CASE BRIEF: SONU v. STATE OF M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 705

CASE NAME	Sonu v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 705
CITATION	2020 SCC OnLine SC 473
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
APPELLANT	Sonu @ Sunil
RESPONDENT	State of Madhya Pradesh
DECIDED ON	29th May 2020

INTRODUCTION

The appellant, Sonu alias Sunil, was tried alongside four other people for serious offenses under the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the case of Sonu @ Sunil vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, which the Supreme Court of India decided on May 29, 2020. In addition to Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Adhiniyam, the accusations included Sections 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), 460 (all those jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking), and 302 read with Section 34 (murder with common aim) of the IPC.

The appellant was found guilty on all counts by the trial court, which also sentenced him to death for the offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, fines, and harsh imprisonment on the other charges. Following an appeal, the High Court upheld the convictions and punishments on the other charges while commuting the death sentence to life in prison and raising the fine to ₹25,000.

Bharosilal, the deceased, was discovered slain in his home in Bilaua village on the evening of September 8, 2008, which served as the basis for the prosecution’s case. Following the investigation, the appellant and co-accused were taken into custody and charged with the previously indicated charges.

Important legal issues pertaining to the evaluation of circumstantial evidence and the vicarious liability rules under Section 34 of the IPC are highlighted in this case. The Supreme Court’s analysis of these factors offers important new perspectives on how common intention is applied in criminal law.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Sonu, also known as Sunil, the appellant, was prosecuted for major charges under the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with four other co-accused. In addition to Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Adhiniyam, the accusations included Sections 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), 460 (all those jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking), and 302 read with Section 34 (murder with common aim) of the IPC.

ISSUES RAISED

Was Bharosilal murdered by the accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Sonu @ Sunil, and Hariom on the day of the incident, after nightfall and before morning, after they had committed house tress age in the deceased Bharosilal’s residential house?
Did the accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Sonu @ Sunil, and Hariom have a shared plan to kill Bharosilal?
Did the accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Hariom, and Sonu @ Sunil murder Bharosilal by strangling him and slitting him with a chhuri (knife) as part of a shared plan?
Whether Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Hariom, and Sonu @ Sunil killed Bharosilal, stole gold and silver jewelry, and stole two Nokia cell phones from Bharosilal’s possession by robbing him with lethal weapons.
Was there a plot to loot the home of Bharosilal by accused Veeru and Virendra, as well as accused Kalli @ Gopal Sharma, Hariom, and Sonu @ Sunil, at the residence of accused Virendra Singh, Kushmah?
Did the accused individuals violate both Section 11/13 of the aforementioned Act and the offenses described and detailed under Section 2(b) of the MPDVPK Act?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

The learned senior counsel will argue that there is insufficient evidence to convict the appellant of the crimes for which he was found guilty. He claimed that the Court’s lower court had erred in relying on PW-5, who was supposedly outside one of the five accused people’s homes and overheard their talk. The testimony could hardly be trusted, he notes.
It is noted that PW-1, who the prosecution used as evidence of the aforementioned conversation, did not follow the narrative that was intended to be ascribed to him. The likelihood of PW-5 overhearing any such talk is quite low.
He drew attention to a glaring disparity in the appellant’s recovery of the cell phone. According to the memorandum pertaining to the purported recovery of the mobile phone, the appellant stole one of the deceased’s Nokia phones and concealed it on his home’s roof.
Regarding the Maxi, the investigating officer acknowledged that he did not make any inquiries. He would further argue that, in the appellant’s opinion, there is insufficient evidence to find him guilty of the offenses.
Even according to the prosecution witnesses, the evidence indicates that the other accused, Veeru, Virendra, and Kalli, were known to them as people who frequently visited the deceased’s home. According to the appellant, there isn’t any such proof. In summary, the argument is that the injustice may be corrected because the appellant was found guilty in this case without any supporting evidence.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

Learned Counsel supported the judgment of the High Court.

JUDGMENT

The appellant and others were charged under IPC Section 34. The Trial Court found a criminal conspiracy to commit robbery. Section 34 states vicarious criminal culpability. The Section’s core and the premise that grounds criminal culpability for another’s acts is shared intention to commit an offense. The shared aim must be for the accused’s crime. Though there is an accusation of strangulation, the death was caused by knife injuries. Allegedly, Kalli carried and used the knife. The knife was also recovered from him, which makes it unsafe to convict the appellant of the charges he is found guilty of, including Section 302 of the IPC, based only on the recovery of the mobile phone, which is suspect and doubtful. Thus, for the appellant, the proof against him is the recovery of the mobile phone and the dispute about the number. PW5 did not adopt the appellant’s name. To conclude the chain of circumstances, PW5 and the recovery are used. We noticed PW5’s testimony. The appellant, 2004 (3)SCC 793, was not listed as a frequent visitor to the deceased’s father, but Veeru, Kalli, and Virendra were. The appellant claims the accused had no Test Identification Parade. Depositions of PW5 were cited.

Given the evidence, the Court believed it would be unsafe to uphold the appellant’s conviction. Allow him the benefit of the doubt. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be acquitted and the assailed judgment set aside. Bail bond discharged for appellant. If no other case requires his imprisonment, he will be released.

CONCLUSION

Due to the fact that the prosecution’s case was constructed purely on circumstantial evidence, it will be necessary to conduct a comprehensive analysis of each link in the chain of events. The Court highlighted that in order to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstances, when regarded as a whole, unmistakably lead towards the guilt of the accused and are irreconcilable with any hypothesis of innocence.

The sequence of events that led to the discovery of the deceased person’s body, the recovery of stolen objects, and the appellant’s claimed involvement were all reviewed by the court in this particular instance. It was recognized that the prosecution did not succeed in establishing a continuous sequence of events that would have conclusively demonstrated the appellant’s involvement in the activity that was being investigated. It is important to note that no direct evidence might determine whether or not the appellant was present at the site of the offense at the relevant time.

In addition, the Court investigated the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which addresses actions carried out by multiple individuals with the intention of achieving a common goal. It was brought to everyone’s attention that the simple presence at the scene or association with the co-accused is not sufficient to trigger Section 34 unless there is clear proof of a pre-arranged plan and active participation in the crime. Such evidence was judged to be absent in this particular instance.

It was determined by the Supreme Court that the convictions and sentences that were handed down by the lower courts should be overturned because there was not enough evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the crime. All of the accusations against the appellant were dismissed, and the court ordered that they be released immediately, unless they were forced to do so in connection with another case. This ruling highlights the utmost significance of adhering to the rules of criminal jurisprudence, notably the requirement of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in situations that rely entirely on circumstantial evidence like the one in this case.