2023 0 Supreme(SC) 212
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Shankar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 954, 955 of 2011
Decided On : 15-03-2023
IMPORTANT POINT
In a case where conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – In a case where conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance – Failure to establish alleged motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence has weakened case of prosecution – In a case rested on circumstantial evidence ‘last seen’ theory is relied on as a link in chain of circumstances – Courts below in overall circumstances, ought to have carefully considered question whether solitary oral evidence of a PW would conclusively prove factum of deceased lastly seen in company of deceased – Though deceased had met with homicidal death it cannot be said that rest of circumstantial evidence culled out by courts below unerringly point to culpability of appellants – Even recovery of weapon and dress, at instance of appellant, cannot, by itself, be conclusive – Remaining circumstances relied on by prosecution and held as proved by courts below would not unerringly point to guilt of appellants – Appellants acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. (Paras 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29 and 30)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by Special leave – Normally, in an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of Constitution of India when concurrent findings of conviction and sentence are against appellants / convicts there would be no scope for interference except in exceptional circumstances – If doubt lingers with respect to probability or conclusiveness of any circumstance relied on by prosecution, forming a link in chain of circumstances pointing to guilt of convict, despite existence of concurrent findings, evidence has to scrutinized by this Court so as to ensure that the totality of evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and it points to guilt of convict and it did not brook any hypothesis other than guilt of convict. (Paras 11 and 13)
Facts of the case:
As per the judgment of Trial Court the appellants were convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life besides imposing a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine they are to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month each. As per the impugned judgment conviction and sentences thus imposed by the Trial Court were confirmed.
Findings of Court:
Appeals are allowed, upsetting judgments and orders of the High Court as also that of the court of Session. Bail bonds executed by the appellants stand discharged.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.34, S.302
Cases Referred:Advocate Appeared :For the Appellants : Sanjay Jain, Sunil Kumar Verma, Sunil Kumar Verma.For the Respondents : Sachin Patil, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Geo Joseph, Risvi Muhammed, Durgesh Gupta.
JUDGMENT :
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. The captioned appeals, by lifers, are directed against the self-same judgment and order dated 12.08.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004. The former appeal was filed by the second and third appellants therein who were accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2002 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara. The sole appellant in the latter appeal was the first appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004 and he was the first accused in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2002. During the pendency of the trial, the fourth accused breathed his last and the first appellant in the former appeal viz. Sri Hiralal died during its pendency. Hence, qua him the former appeal stands abated. As per the judgment of the Trial Court the appellants were convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘the IPC’) for having committed murder of one Rahul Pundlik Meshram (hereafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). They were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life besides imposing a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine they are to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month each. As per the impugned judgment the conviction and sentences thus imposed by the Trial Court were confirmed. Hence, these appeals.
2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as follows:
On 12.12.2001 at about 5.00 pm, the deceased along with a friend went to Indira Gandhi Ward at Bandhara where the house of Chintaman Giddu Gatey (PW-8) situates. After parking his Luna Moped the deceased went inside of the house of Chintaman Giddu Gatey (PW-8), leaving his friend near the vehicle. Deceased and Chintaman Giddu Gatey (PW-8) smoked ganja and while so the deceased accused No. 4 (Raju Pande), Hiralal, the first appellant in the former appeal who is no more and accused Nos. 1 and 3, who are the surviving convicts (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellants’)
Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas