This article is written by Gauri Gupta. The article aims to analyse the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala. It highlights the intricacies of the judgement, simplifying the complexities of the case. The Supreme Court, after evaluating the evidence and examining the offences of murder and criminal conspiracy, discussed the conduct of the Test Identification Parade and the number of witnesses required in a criminal case. The judgement discusses important nuances of a criminal case. 

Introduction 

The case of R.Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2013, stands as a landmark case in which the Supreme Court delved into the complexities of criminal procedure and evidence law, particularly Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 134 and Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The judgement highlighted the significance of the quality of evidence rather than its quantity for establishing the guilt or innocence of the accused,emphasising the importance of mens rea in criminal offences.

The Court also discussed the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It distinguished between how these statements could be used for corroborating or contradicting witness testimonies but not as direct evidence, as the defence does not have the opportunity to cross examine those statements.

Additionally, the Court acknowledged the challenges faced in obtaining direct evidence in cases of criminal conspiracy and emphasised that the same could be proved through circumstantial evidence. The Court also discussed that an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, rather than having the complete knowledge of all stages of the offence, is sufficient for establishing the offence of criminal conspiracy.

The judgement of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala (2013) serves as a guiding precedent, clarifying the legal principles governing evidence and criminal procedural law in India.

Details of the case

Case name

R. Shaji vs State of Kerala

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 1774 of 2010

Judgement date

February 4th, 2013

Parties to the case

Appellant

R Shaji

Respondents

State of Kerala

Type of case

Criminal Appeal

Name of the Court

The Supreme Court of India

Facts of R Shaji vs. State of Kerala (2013) 

This case is an appeal filed before the Supreme Court of India against the judgement and order of the High Court of Kerala. The Hon’ble High Court upheld the judgement of the Sessions Court of Kottayam, following which an appeal arose before this Court. 

The facts and circumstances that gave rise to this appeal before the Supreme Court are as follows: 

1. R. Shaji, the Appellant, worked as the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Malappuram, and his wife resided in Palluruthy. Praveen (deceased), a relative of the appellant, was responsible for driving her around, essentially acting as her driver.
2. Praveen had an illicit relationship with the wife of the Appellant, which came to the latter’s attention through his manager, Aji. After inquiring about the same, the Appellant and Praveen reached an agreement, wherein Praveen agreed to refrain from visiting the Appellant’s house. Following this, he started working as a driver in a shop at Ettumanoor. 
3. In the month of November 2004, Vijayamma, a relative of Praveen, along with N. Sahadevan (Prosecution Witness No. 2’s father) informed Praveen’s father, Pavithran, that his son’s life was in danger via a telephone call. They stated that Praveen’s life was at risk due to the illicit relationship between Praveen and the appellant’s wife, as discovered by Vijayamma. 
4. Following this, Pavithran immediately contacted his brother for help as he anticipated danger from the Appellant. N, Sahadevan brought Praveen to his home and informed everyone that his mother was not well. However, the Appellant asked N. Sahadevan to bring Praveen back.
5. Following this, they all met in the presence of their relatives and the Appellant attempted to assault Praveen. However, he was saved by his relatives. Praveen tried to explain that he was being framed by the Manager, Aji and was innocent. However, when the Manager was called in this meeting, he stood by what he said and stated that he saw Praveen with the Appellant’s wife in a compromising position. After hearing this, the Appellant asked Praveen to leave the area and never come back.
6. Jilesh M.S. brought Praveen back to Trivandrum for treatment but he went back to the city to resume his work after his father told him that he was not safe in the hospital due to the presence of some gundas in the premises. 
7. In the month of February in 2005, Divakaransaw Vinu (Appellant 2) was seen on a motorbike roaming around Praveen who was in the market. He took Praveen with him to Kottayam. 
8. After entering the city, they went to the bar where they were served drinks by Saiju. They then went to a small shop to eat food which was served by Jose (Prosecution Witness No. 8). Mohammed Sherif @ Monai who was the owner of this shop saw the Appellant (R. Shaji) drive towards his shop with several others in a Maruti van. After a while, Vinu also left the shop with Praveen on his motorcycle. Following this, the owner of the shop saw Vinu lift his hand following which the Maruti van went behind his bike and they all drove towards the jungle around midnight.
9. There was a witness to the same. Shanavas, an autorickshaw driver who was carrying some patients to the Medical College of Kottayam, found a motorcycle on the side of the road. He also saw two men coming out of the van. On finding these circumstances to be suspicious, he noted the registration number of the van and the motorcycle.
10. Another autorickshaw driver, Mohanan saw the van parked on the roadside and asked the man standing close to it if he needed help. However, he responded by saying that he was waiting for his friend, after which, Mohanan left the place. 
11. The next day, a pair of human legs were found floating in the backwaters of the Vembanad Lake. An FIR was filed with Subhah K., Sub-Inspector of the Kottayam Police Station.
12. After two days of this event, Pavithran filed an FIR alleging that his son, Praveen had gone missing. He also informed the police that he had been searching for him since the past 5 days, however, he was unsuccessful in finding anything about him or his whereabouts.
13. The next morning, a dead body was found floating in the Vembanad Lake, and Pavithran identified the body to that of his son, Praveen. He also identified the pair of hands to be that of his son as well.  
14. After the inquiry was completed, both the Appellants were arrested. The police also found some evidence in the house of R. Shaji (Appellant No. 1) including the chopper which was said to be used in the murder of Praveen. Along with this, the police also recovered a maruti van from his premises. Furthermore, the Deputy Superintendent also received information about the discovery of a human head in the backwaters of the lake. 
15. After the investigation was complete, a charge sheet was filed against 5 persons. However, the trial was conducted only against the two of them since the others were absconding. While the trial of the case was going on, the police arrested Appellant 3 and Appellant 4. They were put to trial and convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder. At this time, one of the Appellants was still missing. 
16. After the conclusion of the trial, the Court convicted Appellant 1 under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy) wherein he was imprisoned for life and awarded a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. Vinu (Appellant 2) was also awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000. Both the other accused were convicted under Section 201 for disappearing evidence read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 for criminal conspiracy and were awarded imprisonment for a term of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. They were also convicted under Section 364 for kidnapping an individual to murder them read with Section 120B of the Code and were sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment of 7 years each and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. The Court further observed that the sentences were to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court, they approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala which dismissed their appeal and therefore, this appeal was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Witnesses

