Back
2024 Supreme(HP) 55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA, JJ.
Surinder Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 96 of 2019
Decided on : 02-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr Pawan Kumar Nadda
Circumstantial evidence, including last-seen accounts and forensic links, can establish guilt in murder cases even without a body, emphasizing the burden on the accused to explain incriminating facts.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 201, and 309 - Conviction for murder, destruction of evidence, and attempting suicide - The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and fines for murder, alongside terms of imprisonment for the related offences - Key evidence included the blood of the deceased found on the accused and in his vehicle, linking him to the crime - Dying declarations and last-seen testimonies established the timeline of events leading to the conviction, with no plausible alternative explanation provided by the accused. (Paras 2, 12, 60, 72)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 - The accused’s failure to explain incriminating evidence and circumstances made a strong case for guilt, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence given the absence of the body. (Paras 58, 60, 72)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of killing Amila Devi, last seen with him before her disappearance, which led to her belongings being found by the police. The prosecution relied on forensic evidence and witness testimonies that supported the narrative of murder and evidence destruction.
Findings of Court:
The evidence linking the accused to the crime was compelling, with no reasonable doubt raised for his innocence, leading to a conviction for murder among other charges.
Issues: The main issues involved sufficient evidence to ascertain guilt in the absence of a recovery of the victim's body and the adequacy of the circumstantial evidence leading to conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the presence of incriminating blood and confounding last-seen testimony satisfied the threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the absence of counter-evidence from the accused.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstantial evidence establishes crime. (Para 2 , 3 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. last-seen theory and recovery of items key to proving the case. (Para 4 , 5 , 24) |
| 3. appellant's conviction under ipc sections confirmed through evidence. (Para 9) |
| 4. accused's admission and identification perks prosecution. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. arguments addressed regarding evidentiary challenges faced by the prosecution. (Para 16) |
| 6. circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction despite missing body. (Para 17 , 20 , 21 , 35) |
| 7. last-seen evidence crucial for conviction. (Para 18 , 19 , 26) |
| 8. possession of murder weapon substantiates guilt. (Para 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 9. judgment dismissal based on strong evidence. (Para 77 , 79) |
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2018, vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 , 201 and 309 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) and he was sentenced as under:-
Sr.No. | Sections under which the conviction was recorded | Sentence imposed |
1. | Section 302 of IPC | Life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two years. |
2. | Section 201 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months |
3. | Section 309 of IPC | Simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 02, 201 and 309 of IPC. It was asserted that the informant Roshni (PW-11) made a complaint to the police on 07.07.2015 stating that her mother Amila Devi (since deceased) was working in a Hotel Rollingrang, Kalpa. Deceased-Amila and Kiran (PW-26) had gone to buy kerosene on 05.07.2015. They returned at about 11:00 a.m. in a white vehicle. Kiran went to her home. Deceased told the informant-Roshani Devi (PW-11) that she would return soon and she(Roshani Devi) should wash the clothes. The deceased and Kiran (PW-26) boarded the vehicle being driven by accused Surinder Kumar and all of them went towards Chugling Pangi etc. The deceased never returned to her home. Informant-Roshni Devi searched for her but failed to trace her. She also made enquiries in Hotel Rollingrang and was informed that her mother had not reported for duty. Kiran returned on the night of 06.07.2015 and said that she and the deceased had gone to Rampur in the vehicle of accused Surinder Kumar. Kiran had got down at Rampur and returned with her husband, whereas the deceased remained with accused Surinder at Rampur. Her articles i.e. pair of chappal (Ext. P-2), Basket (Ex. P-3), Broken Nail (Ext. P-7), earrings (Ex.P-9), were found on the road near Auktong Hotel by Bhag Chand (PW-4), a morning walker on 06.07.2015. He informed the police. The police showed these articles to Roshni Devi (PW-11), who identified them to be belonging to the deceased Amila. The police recorded the statement of Roshani Devi (PW-11) and registered the F.I.R. (Ext.PW-29/A).
3. ASI Narveer Singh (PW-32), seized the pair of Chappal (Ext.P-2), basket (Ext.P-3), used chewing gum (Ex. P-5), broken piece of nail (Ext.P-7) and artificial broken earring with one detached artificial pearl (Ext. P-9). He also lifted a soil sample (Ex. P-12) and a blood sample from the spot with the help of cotton (Ext.P-10). They were put in different parcels (Exts.P-1, P-6, P-8, P-11 and P-13) respectively and the parcels were sealed with seal impression ‘H’. Specimen of seal impression, (Ext.PW-32/
