Can a Mere Threat Prove Murder Conspiracy? Supreme Court Says No in 2006 Murder Case

"We are of the firm view that there exist no valid grounds that would justify upsetting and reversing the acquittal of the respondents. On a careful consideration of the evidence and materials available on record, we find no infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment and order dated 14th December, 2011 warranting interference," the bench observed.

Court also held that a mere threat to inflict harm may constitute an incriminating circumstance, but in isolation, the said circumstance would fall woefully short of proof of conspiracy to commit murder.

The trial court had attributed different theories of motive to the accused-respondents. For Hemlata and Narpat Choudhary, one alleged motive was that the deceased, Suresh Sharma, used to visit Hemlata's house frequently, causing disturbance to her and her husband, Narpat Choudhary, who therefore intended to get rid of him. As regards respondent Bhanwar Singh, it was held that he had an ongoing land dispute with one Sayri Devi, and the deceased Suresh took sides with Sayri Devi and threatened Bhanwar Singh with dire consequences, giving Bhanwar Singh a grudge.

Fuelled by these motives, the accused-respondents allegedly knitted a criminal conspiracy to kill the deceased Suresh. To execute the nefarious plan, they purportedly hired professional killers from Uttar Pradesh with the connivance of Dhanesh, who is said to be Hemlata's brother. On the fateful evening, the deceased Suresh was allegedly lured to Hemlata's residence, where he was strangled to death. Subsequently, the dead body was placed in a Maruti van owned by Narpat Choudhary and abandoned on the roadside after efforts were made to efface the identity in order to escape detection.

However, the Supreme Court noted that Navneet, the deceased's son, had stated in unequivocal terms that the deceased Suresh and respondent Hemlata maintained good relations, with no dispute or tension between them. Navneet denied having knowledge about any kind of exploitation or victimisation of Hemlata by his father. Furthermore, Meena Sharma, Suresh's wife, also did not state anything that could give rise to an inference of motive against Hemlata. Rather, she stated that respondents Hemlata and Narpat Choudhary used to visit the deceased Suresh in the capacity of his clients, and there was no other relation between them.

Court found that there was no substantive evidence whatsoever on record to prove that any person by the name Dhanesh, alleged to be Hemlata's brother, had actually called on the landline number operational in the deceased-Suresh's house. The bench stressed that if the prosecution had wished to prove this fact, the relevant call detail records, supported by the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, had to be brought on record and proved as per law. However, this evidence was totally lacking from the side of the prosecution, it said. The high court was found to be rightly suspicious of the conduct of witness Hukum Singh, who claimed to have seen the deceased going to the accused couple's house but kept silent for more than a month before disclosing this to the police.

Regarding the recovery of a chunni with human blood, the bench said the said recovery was insignificant and did not connect respondent Hemlata with the murder of the deceased Suresh in any manner. This was primarily because no opinion was obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the group of blood found on the chunni, the court added.

Court pointed out that the high court had also noted that the fact that the chunni was recovered from the house, which remained unlocked till the police brought back respondents Hemlata and Narpat Choudhary for inspection, rendered the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act irrelevant, as it was effectively recovered from a place accessible to all and sundry.

The bench also noted the prosecution relied upon additional circumstances to connect respondent Narpat Choudhary with the crime: the recovery of the visitors entry register from Hotel Taj and Hotel Raneja, Jodhpur, based on disclosures by Narpat Choudhary; call details records purportedly proving telephonic conversations between respondents Bhanwar Singh and Narpat Choudhary just before and after the commission of the crime; recovery of the Maruti van in which the deceased-Suresh's dead body was allegedly transported, and the presence of blood stains on the seat cover and mats of the vehicle.

The high court, after threadbare discussion of evidence, held that the entries in the registers in no manner connected respondent Narpat Choudhary with the persons (hired killers) who allegedly stayed at these two hotels. The prosecution failed to lead any evidence to establish that Narpat Choudhary had facilitated the stay of the so-called hired killers in the hotels.

"We find the said finding of the High Court to be unimpeachable," the bench stated. On the recovery of the Maruti van, the court felt this also did not provide any succour to the prosecution’s case, as no witness saw Suresh Sharma's dead body being moved in the vehicle. The blood stains allegedly found at various places in the vehicle did not give any positive conclusion for blood grouping during serological examination. Hence, the said recovery also became inconsequential, it held.

On the call details record, court found the high court's view as unassailable. The non-production of the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, and the call detail records being presented through a handwritten note without examining the scribe thereof, led to an inescapable conclusion that the call details were not proved as per law, it said.

Court thus held the high court was fully justified in holding that no satisfactory evidence was led by the prosecution so as to establish the complicity of respondents Hemlata and Narpat Choudhary for the alleged murder of the deceased-Suresh. It also found no sufficient evidence to convict Bhanwar Singh in the case.