Throughout the proceedings, several witnesses provided significant testimony:

1. Prosecution Witness 1: Pavithran 
2. Prosecution Witness 2: Jilesh M.S.
3. Prosecution Witness 7: Divakaran
4. Prosecution Witness 8: Jose
5. Prosecution Witness 9: Sajju
6. Prosecution Witness 10: Mohanan
7. Prosecution Witness 12: Shavanas
8. Prosecution Witness No. 13: Mohammed Sherif @ Monai Prosecution
9. Prosecution Witness 68: Subhah K.

Issues raised 

The issues in this case can be summarised as follows:

1. Whether the Appellants had the motive to cause the death of Praveen?
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the Appellant for the murder of Praveen?
3. Whether the chain of circumstances as presented by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
4. Whether the witness testimonies and test identification parade are reliable piece of evidence ?
5. Whether the identification of different and decomposed body parts found on different dates are reliable?
6. Whether the failure to examine key witnesses affects the case of prosecution?
7. Whether the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report’s findings raise doubts about the involvement of the Appellant?
8. Whether the discovery of the Maruti car affects the validity of evidence despite being returned before it was officially recovered?

Arguments of the parties

Appellant 

The learned senior counsel of the Appellant argued several points. 

1. Firstly, they contended that the Appellant had no motive to kill Praveen, challenging the prosecution’s narrative.They placed extreme importance on circumstantial evidence due to the absence of eye-witnesses. Furthermore, they contended that since the blood found on the chopper could not be verified to be that of the appellant, the recovery of the chopper is not sufficient evidence. This implies that the chain of circumstances is incomplete. 
2. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the autorickshaw driver, Haridas (Principal Witness 14) had only seen the Appellants for a short interval. In other words, the witness that the prosecution had relied on had seen the appellants for a very brief period, thus, raising questions on the credibility of their statements. Moreover, although both the Appellants were arrested by the police, the test identification parade was never conducted. The counsel provided that this raised doubt about the credibility of the prosecution witness and does not prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. The counsel further submitted that the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by a Magistrate, who failed to mention the date of recording of these statements. As a result, the statements could not be presented before the Court for corroboration and confrontation.
4. The learned senior counsel further argued that the witnesses including Jose (Principal Witness 8), Shanavas (Principal Witness 12), and Mohammed Sherif @ Monai (Principal Witness 13) had only identified the witnesses by looking at a passport size photograph. The same is not enough and is crucial to be taken into notice as Shanavas had only seen the Appellant and others with the deceased for a very short interval. Thus, it cannot be said that he is a reliable witness in Court after a lapse of several months.
5. Besides this, the learned senior counsel also submitted that different parts of the body were recovered on different dates, and thus, the identification of the body by the deceased’s father merely on the basis of a mole on the leg of the dead body cannot be relied upon. The senior counsel further pointed out that the key witnesses including Vijayamma, Radhamma and Aji were not examined by the prosecution. 
6. Furthermore, the FSL report following the DNA test of the dead body disclosed that the blood group of the deceased did not match the blood group found on the chopper.

