1    

        REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2248 OF 2010  

 State of NCT of Delhi                …Appellant  

Versus  

Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors.                                   …Respondents  

WITH  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2247 OF 2010  

Kanta Devi                 …Appellant  

    Versus  

State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.                …Respondents  

J U D G M E N T  

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    

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

3    

stated that she would be able to recognise the man who had  

shot her husband.  

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.

4    

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

5    

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 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

6    

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,

7    

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;  

(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.

8    

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.  

9    

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.  

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

10    

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

11    

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.   

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

12    

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

13    

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 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.

14    

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.

15    

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 – Narendra Mann called  

the accused – Sachin Bansal at 4:48 p.m. The call records  

reveal that the accused – Narendra Mann and Sachin Bansal

16    

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

17    

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. 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

18    

conspiracy. The disclosure statements of the accused  

persons including Narendra Mann and Lalit Mann are  

not sufficient evidence to connect the accused – Lalit  

Mann with the crime of killing S.N. Gupta.  

(iii) With respect to Rajbir Singh the prosecution referred to  

the disclosure statements made by the accused –  

Narendra Mann and Rajbir Singh, to show that it was  

on the advice of Rajbir Singh, that accused Narendra  

Mann did not use his licensed weapon for the offence.  

Narendra Mann was further advised by Rajbir Singh, to  

keep his licensed weapon in the factory of Sachin  

Bansal, and arrange an unlicensed pistol for the  

murder. It was further pointed out that at the time of  

arrest, Narendra Mann was travelling with Rajbir Singh,  

and that they were in constant touch with Rajbir Singh  

on the cell phone.   

The Sessions Court held that the disclosure  

statements made by the accused merely revealed that  

Rajbir Singh had tendered advice to Narendra Mann to  

the effect that he should not use his licensed pistol for  

carrying out the murder of S.N. Gupta. On the basis of

19    

the advice given by Rajbir Singh, accused – Narendra  

Mann kept his licensed pistol at the factory of Sachin  

Bansal, and arranged an unlicensed pistol from accused  

– Shailendra Singh.  Narendra Mann was apprehended  

while he was travelling with Rajbir Singh to the house of  

Sachin Bansal on 29.03.2006. The mere travelling of  

Rajbir Singh in a car with Narendra Mann could not be  

considered to be an offence.  

The seizure memo of the articles recovered from  

the car, did not bear the signature of Rajbir Singh. It  

was not the case of the prosecution that the car either  

belonged to Rajbir Singh, or that the goods recovered  

from the car were arranged or belonged to Rajbir Singh.  

The material placed on the file was not sufficient to  

frame charges against accused – Rajbir Singh.  

(iv) With respect to Shailendra Singh, the Sessions Court  

held that the unlicensed pistol along with two live  

cartridges were recovered from his office on the basis of  

the disclosure statement made by Narendra Mann. The  

Sessions Court held that the disclosure statement could  

not be relied upon as per Section 10 of the Evidence

20    

Act. There was no material to hold that Shailendra  

Singh had knowledge that the firearm that was being  

handed over to Narendra Mann would be used in the  

murder of S.N. Gupta.   

The Sessions Court charged Shailendra Singh only  

for the offence u/S. 25 of the Arms Act for keeping an  

unlicensed firearm in his possession.  

(v) With respect to the accused – Shiv Charan Bansal and  

Sachin Bansal, the prosecution placed reliance on the  

statements of Rajesh Gupta s/o the deceased, Naveen  

Gupta - nephew of the deceased, the statement of  

Satish Gupta and Suresh Gupta - brothers of the  

deceased, who disclosed the motive behind the murder  

on the very date of the murder itself. As per their  

statements, it was revealed that the deceased S.N.  

Gupta and his son – Rajesh Gupta, entered into  

partnerships in the firms M/s Akash International and  

M/s Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd, with Shiv Charan Bansal  

and his son. The Bansal father-son duo wanted to  

misappropriate the share of the deceased. The further  

case brought on record was that the deceased had

21    

invested a substantial amount of money in the  

committees organised by Shiv Charan Bansal, which he  

was refusing to return.   

