Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 718
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Ramesh Dasu Chauhan and Another – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1682 OF 2012
Decided On : 04-07-2019
IMPORTANT POINT
In case of circumstantial evidence the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the chain of events which lead to only one conclusion, namely, the culpability of the accused.
Headnote:(a) Criminal trial - Circumstantial evidence - Complete Chain Link Theory - Onus on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the chain of events which lead to only one conclusion, namely, the culpability of the accused. (Para 14)
(1984) 4 SCC 116; (2019) 5 SCC 663 - Relied upon
(b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Appellants while in police custody disclosing whereabouts of stolen articles - Recoveries made thereupon from residence of appellants - rightly relied upon by courts below. (Para 27)
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 9 - TI Parade - Not a substantive piece of evidence - But corroborative in nature. (Para 29)
(2007) SCC Online Cal. 728 : (2008) 1 CHN 685; (2018) 16 SCC 161 - Relied upon
(d) Criminal trial - Evidence - Reliability - No animosity between witness and accused - Presence of accused on the place of crime established - The witness not a chance witness - Evidence fully corroborated by other witnesses - Deposition consistent throughout - Such evidence, held, reliable. (Para 30)
(e) Criminal trial - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction - Presence of appellants at place of occurrence established - Identified by witnesses in court - No false implication - Recovery made from houses of the appellants - Appellants not giving any plausible explanation u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for their presence or the recovery - Held, all links conclusively proved by prosecution - No error in conviction. (Para 31)
Facts of the case:
The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment besides a fine of Rs.1,500/-each and in default thereof they were directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. They were further convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each and in default thereof they were directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.
The conviction and sentence has been upheld by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
There is no error in conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
SURYA KANT, J.
The Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide judgment and order dated 26th February, 2003 convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, “the I.P.C.”) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment besides a fine of Rs.1,500/-each and in default thereof they were directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. They were further convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each and in default thereof they were directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.
2. The appellants’ conviction and sentence was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 272/2003, decided on 11.04.2008. Both these judgments are under challenge in this 2nd Appeal.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. Deceased Kamlesh Kumari Trivedi, aged about 79 years used to reside along with her daughter Rani Trivedi and grand daughter Purnima Trivedi in Rajnigandha Apartments, Ambazari, Nagpur. Rani Trivedi was a school teacher and used to leave home for her work around 7.20 a.m. and return back in the evening. Purnima Trivedi was studying in M.A. in a college and she too used to leave for her classes at about 10.00 a.m. and return by afternoon. Deceased Kamlesh Kumari Trivedi, thus, would remain alone in the house during the afore stated period.
4. On the fateful day, i.e., 28th August, 2001, both Rani Trivedi and Purnima Trivedi left for their respective destinations while Kamlesh Kumari Trivedi was all by herself in the house. When Purnima Trivedi returned from College around 1.30 p.m., she found her grandmother (Kamlesh Kumari Trivedi) lying dead in the drawing room with visible signs of strangulation. The Onida T.V. set kept in the drawing room was found missing. Purnima Trivedi immediately rushed to her neighbours Raisaheb Chourasiya and Baliram Fulari and informed them about the incident. Both of them accompanied Purnima to the apartment. Baliram Fulari, on the request of Chourasiya, informed the police control room about the incident.
5. Raisaheb Chourasiya, noticed on the date of occurrence that two young boys had come on a red coloured motorcycle; stopped it in front of Rajnigandha Apartments; entered the apartment building and after some time vanished from the spot. Mr. Sevakram Thaokar, Inspector of Crime Branch, Nagpur rushed to the spot and on the basis of the information divulged by the neighbours, he carried out search operations and apprehended the appellants from near the Gupta Hotel in village Hingna. On personal search of one of the suspect, some cash amount and a silver coin was recovered; their motor cycle was seized and Onida T.V. was also then got recovered at the instance of first appellant (Ramesh). Crime No. 246/2001 under Section 302, 392/34 was registered. On consideration of the chargesheet, charges under Sections 302, 392/34, I.P.C. were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution, in all, examined eleven witnesses to establish the charge, but none by the defence. The appellants in their statement under Section 313, Cr.PC, as well as in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, pleaded absolute denial and claimed to have been made a scapegoat by the police in order to cool the public rage down against the heinous crime.
7. Three points fell for consideration of the Learned Sessions Judge, namely,
(i) Whether deceased Kamlesh Kumari Trivedi died homicidal death ?
(ii) Whether the prosecution was able to prove that accused Nos. 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Kamlesh Kumari Trivedi ?
(iii) Whether the prosecution had further succeeded in proving that accused Nos. 1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention, committed robbery of taking away Onida T.V., silver coin and cash amount of Rs.200/-from the custody of deceased Ka