The learned senior counsel thus, argued that the whole case is unreliable and therefore, the appellant’s conviction should be set aside. 

Respondent  

The learned senior counsel of the State, Mr. Basant R. argued that there were various circumstances that pointed towards the guilt of the Appellant, clearly indicating that he murdered Praveen, thereby opposing the appeal filed before the Supreme Court of India.

1. He emphasised that the DNA report affirmed that the different body parts recovered from the lake were those of Praveen, providing concrete evidence of the crime.  
2. Additionally, Mr. Basant R. stated that there was no reason for the witnesses including Jose (Principal Witness 8), Shanavas (Prosecution Witness No.12), and Mohammed Sherif @ Monai (PW.13) to falsely testify against the Appellant. He further pointed out that the Sessions Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala had found the evidence to be reliable.
3. The learned senior counsel further submitted that conducting the Test Identification Parade was a mere formality since Jose (PW.8) and Mohammed Sherif @ Monai (PW.13) already knew both the Appellants.
4. Furthermore, he submitted that although the autorickshaw drivers Mohanan (PW.10) and Shanavas (PW.12) witnessed the event by chance, their presence in the area late at night cannot be denied, especially considering that the incident occurred on the same road.

Brief background of decision of Kerala High Court

The High Court of Kerala dealt primarily with the following three issues in this case:

1. Whether the identification of the body parts found, particularly those linked to the victim, is accurate and definitive?
2. Whether the testimony of Prosecution Witnesses 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 is credible and acceptable for use in Court?
3. Whether the recoveries based on the confession of the first accused are valid evidence with an adequate factual foundation?

While dealing with these issues, the Court observed that scientific methods, including DNA testing and superimposition tests were employed to confirm the identity of the victim. This scientific evidence played a crucial role for the prosecution as it assisted them to establish the accused’s connection to the offence. 

Regarding the second issue, the Court highlighted the necessity to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses on the basis of various factors including consistency, coherency, and lack of malice. The Court firmly believed that these aspects were crucial to determine whether the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses was credible and reliable or not. Despite certain discrepancies in the evidence, the court admitted the testimonies of the witnesses. 

Additionally, the Court concluded that the recoveries based on the confession of the first accused were supported by sufficient evidence, despite objections from the defence with respect to the same. Based on the testimonies and evidence, the High Court of Kerala found the appellants guilty for the murder of Praveen. 

Laws and precedents discussed in R Shaji vs. State of Kerala (2013) 

1. Statutory Interpretation
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. Section 8:

Section 8 of the Evidence Act of 1872 consists primarily of three constituents:
The provision provides for the significance of motive, preparation, previous or subsequent conduct as relevant evidence in cases. In order to achieve the motive, the offender must have made several preparations. The conduct of the accused before and after the crime took place is also relevant from the perspective of circumstantial evidence. This is because it helps the Court to draw inferences and derive a conclusion. The provision plays a crucial role in cases where there is a lack of clear and direct evidence.

I. Motive:

The term “motive” can be understood as the intention or the reason which compels a human being to do or not to do a particular act. This implies that motive is the underlying cause, purpose, or reason due to which a human being commits a crime.

In the case of Tara Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1990), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that threats, altercations, and litigations between two parties are considered to be motives for the purposes of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. However, it is crucial to note that the mere presence of motive is not incriminating.

II. Preparation:

Evidence indicating the preparation of a crime is admissible in a Court of law. This kind of evidence is crucial because it puts forth the persuasive value of not only the preparation of an offence but also the prior attempt to commit an offence.

III. Conduct:

For the purposes of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, conduct refers to the actions and behaviours of an individual which are outward in nature.

In the case of R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that a conversation over a telephone before the disputing parties over passing over money for bribe was evidence for the purposes of conduct.