The Sessions Court held that there may be a  

motive on the part of the accused persons in causing  

the death of S.N. Gupta, but motive alone was not  

sufficient to frame charges u/S. 302 IPC.   

The Sessions Court discharged Shiv Charan  

Bansal since the prosecution had collected evidence  

against him only in the form of disclosure statements  

from the accused persons after arrest. These disclosure  

statements are with respect to facts which came to light  

after the arrest of the accused persons. Section 10 of  

the Evidence Act does not permit the use of disclosure  

statements to connect the accused persons with the  

crime.   

(vi) The Sessions Court held that the prosecution has been  

able to make out a prima facie case to frame charges  

against accused – Sachin Bansal for the offence u/S. 25  

of the Arms Act, since Sachin Bansal got the licensed

22    

pistol belonging to accused – Narendra Mann recovered  

from his factory premises.   

The Sessions Court held that the prosecution failed to  

make out a prima facie case against accused – Rajbir  

Singh, Lalit Mann and Shiv Charan Bansal who were  

discharged.   

28. The State filed Crl. Revision Petition No. 335 of 2008 before  

the Delhi High Court, against the Judgment dated  

17.03.2008 passed by the Sessions Court to the extent that  

(i) the accused – Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann @ Nanhe  

and Rajbir Singh were wrongly discharged; (ii) accused –  

Shailendra Singh and Sachin Bansal were charged only for  

the offence under S.25 of the Arms Act, instead of S. 302 r.w.  

S. 120B IPC; (iii) accused - Narendra Mann and Joginder  

Singh Sodhi were charged under S.302 r.w. S.34 IPC,  

although they ought to have been charged under S.120B IPC.   

The complainant – Kanta Devi filed Crl. Revision Petition No.  

191 of 2008 praying for the same reliefs as the State.  

23    

29. Accused – Shailendra Singh filed Crl. Revision Petition No.  

430 of 2008 and a separate Crl. Revision Petition No. 405 of  

2008 was filed by accused – Sachin Bansal challenging the  

Order of the Sessions Court wherein they were charged  

under S.25 of the Arms Act. According to them, they ought to  

have been discharged by the Sessions Court.  

Accused – Narendra Mann filed Crl. Revision Petition  

No. 342 of 2008 challenging the Order passed by the  

Sessions Court wherein he was charged for offences u/S.302  

r.w. S.34, 201 IPC and S.25 and S.29(b) of the Arms Act.  

30. The High Court vide the Common Judgment dated  

29.05.2009 held that: (i) Narendra Mann, Sachin Bansal and  

Joginder Singh Sodhi were to be charged u/S. 302 read with  

S. 34 IPC read with 120B IPC and S. 25/27 Arms Act and  

substantively u/S. 120B IPC alone.   

The Judgment of the Sessions Court ordering discharge of  

Shiv Charan Bansal, Shailendra Singh, Lalit Mann and  

Rajbir Singh was affirmed by the High Court.  

24    

31. The State and the Complainant – Kanta Devi filed the present  

Special Leave Petitions to challenge the Judgment and Order  

passed by the Delhi High Court dated 29.05.2009. Leave to  

Appeal was granted vide Order dated 26.11.2010.  

32. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS  

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 Shiv  

Charan Bansal, Shailendra Singh, Lalit Mann and Rajbir  

Singh. 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.   

I. Scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C.   

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.

25    

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 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.   

Reliance is placed on the Judgment of this Court in  

State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh1 where it has been held  

that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227  

or 228 of the Cr.P.C., if there is a strong suspicion which  

leads the Court to think that there is ground for  

presuming that the accused had committed the offence,  

then the Court should proceed with the trial.   

 1 (1977) 4 SCC 39.

26    

In a recent Judgment delivered in Dipakbhai  

Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Another 2  in  

Crl. Appeal No. 714 of 2019 decided on 24.04.2019, this  

Court has laid down the law relating to framing of charges  

and discharge, and held that all that is required is that  

the court must be satisfied with the material available,  

that a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A  

strong suspicion is sufficient for framing charges, which  

must be founded on some material. The material must be  

such which can be translated into evidence at the stage of  

trial. The veracity and effect of the evidence which the  

prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously  

judged at this stage, nor is any weight to be attached to  

the probable defence of the accused at the stage of  

framing charges. The court is not to consider whether  

there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused, or  

whether the trial is sure to end in the conviction.  

