THAKORE UMEDSING NATHUSING vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Analysis

THAKORE UMEDSING NATHUSING vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

November 19, 2024

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s judgment convicting the appellants for offenses under Sections 302, 396, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) based on circumstantial evidence. The court held that the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal without finding the view of the trial court to be perverse. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized the inadequacy of circumstantial evidence to establish a complete chain of events proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It also reiterated principles concerning the inadmissibility of confessions to police officers under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The recoveries and alleged incriminating materials lacked credibility and forensic substantiation.

Keywords: Circumstantial Evidence, Confession Admissibility, Acquittal Reversal, Standard of Proof, Evidence Chain.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Thakore Umedsing Nathusing v. State of Gujarat
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2016
iii) Judgment Date: 22 February 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
vi) Author: Justice Sandeep Mehta
vii) Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1178
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
- Sections 302, 392, 396, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: High Court judgment dated 11th December 2015 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 949 of 1994 and 1012 of 1993.
x) Case Related to Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Evidence Law, Appellate Jurisdiction.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case concerns the conviction and subsequent acquittal of appellants accused of murder and robbery. The incident involved the alleged looting and murder of a jeep driver, Bharatbhai, whose body was found in a field. The appellants were convicted by the trial court for robbery under Section 392 IPC, while being acquitted of murder charges. However, the High Court reversed this acquittal, convicting them of murder (Section 302 IPC) and related offenses. The appellants contested this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing lack of reliable evidence and erroneous reliance on inadmissible material.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Bharatbhai, a jeep driver, was allegedly murdered, and his body was found in a field on 1 March 1990.
Accused No. 1 (A1) was apprehended while driving the jeep and allegedly confessed to the crime, implicating co-accused (A2, A3, A5).
A knife and blood-stained clothes were recovered from some accused, and the prosecution claimed these were linked to the crime.
The trial court convicted the accused under Section 392 IPC but acquitted them of murder charges.
The High Court, reversing the acquittal, convicted them under Sections 302 and 396 IPC.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

Whether the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal under Sections 302 and 396 IPC.
Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the confessions and recoveries were admissible and credible under law.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The defense argued that the prosecution failed to provide direct evidence linking the accused to the murder.
The confession made to police was inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
The alleged recoveries lacked forensic corroboration, such as serological evidence connecting blood stains to the deceased.
The High Court did not establish that the trial court’s view was perverse or implausible, violating principles laid down in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023).

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The prosecution asserted that the circumstantial evidence, including confessions and recoveries, sufficiently established the accused’s guilt.
The High Court validly reversed the acquittal, as the trial court overlooked crucial evidence.
The chain of circumstantial evidence pointed exclusively to the accused, fulfilling the criteria laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984).

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s view was perverse or unreasonable, a mandatory requirement for reversing an acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution lacked reliability and did not establish a complete chain excluding all other hypotheses.
Confession to police officers and associated recoveries were inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Supreme Court emphasized the sanctity of the presumption of innocence and reiterated strict standards for reversing acquittals.
Courts must ensure that circumstantial evidence forms a conclusive chain to establish guilt.

c. Guidelines

Confessions to police officers are inadmissible unless falling within the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
High Courts must record findings of perversity or unreasonableness when reversing acquittals under Section 378(1)(b) CrPC.
Forensic evidence should substantiate recoveries and links to the crime.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, particularly the standard of proof in circumstantial cases and the inadmissibility of custodial confessions. It highlights the obligation of appellate courts to respect trial court findings unless demonstrably perverse. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding individual rights against unsubstantiated convictions.

Case Analysis