2. Section 9

Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872, provides for the relevance of facts which are necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant facts. This includes facts establishing the identity of any relevant person or thing, fixing the time or place of an incident, or showing the relationship between parties involved in the transaction. According to the test identification parade, the witnesses or the victim are required to identify the accused from a group of individuals. This test is considered crucial as it helps in recognizing the suspect in a criminal case. While Section 9 itself does not explicitly address test identification parades, the Court in the instant case has interpreted that evidence from such parades falls within the purview of relevant facts for establishing identity under Section 9. 

In the case of Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1978), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that test identification parade is an age old practice wherein suspects are grouped together for identification by the witnesses or the victim in cases where their identities were unknown.

3. Section 27

Sections 25 and 26 of the Act of 1872 deal with protection against self-incrimination and abuse of power by police authorities. They stipulate that confessions regarding admission of guilt in an offence made in police custody without the presence of a magistrate are not admissible as evidence in a Court of law.  However, Section 27 of the Act provides an exception to this rule. It states that if a confession made in police custody reveals a fact, the same is admissible in Court. The provision is embedded with the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events.

In the case of Asar Mohd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the term “fact” under Section 27 of the Act is not limited to physical facts but also extends to psychological and mental facts which are relevant to the case at hand. 

4. Section 134

Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not require a specific number of witnesses to be examined in a case, as stipulated under this provision. Reliance can be placed on the testimony of even an individual witness, and based on that, the Court can conclude the trial.

In the case of Raja v. State (1997), the High Court of Delhi held that the Courts of law focus on the merit of the statements made by witnesses in Court. There is no significance of the number of witnesses which are examined by the prosecution.

Additionally, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal (2008), the Supreme Court observed that the Courts are concerned with the quality, and not the quantity of evidence presented by the disputing parties in Court.

5. Section 157

Under ordinary circumstances, a witness cannot corroborate himself as per the law. However, under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, 1872, a statement can be utilised as corroborative evidence to supplement the testimony of witnesses. The provision states that statements made by witnesses relating to a particular fact at a prior point in time can be admissible in a Court of law.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. Section 161:

Section 161 is an enabling provision and provides power to an investigating officer to examine any person who is well versed with the facts and circumstances of the case orally. Such a person is required to give answers to all the questions posed to him with utmost honesty. However, such a statement should not be self incriminating in nature.

In the case of Nandani Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978), the Supreme Court observed that both the provisions: Section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution touch upon the same principle when it comes to police investigation. The provisions uphold the prohibition of self incrimination and provide that such a statement cannot be made in any circumstances.

2. Section 164:

The provision empowers the Magistrate to record confessions and other statements which can be used as a substantive piece of evidence in a Court of record. These confessions can be recorded under two instances, the former being during the investigation and the other being at any time before the commencement of trial.

The proviso to the provision states that under no circumstances, including situations where a police officer is empowered with the powers of the magistrate, can confessions be recorded by a police officer.

3. Section 207:

As per Section 207 of the CrPC, the Magistrate is obligated to provide copies of statements made to the police officer and those relied upon by the prosecution in the case to the accused. The copies are to be supplied free of cost.

4. Section 313:

The primary objective behind enacting Section 313 was to ensure that the accused is given an opportunity of being heard. The provision pertains to inquiries and trials.

In the case of Sanatan Naskar & Anr. v. State of West Bengal (2010), the Court discussed the scope and objective of the provision. It serves a two fold purpose which includes establishing a direct dialogue between the accused and the Court; and to test the veracity of the case as has been presented by the prosecution, by allowing the accused an opportunity to explain.

3. Indian Penal Code, 1860
4. Section 120B:

One of the most crucial provisions of the Code, Section 120B provides for criminal conspiracy. It makes the offence punishable for a person who is a party to criminal conspiracy and prescribes death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two or more years.

The Supreme Court in the landmark judgement of Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors (1993), held that criminal conspiracy is a continuous offence and is deemed to be continuing in nature until the commission of the offence is executed in practice.

It is also pertinent to note the crucial judgement of K.R. Purushothaman v, State of Kerala (2005), wherein the Supreme Court observed that active participation of a person in a case of criminal conspiracy from the beginning is not crucial to punish him for the offence.

2. Section 201:

The provision is divided into two parts. The former talks about the disappearance of evidence by a person and the latter provides for furnishing false information about the offence.The prerequisites for this provision are:

• The prosecution must establish that an offence has been committed.

• The accused must be aware of the commission of the offence.
• The accused must have made the evidence disappear or furnished false information regarding the offence.
• The most crucial requirement is that the accused must have committed the offence with the objective of protecting the offender.

