Conviction Upheld but Life Sentence Cut to Time Served in 1984 Truck-Murder Case
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Narasimha and Misra upheld conspiracy-murder conviction of Gopi Chand while converting his life sentence to the period already undergone, exceeding 18 years.
The Supreme Court on 29 May 2026 dismissed the main challenge to Gopi Chand’s conviction for criminal conspiracy to commit murder arising from a double killing in July 1984, but granted him partial relief by modifying his sentence of life imprisonment to the period already undergone — well over 18 years. The two-judge bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra held that the testimony of the approver, Ashok Kumar (PW-1), was reliable and corroborated in material particulars, and that Gopi Chand’s participation in the plan to steal a truck made the murder of the driver and cleaner a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy. The bench also rejected the argument that a defect in the charge framing order had caused any prejudice to the appellant.
How the Case Reached the Court
The facts trace back to July 1984. Two dead bodies were found under the jurisdiction of different Delhi police stations. One body, found on 13 July 1984, gave rise to FIR No. 300/1984 at P.S. Civil Lines; the other, found on 16 July 1984, gave rise to FIR No. 190/1984 at P.S. Alipur. The first body was identified as Arun Kumar and the second as Jasbir. Investigation revealed that both were the driver and cleaner, respectively, of Truck No. URM 660 owned by Dayal Chand (PW-23). The accused had killed them to steal the truck.
On 24 July 1984, co-accused Tejpal, Kishan Lal and Ram Chhail were arrested while sitting in Truck No. OSC-4115. A forensic report confirmed that this truck was the stolen Truck No. URM 660. Gopi Chand was arrested on 29 July 1984 and Ashok Kumar on 6 August 1984. Ashok Kumar subsequently sought pardon, and his confessional statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 23 August 1984. He was formally tendered pardon and became an approver on 19 October 1984.
Ram Chhail, elder brother of Gopi Chand, died during trial. The remaining three — Tejpal, Kishan Lal and Gopi Chand — were convicted by the trial court in Sessions Case Nos. 25 and 25-A of 2008. Each filed two appeals before the Delhi High Court, making six appeals in total. The High Court dismissed all six by a common order dated 2 August 2013. Gopi Chand then filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 847 and 848 of 2014 before the Supreme Court. By the time the Supreme Court heard the matter, the sentences of Tejpal and Kishan Lal had been remitted under State policy, leaving only Gopi Chand’s case live.
The trial court had sentenced Gopi Chand to life imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 302 IPC; ten years rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 50,000 under Section 396 IPC; and six years rigorous imprisonment plus fines under Sections 201 and 120-B IPC, all sentences to run concurrently.
The Approver’s Testimony: Exculpatory or Reliable?
The prosecution case rested substantially on the testimony of Ashok Kumar (PW-1). Senior counsel Mr. A. Sirajudeen, appearing for the appellant, argued two points to discard that testimony: first, that PW-1’s statement was self-exculpatory; and second, that it was not corroborated in material particulars. The State, represented by Additional Solicitor General Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, countered that PW-1’s statement was inculpatory and stood corroborated by several proven circumstances.
The Court surveyed the legal framework at length. Section 133 of the Evidence Act, 1872 makes an accomplice a competent witness and provides that a conviction is not illegal merely because it rests on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act adds a rule of prudence: an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars. The Court drew on Somasundaram @ Somu v. State represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, (2020) 7 SCC 722, Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 1 SCC 275, and Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, 1951 SCC 1213, to summarise the governing principles.
The Court distilled those principles into four propositions. Corroboration of an approver’s testimony is not an inviolable rule of law but a rule of prudence; a court may convict even on uncorroborated approver testimony if it records reasons for doing so. Where corroboration is required, it may be direct or circumstantial. It must come from independent sources; ordinarily, one approver cannot corroborate another. And corroboration need not independently confirm every material circumstance — it must simply render the approver’s account believable in the facts of the case.
On the creditworthiness tests, the Court relied on Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (1975) 3 SCC 742, which requires that the approver’s story must involve him in the crime and appear intrinsically natural, and must implicate the accused in a manner giving rise to guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It also drew on Rampal Pithwa Rahidas v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 73, which asks how the approver was arrested, how he became a participant, what role he played, and when he decided to become an approver. The Court noted that in Rampal Pithwa the approver was found to be a planted witness; no such finding was warranted here.
Turning to PW-1’s actual deposition, the Court extracted his account of both murders at length. In respect of the cleaner Jasbir, PW-1 described how Ram Chhail and Kishan held the victim while PW-1 himself held the cleaner’s legs at Ram Chhail’s instance. In respect of the driver Arun Kumar, PW-1 stated that he stood as a guard while the others killed the driver, and that Gopi Chand was left on the truck to guard it during that killing.