II. Criminal Conspiracy  

The present case is one where the prosecution has  

alleged that there was a criminal conspiracy to murder  

 2 2019 SCC Online SC 588.

27    

S.N. Gupta 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 S.N. Gupta.  

The essential ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy as  

per judicial dicta are: (i) an agreement between two or  

more persons; (ii) agreement must relate to doing or  

causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act  

which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.   

Reliance is placed on the Judgment of Ghulam Sarbar  

v. State of Bihar 3 on this issue, wherein it was held that  

what is necessary for the prosecution to show is the  

meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or  

causing to be done an illegal act, or an act by illegal  

means.   

A criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy,   

and it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct  

evidence. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of this  

 3 (2014) 3 SCC 401.

28    

Court in R. Venkatakrishnan v. CBI4. 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.  

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.  

Reliance is placed on the Judgment of State (NCT) of  

Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru5.   

In Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration)6   

this Court held that the most important ingredient in the  

 4 (2009) 11 SCC 737.  5 (2005) 11 SCC 600.  6 (1988) 3 SCC 609.

29    

offence of conspiracy is an agreement between two or  

more persons to do an illegal act. The prosecution will  

have to rely upon circumstantial evidence. The Court  

must enquire whether the persons are independently  

pursuing the same unlawful object or whether they have  

come together for the pursuit of the unlawful object. The  

offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical  

manifestation of the agreement. However, the same need  

not be proved, nor is it necessary to prove the actual  

words of communication. It is sufficient if there is a tacit  

understanding between the conspirators for the  

execution of the common illegal object.  

In cases of criminal conspiracy, better evidence than  

acts and statements of co-conspirators is hardly ever  

available.  

In the facts of the present case, we find that there is  

ample material brought on record which creates a grave  

suspicion about the involvement of the accused viz. Shiv  

Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann and Shailendra Singh in the  

murder of the deceased S.N. Gupta.   

30    

III.  Shiv Charan Bansal    

The evidence produced by the prosecution with respect to  

the involvement of Shiv Charan Bansal are broadly  

enumerated as follows:  

(i)  Rajesh Gupta s/o the deceased attributed the  

murder of his father to Shiv Charan Bansal and his  

son Sachin Bansal, for misappropriation of the  

amounts invested by his late father S.N. Gupta in  

all the committees/chit funds run by the Bansals.   

Rajesh Gupta further deposed about the  

business transactions between Shiv Charan Bansal  

and his son, with the deceased S.N. Gupta in two  

firms M/s. Accent Shoes Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Aakash  

International, where Shiv Charan Bansal had  

usurped the share of the deceased, and was now  

trying to take over their factory at Bahadurgarh.    

(ii) This was corroborated by the statement of the  

brother of the deceased viz. Satish Gupta which  

was recorded soon after the murder took place. The  

said witnesses have made the statements soon after  

the murder of the deceased.  

31    

(iii) The statement of the third brother of the deceased  

viz. Ajit Prasad Gupta’s statement was recorded  

u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. on 01.06.2006 by the Court of the  

Metropolitan Magistrate. Ajit Gupta disclosed that  

he knew Shiv Charan Bansal since 10 to 15 years.  

He stated that he had participated in the  

committees organised by Shiv Charan Bansal. The  

committees were organised by Shiv Charan Bansal,  

and his son Sachin Bansal. There were 70 to 80  

committees in a month organised by Shiv Charan  

Bansal. The deceased S.N. Gupta had invested a  

substantial amount of money in most of these  

committees, and was a member of every group.  

When S.N. Gupta demanded return of the money,  

Shiv Charan Bansal refused to return the same on  

one pretext or another, which he learnt when he  

went to attend the committees.  

(iv) The statement of independent witness viz. Ashok  

Kumar Agarwal was recorded u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. on  

31.05.2006 by the Metropolitan Magistrate. This  

witness stated that he had participated in four

32    

committees of 10 lakhs each run by Shiv Charan  

Bansal. He was aware that the deceased S.N. Gupta  

had invested in the maximum number of committees  

run by Shiv Charan Bansal, in which his eldest son  

Sachin Bansal used to help him.  

