2015 Supreme(SC) 633

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur and R. Banumathi, JJ.
Kiriti Pal and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
State of West Bengal and Ors. – Respondent
Crl. A. Nos. 50, 1725/2014 and 1841/2012
Decided On : 16-04-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
In cases based on circumstantial evidence incriminating circumstances must be fully established beyond any reasonable. Such circumstances must be consistent and must form a complete chain. They must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused.
Last seen theory comes into play when there is proximity of last seen time and time of death.
Quantity of blood sample enough for serological test is not a criteria for it being accepted as evidence.
Motive is an important factor in a case based on circumstantial evidence. However, inability of prosecution to prove motive satisfactorily is not always fatal to prosecution.

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Cases based on circumstantial evidence – Incriminating circumstances must be fully established beyond any reasonable – Such circumstances must be consistent and must form a complete chain – They must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused – Chain of circumstances must be established by the prosecution. (Para 6)

       (2007) 9 SCC 315; (2007) 12 SCC 288; (2006) 13 SCC 516; (2011) 5 SCC 317; (2011) 5 SCC 509 – Relied upon

       (b) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – Deceased last seen alive with A-1 – Proximity of last seen time and time of death – A-1 failing to explain as to when and how he parted company with deceased – Failing to discharge the burden cast by section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Pointer to the guilt of the A-1 with some certainty. (Para 14)

       (2005) 3 SCC 114; (2006) 12 SCC 254 – Relied upon

       © Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of evidence – Last seen theory applicable fully – Deceased leaving with A-1 in the belief that there was a function at Rajnagar High School – Established that there was no function at the school at the time – A-1 threatening A-4 and PW 7 not to disclose murder of deceased to police – Recovery of short firearm at the instance of A-1 – All militating circumstances against A-1. (Para 15, 16, 17)

       (d) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Blood detected on weapon of crime – Insufficient for serological test – Nevertheless, admissible in evidence – Quantity of blood sample enough for serological test is not a criteria. (Para 18)

       (e) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Motive – An important factor in a case based on circumstantial evidence – However, inability of prosecution to prove motive satisfactorily – Not always fatal to prosecution. (Para 20)

       (2014) 12 SCC 439 – Relied upon

       (f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 and 120B – Conspiracy – Prosecution producing call details showing constant contact among the appellant-accused before and after the crime – Prosecution also relying on recoveries – No other evidence produced – No cell phone location details produced to show involvement of other accused, A2, A-3 and A-4 – Recovered items not got identified by anybody as belonging to deceased – Conviction and sentence of A-2, A-3 and A-4 cannot be sustained. (Para 26, 27)

       Facts of the case:

       Deceased Anjali Goswami, a widow having no children alive, was looking after the business of line hotel of her husband but subsequently leased out the same to PW14-Bhagyadhar Dhibar and started a beauty parlour and a cloth shop at Mohd. Bazar which she subsequently shifted to Suri in a rented accommodation of PW10-Manash Chakraborty. Fourth Appellant-accused Durga Sutradhar was engaged by Anjali to run her beauty parlour. Anjali purchased a house at Nutanpally, Suri and started residing there. Thereafter the first accused Kiriti Pal became acquainted with Anajli and developed friendship and intimacy and frequently used to visit Anjali's residence.

       On the fateful day of 11.11.2008, deceased-Anjali went out with first accused on his motor cycle and on the following day i.e. 12.11.2008, she was found dead.

       First accused Kiriti Pal was arrested on 15.1.2009 and based on his confessional statement A-4 Durga Sutradhar was also arrested on 15.1.2009. Based on his confessional statement, second accused Siddique Mia and third accused Mustaque Mia were arrested on 16.1.2009. Recoveries of various items were made on disclosure statements of the accused persons.

       Sessions Court convicted the Appellants A1 to A3 for offences Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to death. Appellants A1 to A3 were also convicted for the offence Under Section 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code and each of them were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with default clause. For conviction Under Section 120B-criminal conspiracy to commit the murder, all the fourb appellants-accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default clause. For the conviction Under Section 25(1)(a)(b) of the Arms Act, Appellants 1 to 3 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with default clause.

       The High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants setting aside the conviction u/s 376(2)(g) IPC and for the conviction u/s 302 IPC modified the sentence of death to life imprisonment. High Court confirmed the conviction of fourth accused Durga Sutradhar u/s 120B Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on her.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no substantial ground to interfere with the conviction of the first Appellant Kiriti Pal u/s 302 IPC and section 25(i)(a)(b) of Arms Act as well as the sentence imposed on him. Conviction and sentence of other accused cannot be sustained.

       Result: Criminal appeal No. 50/2014 filed by accused Kiriti Pal dismissed and criminal appeal No. 1725/2014 filed by Durga Sutradhar allowed.