants under section 120B and acquittal of A12 did not erase their proved criminal acts. The trial judgment was understood consistently with its substantive murder charge and findings; A5’s liability rested on abetment. (¶¶ 130, 131, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139)
- Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Once abduction and subsequent murder are established, the circumstances may justify an inference against abductors or those illegally confining the victim who fail to explain what happened. The inference depends on the facts and is not automatic. (¶¶ 142, 143, 144, 153)
- Both sections 364 and 365 may apply when the purposes of an abduction satisfy each provision. The convictions of A4, A11, A15, A16 and A17 under section 364 were maintained directly; those of the other appellants were supported through section 109. The identified charge defects caused no prejudice in this case. (¶¶ 146, 148, 150, 151, 153)
Result
Criminal Appeals 2007 and 2009 of 2017 dismissed as withdrawn; remaining appeals dismissed. Bail bonds cancelled and appellants on bail directed to surrender within three weeks to serve their sentences.