(v) Both the Sessions Court and the High Court have  

noted that all the witnesses have clearly attributed  

the murder to Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin  

Bansal. The motive of the crime was to  

misappropriate the investments made by the deceased  

in the committees of Shiv Charan Bansal. Rajesh  

Gupta has further deposed that the further  

circumstance was on account of the business dealings  

between the families of the deceased and Shiv Charan  

Bansal.   

As per the case of the prosecution, the murder of  

S.N. Gupta was contrived by Shiv Charan Bansal  

and his son Sachin Bansal with Narendra Mann,  

and the other co-conspirators being Lalit Mann who  

arranged the contract killer – Joginder Singh Sodhi,  

Shailendra Singh who provided the weapon of

33    

offence which was recovered from his office, along  

with live cartridges.  

(vi) The contemporaneous Call Detail Records (CDRs)  

between Sachin Bansal and Narendra Mann, who  

accompanied Joginder Singh Sodhi – the contract  

killer, would constitute strong material for framing  

the charge against all the accused.   

The murder of S.N. Gupta took place at about  

4:30 p.m. Narendra Mann from his cell phone  

bearing No. 9818411470 made a call at 3:51 p.m. to  

Sachin Bansal on his cell phone bearing No.  

9818119624 prior to the execution of the crime.  

After the murder was committed, Narendra Mann  

called Sachin Bansal 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.

34    

The I.O. Satyapal Singh, in his deposition  

dated 08.01.2015, had stated that on 09.06.2006, he  

had obtained the Call Detail Records of the mobile  

phones of all the accused persons from the ACP  

Office.   

We have perused the record of the Sessions  

Court, and find that the Call Detail Records of Shiv  

Charan Bansal, 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 Shiv Charan Bansal creates a strong  

suspicion against him.  

(vii)  The records of the committees run by Shiv Charan  

Bansal were alleged to have been destroyed. This  

creates a strong suspicion about the conduct of Shiv  

Charan Bansal who was running 75 to 80  

committees/chit funds at that time. In his disclosure  

statement dated 26.04.2006, Shiv Charan Bansal  

stated that he is having all the records of the  

committees. However, two days later, on 28.04.2006,  

he changed his version and stated that the

35    

committee records have been destroyed by his son  

Sachin Bansal.  

The prosecution has alleged that the records of  

the committees were burnt/destroyed by the father-

son duo. The destruction of the records of the  

committees, which would have revealed the  

substantial investments made by late S.N. Gupta is  

an incriminating factor.  

(viii) The conduct of Shiv Charan Bansal after the murder  

was committed, is also of relevance. The police  

apprehended Sachin Bansal on 29.03.2006 from his  

factory.   

Shiv Charan Bansal 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 on  

25.04.2006.  

After the commission of the crime, accused –  

Shiv Charan Bansal absconded and did not join the  

investigation. The said circumstance of absconding  

immediately after the murder of S.N. Gupta was

36    

committed, would be admissible as relevant ‘conduct’  

u/S. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.  

The prosecution has made out a strong prima  

facie case and the materials on record are sufficient  

to frame charges against Shiv Charan Bansal. The  

Sessions Court and the High Court were not justified  

in discharging the accused – Shiv Charan Bansal for  

the offences u/S.302 r.w. S.34, S.120B, S.201 IPC  

for destruction of evidence.   

The materials gathered by the prosecution raise  

a strong suspicion against both Shiv Charan Bansal  

and his son Sachin Bansal in hatching the  

conspiracy for the murder of late S.N. Gupta.   

We are surprised that in the case of Sachin  

Bansal the co-accused, the Sessions Court framed  

charges only u/S. 25 of the Arms Act, even though  

there was sufficient material for his prosecution u/S.  

120B r.w. S.302/34 and S.201 IPC.   

The High Court vide Order and Judgment dated  

29.05.2009 directed the prosecution to frame  

charges u/S. 120B r.w. S.302 and S.34 IPC, S.120B

37    

r.w. S.25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and u/S. 120B  

substantively, against Sachin Bansal, and to conduct  

the trial accordingly.  