The Court held that PW-1’s testimony was not entirely exculpatory. He had held the legs of one of the deceased to render him unconscious. He was a part of the plan to steal the truck and had actively participated, even if not to the same extent as the others. Relying on A. Devendran v. State of T.N., (1997) 11 SCC 720, the Court held that an approver’s testimony cannot be discarded merely because he does not implicate himself to the same degree as the other accused, provided he makes a full and complete disclosure that appears truthful in the context of proven circumstances.
On corroboration, the Court found that the High Court had considered in detail the circumstances corroborating PW-1’s account: the ownership of the looted truck and its recovery from co-accused; the identification of the headless body of Arun Kumar; the skull found wrapped in a green pyjama worn by Arun Kumar; torn papers of a “bilty” lying near the body; the body of Jasbir found in the agricultural field of village Hiranki where PW-1 said it was disposed of; and the name “Jasbir” tattooed on the right arm of the second body. No serious challenge had been laid to those circumstances. Issue (a) was decided against the appellant.
The Charge Defect Argument and Criminal Conspiracy
The second issue was whether Gopi Chand’s conviction under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC was sustainable. The argument was two-fold: no specific charge of conspiracy to commit murder had been framed against him, and even if it had been, the evidence did not establish such a conspiracy.
On the charge defect, the Court examined the charge framing orders of 30 October 1985 and 21 January 1986 in detail. The reframed charges of 21 January 1986 included Charge B, which named all four accused — Ram Chhail, Kishan Lal, Gopi Chand and Tejpal — for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC to commit dacoity and murder of Arun Kumar and Jasbir. Charge C, framed on the same date for the murder of Jasbir under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, originally named Gopi Chand but his name was subsequently struck off. The Court noted that the charge framing order itself recorded that Gopi Chand had denied the charge and claimed trial before his name was struck off.
Section 464 of the CrPC provides that no finding or sentence shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on account of any error or irregularity in the charge, unless a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned. The Court found that Gopi Chand was fully aware of the charge he was facing, that the questions put to witnesses related to that charge, and that no prejudice had been caused. The High Court had reached the same conclusion in paragraphs 46 to 48 of its judgment, and the Supreme Court agreed.
On the substantive conspiracy question, the Court set out the statutory framework: Section 120-A IPC defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means; Section 120-B IPC provides that a party to a conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment shall be punished as if he had abetted the offence; and Section 10 of the Evidence Act makes acts or statements of a conspirator relevant against co-conspirators once there is prima facie evidence of the conspiracy.
The Court drew on Firozuddin Basheeruddin v. State of Kerala, (2001) 7 SCC 596, for the proposition that one who enters into a conspiratorial relationship is liable for every reasonably foreseeable crime committed by every other member in furtherance of the conspiracy’s objectives, whether or not he knew of or aided in those specific crimes. It also relied on State through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253, and Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 682, on the doctrine of agency under Section 10 of the Evidence Act.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the prosecution had established a prior meeting of minds among the five participants to steal the truck. They had carried a gandasa, a weapon capable of causing grievous injury. They hired the truck, separated the driver and cleaner by deception, and killed them at separate places to take possession of the vehicle. Gopi Chand maintained vigil at one of the two trucks while his co-participants dealt with the victims. The Court rejected the argument that he was unaware the driver and cleaner would be killed: “their murder was a foreseeable event.” When possession is taken by force rather than clandestinely, causing injury to the victim including murder is a foreseeable consequence. The planned manner of the crime and Gopi Chand’s status as the brother of co-conspirator Ram Chhail left no doubt that he was in cahoots with the others. Issue (b) was decided against the appellant.
Sentence Modified to Time Served
Having upheld the conviction, the Court turned to the separate plea to commute the sentence. Counsel pointed out that Gopi Chand had not directly participated in either murder; that the ten-year sentence under Section 396 IPC had already been served; that the sentences of co-convicts Tejpal and Kishan Lal had been remitted by the State; and that the appellant had by then served well over 18 years.
The custody certificate dated 6 March 2024 showed that Gopi Chand had served sentence across six separate periods between 30 July 1984 and 6 March 2024, and had served a further two years thereafter, taking the total to over 18 years.
The Court relied on its recent decision in Munna Moyuddin Shaikh v. State of Gujarat, 2026 INSC 558, decided on 26 May 2026, where a life sentence was converted to the period already undergone after the appellant had served over 20 years. That decision had applied Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1, and Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 817, which together hold that modifying a life sentence to a fixed-term sentence is permissible as long as the sentence imposed is more than 14 years.
Taking into account that the incident was of 1984, that co-convicts had received the benefit of remission, and that the appellant had already served over 18 years, the Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction in full.
Order
Criminal Appeal Nos. 847 and 848 of 2014 were partly allowed. The conviction of Gopi Chand @ Pappu for offences under Sections 302/396/201/120-B IPC as recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the Delhi High Court was upheld. The sentence of life imprisonment was modified to the period of sentence already undergone. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.