Important Point
Last-seen theory, comes into play where time gap between point of time when accused and deceased were last seen alive and deceased was found dead was so small that possibility of any person other than accused being author of the crime becomes impossible.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Prosecution of appellant accused persons five in number for causing death of deceased by strangling him to death and for throwing the dead body into a well to screen themselves from offence – Prosecution case that deceased had married one “N” about four months prior to date of incident who was in illicit relationship with A.1 and continued to have said relationship with A.1 even after marriage – A.1 questioned deceased as to why he had married “N” and other accused also quarrelled with deceased for marrying “N” – Allegation that deceased was last seen by prosecution witnesses in company of accused persons and when PW.2, went to a well in the village to drink water he found body of deceased floating in the well-Conviction by trial court placing reliance on evidence of PWs 4, 5, 7 & 9 – Appeal – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal – last-seen theory, comes into play where time gap between point of time when accused and deceased were last seen alive and deceased was found dead was so small that possibility of any person other than accused being author of the crime becomes impossible – When the background facts were considered in the light of evidence on record, it was clear that trial court and High Court were justified in holding appellants guilty – Appeal having no merit, dismissed. (Paras 17 to 20)
       [2005 (3) SCC 114], [2006 (10) SCC 172], [2005(12) SCC 438] – Relied upon.
       Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person – Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. (Para 8)
       AIR (1977 SC 1063); (AIR 1956 SC 316); (AIR 1983 SC 446); (AIR 1985 SC 1224); (AIR 1987 SC 350); (AIR 1989 SC 1890); (AIR 1954 SC 621) – Relied upon.
       Facts of the Case :
       1.Appellant accused persons five in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by strangling him to death and for throwing the dead body into a well to screen themselves from offence. Prosecution case that deceased had married one “N” about four months prior to date of incident who was in illicit relationship with A.1 and continued to have said relationship with A.1 even after marriage. A.1 questioned deceased as to why he had married “N” and other accused also quarrelled with deceased for marrying “N” .Allegation that deceased was last seen by prosecution witnesses in company of accused persons and when PW.2, went to a well in the village to drink water he found body of deceased floating in the well. Trial court convicted accused persons placing reliance on evidence of PWs 4, 5, 7 & 9. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by High Court
       2.Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
       Held last-seen theory, comes into play where time gap between point of time when accused and deceased were last seen alive and deceased was found dead was so small that possibility of any person other than accused being author of the crime becomes impossible. When the background facts were considered in the light of evidence on record, it was clear that trial court and High Court were justified in holding appellants guilty. Appeal having no merit, was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of the Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by learned Sessions Judge, Trichi.

2.Prosecution version as unfolded during trial was as follows :

Allegation was that between 10 P.M. on 10.8.1989 and 4 A.M. on 11.8.1999, the appellants murdered one Mugamuni (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) by strangling him to death and threw the dead body into a well to screen themselves from the offence. The appellants hereinafter referred to as A1 to A5 for the sake of convenience.

The deceased is the son of PW 4. PW 5 is the younger sister of the deceased and PW 8 is the paternal uncle of PW 4. PW 11 is the cousin of the deceased. PWs. 3 & 10 are also related to the deceased. P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.12. A.2 and A.3 are cousins and A.4 is the son of maternal aunt of A.2 and A.3. A.1 is related to A.5. The witnesses, the deceased Magamuni and accused 1 to 5 were residing at Mathagiri village. The deceased married one Nallangal about four months prior to the date of incident. Said Nallangal was in illicit relationship with A.1 and continued to have the said relationship with A.1 even after the marriage. A.1 questioned the deceased as to why he has married Nallangal and he was also beaten by A.1. The other accused also quarrelled with the deceased for marrying Nallangal. This is said to be the motive for the incident which took place.

When P.W.4 was at the shandy along with his son, Magamuni, the deceased in the case and his daughter P.W.5, accused 1 to 4 went there and asked deceased to accompany them. P.W.4 questioned them as to why they are taking the deceased. The accused told him that they wanted to go for hunting. The deceased in the company of A.1 to A.4 was seen by P.Ws. 4 and 5 at 6 p.m. At about 10 p.m., when PW.7 alighted at Gorimedu from a bus, saw A.1 to A.5 and the deceased proceeding towards south from north and an electric lamp was burning at that place. P.W.7 questioned them as to where they were going, for which A.1 to A.5 replied that they were going for hunting and they were in possession of sticks. The deceased was not seen alive thereafter. At about 4 a.m. on 11.6.1989, P.W.8 was at the bus stop for boarding a bus and he saw A.1 to A.5 coming towards north. When he questioned them, they told him that they are returning after hunting.

PW.2, a resident of Gorimedu went to a well in the village to drink water and to his utter dismay found a body of a male floating in the well. Immediately, he went to the house of his elder brother and informed him who advised him to lay a complaint with the village Administrative Officer. PW.2 went to the house of PW 1 the village Administrative officer, Mathagril village and gave a statement which was reduced into writing which stands marked as Ex.P.1 in the case. P.W.1 prepared Ex.P.2, his report and handed over the same to his servant with a direction to hand over both the documents at the police station. Exs. P.1 and P.2 were handed over to P.W.16, the writer of Balaviduthi Police Station, who registered a case in crime No. 193 of 1989 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by preparing express reports. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the printed First Information Report. The investigation was taken up by PW.18, the Sub Inspector of Police. On taking up the investigation, PW.18 reached the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar Ex. P.3. He drew a rough sketch Ex. P.25. The body was taken out of the well and in the presence of panchayatdars, he conducted inquest and during the inquest he questioned and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 12. From the statements, he realised that it is not a case of suspicious death, but it is a case of mu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 1203

2008(5) Supreme 577SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.Manivel & Ors. — AppellantsversusState of Tamil Nadu — RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 473 of 2001Decided on : 08-08-08

Important PointLast-seen theory, comes into play where time gap between point of time when accused and deceased were last seen alive and deceased was found dead was so small that possibility of any person other than accused being author of the crime becomes impossible.

Cases Referred (17)

2008(5) Supreme 577
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Manivel & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Tamil Nadu — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2001
Decided on : 08-08-08

Important Point
Last-seen theory, comes into play where time gap between point of time when accused and deceased were last seen alive and deceased was found dead was so small that possibility of any person other than accused being author of the crime becomes impossible.