During the pendency of the present appeals,  

the Sessions Court proceeded with the trial of Sachin  

Bansal under the charges as directed by the High  

Court. The Sessions Court vide Judgment and Order  

dated 04.02.2016, acquitted him primarily on the  

ground that the allegations against him were  

circumstantial in nature, and there was no direct  

evidence to prosecute him.  

The State and the private complainant have  

filed Crl. Appeal No. 1155 of 2017 and Crl. Appeal  

No. 1154 of 2017 to challenge the acquittal of Sachin  

Bansal, which is pending final determination by the  

High Court.  

IV. Lalit Mann   

(i) The prosecution relied upon the statement of  

Naveen Gupta @ Cheenu son of Suresh Gupta, and  

nephew of the deceased. The said witness in his

38    

statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C, which was recorded  

soon after the murder had occurred on the same  

date, stated that Narendra Mann, Lalit Mann,  

Sachin Bansal and his friends used to threaten him  

over the phone. Naveen Gupta further stated that  

these persons also came to his house, and  

threatened to kill his family. He further stated that  

his father Suresh Gupta, on the advice of the  

deceased S.N. Gupta, got a complaint registered at  

Mangolpuri Police Station against Lalit Mann and  

others. It was further stated that he was sure that  

his uncle S.N. Gupta was murdered by Narendra  

Mann, Lalit Mann, Sachin Bansal and his friends.  

(ii) The disclosure statement made by Narendra Mann  

reveals that initially he had asked Lalit Mann to  

carry out the murder of S.N. Gupta.  

The accused – Lalit Mann had full knowledge of  

the criminal conspiracy hatched to murder the  

deceased S.N. Gupta.   

(iii) Soon after the murder took place, Narendra Mann  

and Lalit Mann were absconding.  

39    

Since Lalit Mann 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.  

(iv)  On 29.03.2006 i.e. eight days after the murder  

took   place, three of the accused viz. Narendra  

Mann, Lalit Mann and Rajbir Singh were  

apprehended by the police while 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 killer – Joginder  

Singh to conceal his identity, from the car.  

(v) The Call Detail Records of Lalit Mann reveal that  

from his cell phone bearing No. 9810254600, he  

was in communication with the contract killer   

Joginder Singh Sodhi on his cell No. 9871791501  

prior and subsequent to the commission of the  

crime.  

40    

The Courts below were unjustified in not framing  

the charges u/S., 302 r.w. S.34, S120B IPC against  

accused Lalit Mann.   

V. Shailendra Singh   

As per the case of the prosecution, Shailendra Singh  

provided the weapon of offence. Furthermore, after the  

crime was committed, Shailendra Singh remained  

absconding for a period of 75 days.  

(i) 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 at A 1/25,  

Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi creates a strong suspicion of  

his involvement in the conspiracy to murder late  

S.N. Gupta.   

The office from where the recovery was made  

admittedly belongs to the wife of Shailendra Singh.  

This is corroborated by the deposition u/S. 161  

Cr.P.C. of Ramesh, an independent witness, a  

property dealer, who had arranged the purchase of  

flat No. A 1/35, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi by

41    

Shailendra Singh, which was registered in the name  

of his wife Pooja Singh. Shailendra Singh used the  

said flat as his office to carry out his financing  

business.  

(ii) The FSL Report dated 18.10.2006 has certified that  

the weapon and cartridges used in the murder of  

S.N. Gupta were recovered from the office of  

Shailendra Singh.  

(iii) 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 Shailendra Singh and  

were fired from the unlicensed pistol recovered from  

house of Shailendra Singh.  

(iv) After the commission of the crime, the accused  

Shailendra Singh was in possession of the weapon  

of offence, which was lying concealed in his office.   

The circumstance of the weapon of offence being  

found in the custody and possession of Shailendra  

Singh, would be admissible as “conduct” under

42    

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 Shailendra Singh, 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.  

(v) The call detail records produced before the Sessions  

Court, reveals the communication between  

Narendra Mann and Shailendra Singh on the date  

of the murder, which is relevant material as per  

Section 8 of the Evidence Act.  

