SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela. M. Trivedi, JJ.
Manoj & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 248-250 of 2015
Decided On : 20-05-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of initial facts and crime scene evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. judicial findings confirming trial court verdict. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments contesting evidence against the accused. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. assessment of evidence and its sufficiency. (Para 51 , 68 , 82) |
| 5. final sentencing considerations and decision. (Para 224 , 225 , 227) |
JUDGMENT :
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The present judgment will dispose of three appeals1[Criminal Appeal No. 248-250/2015] preferred by three accused persons. They were convicted under Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) (3 counts) imposed with death penalty by the judgment and orders of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Indore2[Dated 13.12.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 536/2011]. This was confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore3[Dated 29.09.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2014, 266/2014 & Criminal Reference No. 04/2013].
2. The appellants (Manoj, Rahul @ Govind and Neha Verma, hereafter referred by their names) were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (three counts) for committing the murder, during the course of robbery, of Megha Deshpande, Ashlesha Deshpande and Smt. Rohini Phadke on 19.06.2011. All three appellants were sentenced to capital punishment with fine of Rs.1000/- on each count, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment (RI) on each count. Under Section 397 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional RI. Under Section 449 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional RI. Manoj and Rahul @ Govind were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 2 5 (1-B) (B) of the ARMS ACT and sentenced to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional RI. Rahul was also convicted under Section 2 7 of the ARMS ACT and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI with fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional RI.
Facts
3. The facts are that PW-1 Niranjan Deshpande rented a part of House no. 24 Shrinagar Main from its landlord PW-5 Vishal Pandey, few days before the date of incident i.e., 19.06.2011. Niranjan’s wife Megha, daughter Ashlesha and mother-in-law Smt. Rohini Phadke were at those premises, residing there. In the evening of that day another tenant PW-2 Dipti Kapil who lived on the same floor told PW-5 Vishal Pandey that Niranjan’s flat was bolted from the outside and reported seeing patches of blood on the door. On receiving this information, the landlord went to enquire. When no one opened the door, he looked through the open window and saw the dead bodies of the deceased persons lying near the bedroom door and blood was on the floor. He called his neighbour PW-9 Mahesh Parmar and Mukesh on the spot, before telephoning PW-1 Niranjan Deshpande to reach there immediately. PW-5 Vishal Pandey also lodged a first information report (FIR) at Police Station MIG Colony, Indore4[FIR No. 401/2011 dated 19.06.2011] which was recorded by PW-31 Inspector Mohan Singh Yadav (investigating officer “IO”). The FIR alleging that some unknown persons murdered the three deceased ladies with sharp weapons and fled the scene, registered offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and 25 ARMS ACT .
4. The police reached the premises and prepared a spot map of the crime scene. Several articles found at the spot were seized. It was later (on the next day) reported that Megha’s golden bangles and Mangalsutra, Rohini Phadke’s two gold bangles, and Ashlesha’s mobile phone, camera and ATM cards were missing. Investigation started and on 22.06.2011 at around 06:00 AM, PW-28 Vijay Chauhan while on patrolling duty, spotte
In child murder via circumstantial evidence, conviction upheld on last seen (digital media), disclosures to bones/slab recoveries; death commuted to natural life as State failed to prove no reformati....
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
In circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence for a conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.