The punishment under this provision is dependent on the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the offender. The punishment ranges from imprisonment for a period of ten years to death penalty in case of repeated offence.

3. Section 302:

One of the most important provisions of the Indian Penal Code is Section 302, which prescribes the punishment for one of the most grave offences, murder. Enacted by Lord Macaulay in 1860, the law has been amended numerous times. It provides that if a person causes the death of another with the intention of doing so, he shall have committed the offence of murder. Furthermore, the punishment prescribed for the same is the death penalty or imprisonment for life, along with a fine. There are certain defences to the offence of murder, including the lack of intention of causing the death of another, self defence, provocation, and mental illness. In order to prove the grave offence of murder, the prosecution has to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence was committed by the accused with mens rea.

In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the ratio decidendi established is that life imprisonment is considered to be the rule and death penalty an exception. This implies that the death penalty is to be granted in the rarest of the rare cases.

4. Section 364:

The provision deals with the crime of abduction or kidnapping someone with an intention of murdering them. According to Section 364, anyone who kidnaps or abducts an individual with the intent to murder them shall be punishable under this provision. The punishment for the same is life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years.

B. Case Laws discussed

1. Objective of Section 164 of CrPC

In the cases of Jogendra Nahak & Ors v. State of Orissa (1999), and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. & Ors (2000), the Hon’ble Courts have observed that the objective of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which provides for recording of the statement of witnesses by a magistrate is two fold. The foremost purpose is to ensure that when the witness takes the stand in a trial, he does not refuse or refrain from the contents of his statement. The second objective is to ensure that the immunity granted to the witnesses from the prosecution stays intact. 

2. Utilisation of statements under Section 164 for evidence

Referring to the cases of Mamand v. Emperor (1945), Bhuboni Sahu v. King (1949), Ram Charan & Ors v. The State of U.P (1968), and Dhanabal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1980), the Court in the instant case observed that Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 can be utilised for supporting or contracting the statements made in the Courts of law by witnesses. However, these statements cannot be considered to be direct evidence in a Court of law since the defence does not get the chance to cross examine the witnesses whose statements are recorded under the said provision. 

3. Role of motive in criminal cases

In the cases of Babu v. State of Kerala (2010), Kulvinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2011), and Dandu Jaggaraju v. State of A.P (2011), the Hon’ble Courts have repeatedly held that motive is known to the accused only and it is not always possible for the prosecution to explain the cause of a particular offence. In cases where there is no evidence that provides clarity with respect to the commission of an offence, motive is considered to be a relevant factor. However, it is not relevant in cases where there is direct evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. This implies that in cases where there is complete reliance on circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive can be beneficial for the accused. 

4. Quality over quantity of evidence

Referring to the cases of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (1957), Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. (1995), Sunil Kumar v. State Government of NCT of Delhi (2003), Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2007), Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2008), Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal (2010), Mahesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011), and Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana (2012), the Court in the present case observed that in appreciating legal evidence, it is crucial to note that emphasis must be laid on the quality of evidence rather than the quantity of evidence. As per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there are no prescribed number of minimum witnesses required by law. Rather, what is significant in a Court of law is whether the witness is reliable and trustworthy. Furthermore, it is also crucial to note that in cases where there is a mandate on the presence of an attesting witness, additional witnesses do not carry evidence.

5. Proving criminal conspiracy

In the cases of Mir Nagvi Askari v. C.B.I (2009), Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (2009), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai (2009), S.Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010), Monica Bedi v. State of A.P. (2010) and Sushil Suri v. CBI (2011), it was observed that it is not crucial for all the persons involved in the offence to have knowledge of all the stages of the offence. What is sufficient is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. 

It is important to note that cases of criminal conspiracy are planned in secrecy due to which it is difficult to obtain direct evidence. Therefore, the offence is to be proved either by the way of circumstantial evidence or by necessary implication. However, there are numerous cases where circumstantial evidence is not clear, and in such cases the prosecution has to prove the meeting of minds of the conspirators.

6. Admissibility of test identification parade as evidence

The Supreme Court of India while deciding the case of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala placed reliance on the judgements made in Vijay @ Chinee v. State of M.P (2010), Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain & Anr. (1973), State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj & Anr. (1999) and Malkhan Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P(2003), and reiterated its stand on the admissibility of test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872. However, the Apex Court has also held that it is important to note that the test identification parade cannot be claimed as a right by the accused.

