2021 Supreme(SC) 819

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Lochan Shrivas – Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 499-500 of 2018
Decided On : 14-12-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Though false explanation cannot be taken to complete a missing link in chain of circumstances, it can surely be taken to fortify conclusion of conviction recorded on the basis of proven incriminating circumstances.
(2) For resting conviction in case of circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and all facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – For resting conviction in case of circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and all facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused – Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis, but one proposed to be proved – There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of accused, and it must be such as to show that within all human probabilities, act must have been done by accused – They should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that accused is guilty – Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency – They should exclude every hypothesis except one to be proved.(Paras 14 and 16)

(B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377, 201, 302 read with Section 376A – Indian Evidence Act,, 1872 – Section 27 – Kidnapping, rape and murder of girl child – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Dead-body of deceased was recovered on the basis of information supplied by appellant – What is relevant is not whether place was accessible to others or not, but whether it was ordinarily visible to others – If place at which article hidden is such where only person hiding it knows until he discloses that fact to any other person, then it will be immaterial whether concealed place is accessible to others – Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that recovery of dead-body of deceased on memorandum of appellant under Section 27 of Evidence Act, was from a place distinctly within knowledge of appellant – Proven circumstances establish a chain of circumstances which leads to no other conclusion than guilt of appellant – Though false explanation cannot be taken to complete a missing link in chain of circumstances, it can surely be taken to fortify conclusion of conviction recorded on the basis of proven incriminating circumstances – Non-explanation of circumstances would fortify finding, which is based on chain of incriminating circumstances that leads to no other conclusion than guilt of appellant – Trial court had convicted appellant and imposed death penalty on very same day – Trial court as well as High Court has only taken into consideration crime but they have not taken into consideration criminal, his state of mind, his socioeconomic background, etc. – Appellant was studious and hardworking – He did really well at school and made consistent efforts to bring family out of poverty – Conduct of appellant in prison has been found to be satisfactory – There are no criminal antecedents – It is first offence committed by appellant, a heinous one – Appellant is not a hardened criminal – It cannot be said that there is no possibility of appellant being reformed and rehabilitated foreclosing alternative option of a lesser sentence and making imposition of death sentence imperative – Judgment and order of conviction for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377, 201, 302 read with Section 376A of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act maintained – However, death penalty imposed on appellant under Section 302 IPC commuted to life imprisonment – Sentences awarded for rest of offences by trial court as affirmed by High Court, maintained. (Paras 32, 34, 39, 44, 45, 50, 52 and 54)

Facts of the case:

Trial judge convicted appellant for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377, 201, 302 read with Section 376A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Appellant was sentenced to death for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. For the other offences for which appellant was found guilty, sentences of rigorous imprisonment of 3 years, 5 years, 7 years and life imprisonment have been awarded to the appellant. Vide impugned judgment and order, High Court while dismissing the appeal of the appellant, has confirmed the death penalty.

Findings of Court:

Appellant is a young person, who was 23 years old at the time of commission of the offence. He comes from a rural background. The State has not placed any evidence to show that there is no possibility with respect to reformation and the rehabilitation of the accused. The High Court as well as the trial court also has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter.

Result : Appeal Partly allowed.