Back
2003(1) Crimes 6 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Gujarat High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Kantilal @ K.L. Gordhandas Soni —Appellant
versus
State of Gujarat —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2002
Decided on 11-12-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Ms. Anu Mohla, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Advocates.
Important point
The circumstantial evidence proved by the prosecution can only throw a doubt as to the involvement of the appellant in the murder of the deceased lady which is not sufficient to base a conviction as has been erroneously done by Courts below. Accordingly the judgment and conviction of the Courts below are set aside by the Apex Court in this case.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 201, 394 and 449—Appellant convicted by trial Court for offence of murdering Kantaben to whom he was supplying milk and had borrowing dealings, for robbing her ornaments and converting them into ingots—Conviction affirmed by High Court—Conviction based on circumstantial evidence—Appeal to apex Court—Apex Court finding circumstance of last seen not proved (para 8)—Circumstance of getting certain jewellery melted into gold ingots not proved (Para 10)—Circumstance of setting said ingots also not proved (paras 11 to 14)—Certain other circumstances even if proved only throwing a doubt of involvement of the appellant in murder which is not sufficient to base a conviction—(Cr.P.C. 1973—Sections 161, 313—Evidence Act—Proof of circumstantial evidence) —Conviction is based on erroneous assumptions of proof—Result—Is liable to be set aside—Appeal allowed.
Held : If actually the circumstances narrated hereinabove have been established beyond any reasonable doubt, there could be no difficulty in concurring with the finding of the Courts below. However, we find that some of the links in the chain of circumstances have not been established by the prosecution either in accordance with law or beyond reasonable doubt because of which, in our opinion, serious doubts arise as to the correctness of the prosecution case which will be discussed by us hereinbelow. (Para 6)
After detailed analysis of circumstances said to be proved held : From the discussion of the circumstances relied upon by the courts below, we have noticed the prosecution has failed to establish: (a) that PW 21 had seen the appellant in the house of the deceased on 8.4.1994; (b) that the appellant had got certain gold ornaments melted with the help of PW 10 on 9th April, 1994; and (c) that the appellant had sold two ingots of 60 grams and 35 grams each to PW 11 for a consideration of Rs. 35,000. In view of the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove these links in the chain of circumstances, in our opinion, the rest of the circumstances do not form a complete chain as to draw an irresistible inference that the circumstances established by the prosecution establish that it is the accused and the accused alone who could have committed the murder of deceased Kantaben. In our opinion, those circumstances proved by the prosecution can only throw a doubt as to the involvement of the appellant in the murder of Kantaben which is not sufficient to base a conviction. (Para 17)
Held consequently : On the above basis, we are of the opinion, that the Courts below were in error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its charges against the appellant by the circumstantial evidence relied upon by it. Hence, the appellant is entitled to succeed in this appeal. Accordingly, the judgment and conviction of the courts below are set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellant, who is in custody, shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. (Paras 17 and 18)
Judgment
Santosh Hegde, J.—The Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha District found the appellant guilty in Sessions Case No. 99 of 1994 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 394 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs. 500 in default of which a further sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302. The Sessions Court further imposed a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300 in default of which the appellant was directed to undergo imprisonment for six months for an offence under Section 201. The Court also awarded a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300 in default a further sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 394. For the offence under Section 449 I.P.C. the appellant was awarded a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300 in default a further sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment was awarded.
2. The appellant's appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1997 came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of the said High Court. Hence the appellant is before us in this appeal.
3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is on 9th of April, 1994 when the milkman who used to supply milk to the deceased Kantaben, went to her house for supplying milk in the morning, he did not get any response when he called for her. Hence, when he peeped inside the kitchen door which was open, he found the deceased lying injured. He immediately informed the relatives and in turn the police were informed who came to the place of incident and removed the body for postmortem which was conducted on 9th of April, 1994, during which procedure PW-1, Dr. Jhinabhai found among other injuries a reddish injury in the front of the throat where a swelling was also noticed. On the examination of the internal injuries corresponding to the injury noticed on the throat, the Doctor found the larynx congested and there was reddish foam inside bronchia. He opined the cause of death of Kanta Ben was due to strangulation. On 10th April, 1994 by which time the son of the deceased had come to Modasa, the son gave a further report to the police that on search of the house of his mother certain gold jewelleries worn by her were found missing and he suspected that the cause of death of his mother was not due to accident as was originally thought of before the postmortem but was murder. PW 28, who conducted the investigation having suspected the appellant on the basis of two cheques of his found in the house of the deceased, on investigation found that the appellant had financial transactions with the deceased, therefore, he could have been responsible for her death. When he searched for the appellant he could not find him at his usual place of residence or at work, and was able to arrest him only on 11th of May, 1994 about 33 days after the incident on 8th of April, 1994. During the course of his interrogation, based on a statement made by the appellant the investigating agency went to the place of PW 10, a Goldsmith and found out that he, at the instance of the appellant, melted certain gold ornaments into ingots of 60 grams and 35 grams on 9th of April, 1994. On further investigation, it was found that the said ingots were purchased by PW 11, a Jeweller, for Rs. 35,000 from the appellant. The investigation also revealed that the appellant had taken a loan of Rs. 20,000/- on pledging Kisan Vikas Patras belonging to himself and his wife from Nagrik Bank which amount according to the prosecution was repaid and the Kisan Vikas Patras were redeemed by the appellant at about the same time as he received the money from PW 11. During the course of investigation, it was also revealed that one Natwarlal Shankerlal, PW 21 had seen the appellant in the house of the deceased at about 8 or 8.30 p.m. on 8th April, 1994. The