Analysing the law in the case of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala

The laws applicable in the case have been discussed in detail above. Let us discuss them as has been determined by the Supreme Court in this case:

1. Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that along with the copies of the confessions/statements made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, all the documents which are filed with the chargesheet are to be made available to the accused. However, the Appellant did not put forth the fact before the trial Court that the statements made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were not included in the documents. He did not raise the issue at the time of cross examination as well. Furthermore, it is crucial to note that the statements were not officially marked, even though they were a part of the record.
2. This issue was raised by the Appellant for the first time before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. The High Court observed that it does not find the ground worthy of acceptance since a statement made under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 can be used for corroboration as well as contradiction of the statement made by the author. Furthermore, the witnesses were unaware of what they wanted to say when they were questioned by the learned magistrates. This implies that they spoke what came to their mind, and the same cannot be said to be reliable. 
3. Section 157 of the Evidence Act provides that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 can be used for the purpose of corroborating the statements made by witnesses in Court or to contradict the same. However, such statements cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence as the defence did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who made these statements. 

Judgement in R Shaji vs. State of Kerala (2013)

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the High Court of Kerala and the Sessions Court, affirming that the deceased, Praveen, was a victim of murder. The severed body parts which were recovered from the lake were identified as those of Praveen, as the same was evident from the DNA report, thereby appreciating the evidence on record. The recovery of Praveen’s shirt, underwear, and watch, identified by one of the witnesses, further solidified the victim’s identity, leaving no doubt with respect to the same.

It was observed that the injuries on the body of the victim, as revealed in the post mortem report, established that the body parts could have been severed using a weapon similar to the chopper discovered from the premises of the Appellant. Hence, the Court concluded that the Appellant had the motive to cause the death of Praveen

Furthermore, the Court dismissed the notion that the accused cannot be given a benefit on the basis of a presumption that the chain of circumstances is broken due to the absence of the report on the origin of the blood. The Court further held that the report will not be considered to be a missing link and upheld the continuity of the chain of circumstances.

The Supreme Court reiterated its previous position regarding the quality of evidence as well. The Court held that it is not the number of witnesses but the quality of their evidence which is crucial. The law does not require a minimum number of witnesses to be examined to prove or disprove a fact. This implies that it is the quality, not the quantity, of witnesses which is crucial in determining whether the evidence in hand is adequate or not.

The Court further observed that the test identification parade was not significant in this case since the witnesses were well acquainted with the appellant. With respect to the Maruti car being used in the offence, the Court noted a witness stating that the Appellant had taken the Maruti van from him on the same dates on which the victim was killed and  returned it a day later. Furthermore, the Court observed that the evidence on record proves that the van was used in the crime by the Appellants.

The Supreme Court of India thus, upheld the judgement of the High Court of Kerala and the Sessions Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants. 

Conclusion 

The case of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala establishes and explains the application of crucial legal principles of evidence law and criminal procedural law in India. The case highlights the importance of motive in criminal cases and provides clarity on the admissibility of statements recorded under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a Court of law. The Court also emphasises the reliance placed on circumstantial evidence to uphold the principles of natural justice and fair trial. The judgement is a historic decision for it elaborates and clarifies a lot of principles of the evidence and criminal procedural laws of India. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q.1. Is there a minimum requirement for the number of witnesses in a criminal case to prove or disprove a fact?

As per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the law does not require a minimum number of witnesses to be examined in a case. Instead, reliance is placed on the testimony of the individual and its authenticity. What is relevant in the Court is the reliability and quality, not the quantity, of the witness. 

Q.2. Is the Test Identification Parade conducted under all circumstances?

No, the Test Identification Parade need not be conducted under circumstances wherein the witnesses are well acquainted with the accused or have a knowledge about their identity. However, a person accused of a criminal offence has an obligation to undergo the test but cannot claim it as a matter of right. 

Q.3. Is it necessary for all the individuals to have knowledge in case of criminal conspiracy?

No, it is not necessary for all individuals to have knowledge of all the stages of the offence in cases of criminal conspiracy. However, there should be an agreement between such individuals to an unlawful act.

References

1. https://www.shadesofknife.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/R.Shaji-Vs-State-of-Kerala-on-4-Feb-2013.pdf 
2. https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01500002904 
3. https://orissajudicialacademy.nic.in/monthly_case_review/marr.pdf
4. https://patnahighCourt.gov.in/bja/PDF/UPLOADED/BJA/FAQ/1.PDF 

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.