Back
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
(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.
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’) came there on two motorcycles and they too, went inside the house of Chintaman Giddu Gatey (PW-8). All of them smoked ganja. While so, appellant in the latter appeal viz. accused No. 1 questioned the deceased as to why he along with his friend Parag Sukhdeve assaulted his brother. It is worthy to note at this juncture that according to the prosecution, on 29.09.2001, the deceased along with his friend Parag Sukhdeve assaulted the brother of the appellant in the latter appeal. Though, the deceased denied assault on his brother, the appellant in the latter appeal (the first accused) continued to say that the deceased did dishonesty and assaulted his brother. Though, the friend of the deceased who was waiting outside came inside and asked him to come out the deceased remained there and thereupon his friend left the place. Later, the first accused invited the deceased for drinks and all of them, including the deceased, left the house of Chintaman Giddu Gatey (PW-8) on two motorcycles by about 6 p.m. After about an hour, the dead body of the deceased was found by one Manoj Goswami, a resident of Paladi. The case is that upon being informed by the villagers, Manoj Goswami (PW1) went to the spot and on finding the dead body he went to Bhandara Police Station and lodged a report. As per the prosecution, the deceased was taken by the accused on one of the motorcycles through National Highway No. 6 towards Lakhani town. To the north of the said National Highway and at a distance of about 10 kilometers from Bhandara there was another road leading to village Paladi and on the side of the said Bhandara-Paladi road, at about by one kilometer from National Highway No. 6, they stopped their motorcycles and started assaulting the deceased using sharp weapons. The deceased sustained 22 antemortem injuries, all over his body and met with instantaneous death.
3. Admittedly, there was no eye-witness in this case. Based on the circumstantial evidence, the Trial Court found the appellants guilty
In a case where conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires continuity of links establishing guilt; 'last seen theory' must be supported by additional incriminating factors.
(1) Murder and disappearance of evidence – Application of theory of ‘last seen’ in absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together would be hazard....
In circumstantial murder cases, last seen theory alone cannot sustain conviction without complete evidentiary chain excluding innocence, especially with wide time gap allowing third-party interventio....
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Whenever any doubt emanates in mind of Court, benefit shall accrue to accused and not prosecution – Conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
