Supreme Court: Invocation Of Section 114 Evidence Act Not Permissible When Possibility Of Mistaken Identification Cannot Be Ruled Out
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the Appellant under Sections 120B and 411 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court has held that invocation of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is not permissible when the possibility of mistaken identification cannot be ruled out.
The Court allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant (Accused no. 3) and set aside his conviction under Sections 120B and 411 of the IPC by the Trial Court. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the seized 205 gold bars were linked to the fraudulent transactions. It directed that the gold bars be returned to the Appellant.
A Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan held “In the absence of this evidence and especially due to delay of four years in the recovery of the property the very basis of its identification is found shattered, and the possibility of mistaken identification cannot be ruled out. With this finding of the Trial Court, invocation of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is not at all permissible since the prosecution has failed to discharge its initial burden.”
Senior Advocate Uday Gupta appeared for the Appellant, while ASG K.M. Nataraj and Senior Advocate R. Bala represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Prosecution alleged that there were fraudulent remittances made through fake Telegraphic Transfers (TTs) amounting to Rs. 6.7 crores at the Vijaya Bank. The prosecution alleged that the fraud was committed with the involvement of bank officials and private individuals using fictitious entities. A search was carried out at the shop of the Appellant effecting seizure of 205 gold bars and other documents.
After the chargesheet was filed by the CBI, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 120B and 411 of the IPC but also directed that the seized gold bars be returned to him.
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant. The High Court also allowed the appeal filed by the CBI and set aside the Trial Court’s direction regarding the return of gold bars, ordering that the property be confiscated by the State.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted that the Appellant contended that his conviction under Section 411 of IPC was based on suspicion rather than conclusive proof.
The Court reiterated that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt by citing its judgment in Kamal vs. State (NCT of Delhi). It was held, “It has been held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused…It is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonablele doubt.”
The Bench explained that in order to bring home the charge under Section 411 of the IPC, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove “(i) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused; (ii) that some persons other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it and (iii) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property.”
The Bench remarked, “Similarly, the High Court impliedly held that witnesses connected with M/s CN have failed to identify the seized gold. However, in the opinion of the High Court, the same is not relevant because the appellant has failed to prove lawful acquisition of gold. We fail to understand, when the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of seized gold as being the same gold which were sold by M/s. CN to M/s. Globe International, how the appellant is liable to prove lawful acquisition of gold visà-vis the stolen gold.”
Consequently, the Court held that “we are inclined to allow the appeals preferred by the appellant/accused no. 3 (Nandkumar Babulal Soni). Accordingly, Criminal Appeal Nos. 581-583 of 2012 preferred by the appellant-Nandkumar Babulal Soni are allowed. His conviction and sentence under Sections 120B and 411 of the IPC is set aside. Since the seized gold bars were recovered from the appellant-Nandkumar Babulal Soni, he is entitled to the possession thereof. Therefore, we direct that the seized gold bars- 205 in number (Article 2) be handed over to the appellant- Nandkumar Babulal Soni.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Hiralal Babulal Soni v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. and Connected Matters (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 266)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Uday Gupta; Advocates A. P. Singh, Naman Saraswat, Tavinder Sidhu, Hiren Dasan, Shivani Lal, Harish Dasan, Aarif Ali, Mujahid Ahmad, Pankaj Tiwari, Rajiv Ranjan, Ajay Sharma, Mahendra Mali and Deepanshu Rana; AOR Chand Qureshi
Respondents: ASG K.M. Nataraj; Senior Advocate R. Bala; Advocates Mahesh Kumar, Akshay Kumar Sharma, Devika Khanna, Vatan, Sachin Sharma, Suhasini Sen, Chinmayee Chandra, Siddhant Kohli, Vinayak Sharma, Sourav Singh and Siddharth Dharmadhikari; AOR V. D. Khanna, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande and Mukesh Kumar Maroria
