2014 Supreme(SC) 554

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
RAMESH – APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.592 OF 2010
Decided On : 01-08-2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
Non-mentioning of name of accused in FIR may not be fatal.
Last seen theory – applicability.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – Accused not named in FIR – Recovery of shawl of deceased at the instance of accused and other evidence proving guilt of the accused – Non-mentioning of name in FIR may be due to many reasons including mental stage of the informant – Not fatal – Accused found guilty of offences charged with and convicted and sentenced – No infirmity. (Para 15)

       (2012) 6 SCC 204 – Relied upon

       (2012) 4 SCC 257; (2013) 12 SCC 796 – Relied upon impliedly

       (2013) 5 SCC 722 – Distinguished impliedly

       (b) Criminal trial – Last seen theory – Deceased child last seen with the accused going to the back of the mill – Accused not explaining why he took the child to back of the mill – Child found dead next morning – Last seen theory correctly applied. (Para 16)

       (2008) 13 SCC 257; (2012) 11 SCC 588 – Relied upon

       (c) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – All circumstances indicating that the crime has been committed by the appellant and nobody else – Courts below not committing any infirmity. (Para 19)

       AIR 1960 SC 29 – Relied upon

       (2008) 14 SCC 768; (2003) 1 SCC 398; (2003) 11 SCC 488 – Distinguished impliedly

       Facts of the case:

       On 3.11.2005 at about 11.00 am, deceased-Seeni Nabra, aged 8 years along with her grandmother (PW-3) went to the rice mill of the appellant to get the grains for grinding. But having seen that the front portion of the mill is closed, PW-3 asked the deceased-child to go and ask the appellant to open the back portion of the mill and it was opened. Accordingly, PW-3 handed over the grains to the appellant and came to the house of a neighbour. Sometime later the deceased-child went to the mill and asked the appellant whether the grains were grinded. At that time, she was taken to the back side of the mill by the appellant. Since, the deceased- child did not return, PW-3 having waited for some time went home. It is alleged that the appellant took the deceased- child to the backyard which was seen by an employee (PW-12) of the mill. The appellant permitted PW-12 to go for lunch and PW-12 left for lunch. Then, the accused committed rape on the deceased-child and due to neurogenic shock she died. Since, the deceased-child did not come back, PW- 3 informed her father (PW-1). Thereafter, PW-1, PW-3 and others searched for the deceased-child. At about 10.00 pm, PW-6, the owner of the textile shop situated just opposite to the mill of the appellant and the night watchman (PW-7) posted for security in that area found the appellant opening the mill unusually at that time. At about 10.15 pm, PW-8, whose house is situated exactly behind the mill came to attend the call of nature and at that time, he heard a noise coming from the well side and he found the accused there. The dead body of the deceased-child was found by PW-4 inside the well and having seen the same, PWs 1 to 3 were informed. PW-1, the father of the deceased-child went over to the respondent-police station, where PW-20, the Sub-Inspector of Police was on duty. He gave the complaint (marked as Ex.-P1) to PW-20, the aforesaid Sub-Inspector on the basis of which, a case came to be registered

       The prosecution charged the appellant under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The trial was conducted on behalf of the respondent-prosecution and in order to substantiate the charges, it examined 22 witnesses and relied on 27 exhibits and 4 material objects. The trial court recorded the finding of fact on appreciation of legal evidence on record and convicted the accused and sentenced him for life imprisonment holding that the charges made against him under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC were proved and punishment of life imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo one year R.I. under Section 376 IPC, life imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo one year R.I. under Section 302 IPC and 3 years R.I. and payment of fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I. under Section 201 IPC was awarded to him and further held that all the sentences awarded against the appellant was to run concurrently.

       The High Court sustained the trial court judgment and order.

       Finding of the Court:

       Courts below did not commit any error.