(vi) It is surprising that the Sessions Court and the  

High Court having accepted the recovery of the  

unlicensed weapon from the office of Shailendra  

Singh, charged him only with the offence u/S. 25 of  

the Arms Act.  

VI. Rajbir Singh  

With respect to the discharge of the accused – Rajbir  

Singh, the Order of the Sessions Court and High Court is

43    

not disturbed, as we find that there is not sufficient  

material to prosecute him.   

VII.  Narendra Mann  

Narendra Mann was charged by the Sessions Court 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 vide Judgment and Order dated  

04.02.2016 acquitted Narendra Mann.  

The State has filed Crl. Appeal No. 1155 of 2017, and  

the Complainant – Kanta Devi filed Crl. Appeal No. 1154  

of 2017 before the High Court which are pending  

determination.   

VIII. 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

44    

respect to three accused i.e. Sachin Bansal, Narendra  

Mann, and the alleged contract killer – Joginder Singh  

Sodhi has proceeded in the absence of the other three  

accused viz. Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann and  

Shailendra Singh.  

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. Sachin  

Bansal, Narendra Mann and Joginder Singh the trial was  

conducted in the absence of the other three alleged co-

conspirators. The Order of acquittal with respect to  

Sachin Bansal and Narendra Mann is pending before the  

High Court.

45    

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. Reliance is placed on  

the judgment of this Court in Isaac alias Kishore v.  

Ronald Cheriyan & Ors7.   

IX. As an 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, as  

 7 (2018) 2 SCC 278.

46    

held by this Court in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of  

Maharashtra8  and in Asraf Ali v. State of Assam.9   

X. The High Court may take up the pending appeals in the  

case of Sachin Bansal, Narendra Mann and Joginder  

Singh Sodhi, after the conclusion of the trial of Shiv  

Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann and Shailendra Singh, the  

remaining accused by the Sessions Court in the present  

case.  

XI. Conclusions & Directions: -   

1. The Criminal Appeal filed by the State of NCT of Delhi  

being Crl. Appeal No. 2248 of 2010, and the private  

Complainant – Kanta Devi being Cr. Appeal No. 2247  

of 2010 are allowed in Part.  

We direct the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini  

Courts to proceed with the trial in accordance with  

law in Sessions Case No. 6/2007 arising out of FIR  

 8 (2012) 2 SCC 648.  9 (2008) 16 SCC 328.

47    

No. 200/2006 dated 21.03.2006 with respect to the  

following accused: -   

a. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini  

Courts, Delhi is directed to frame charges  

against Shiv Charan Bansal u/S. 302 r.w.  

S.34 IPC and S. 120B, and S.201 IPC and  

proceed with the trial in accordance with  

law.   

b. We direct the Additional Sessions Judge,  

Rohini Courts, Delhi to frame Charges  

against Lalit Mann u/S. 302 r.w. S.34 IPC  

and S.120B IPC and proceed with the trial  

in accordance with law.  

c. We direct the Additional Sessions Judge,  

Rohini Courts, Delhi to frame charges  

against Shailendra Singh u/S.302 r.w. 34  

IPC and S. 120B IPC, and S. 25, 27, 54 and  

59 of the Arms Act.   

2. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Additional  

Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi for conducting

48    

the trial against the aforesaid accused in Sessions  

Case No. 6/2007 arising out of FIR No. 200/2006.  

3. We direct the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini  

Courts, Delhi to fix a time schedule, and proceed with  

the trial on a day to day basis, and conclude the same  

preferably within a period of six months from today.   

4. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, Delhi is  

directed to report the progress of the case to this  

Court after three months.  

5. Let a copy of this Judgment be also forwarded to the  

High Court and placed in the file of pending Crl.  

Appeal Nos. 1155 of 2017 and 1154 of 2017.  

6. We affirm the Judgment of the High Court qua the  

acquittal of Mr. Rajbir Singh Malik @ Raju – Accused  

No.3.  

..….……..........................J.  (INDU MALHOTRA)  

…..……...........................J.  (R. SUBHASH REDDY)  

New Delhi  December 5, 2019.