SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(MP) 206

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
V. D. GYANI, V. S. KOKJE
NEERAJ - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL 90 Of 1991
Decided On : 04/18/1991

Advocates Appeared:
G.S.Chouhan, J.P.Gupta, S.K.Vyas

The principles governing the appreciation of circumstantial evidence require that the circumstances be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, of a conclusive nature and tendency, excluding every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and forming a chain of evidence so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

Headnote:

None

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the double murder of Prakash Agarwal and his wife Premlata Agarwal. The incident took place on the night of 21st and 22nd December 1988 at their residence in Indore. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Neeraj, who was the nephew of the deceased, committed the murders due to a motive of theft and illicit relationship between the deceased and another woman. Circumstantial evidence was relied upon by the trial court to convict the accused, including motive, presence of the accused at the scene of the crime, an abrasion on his finger, nail clippings, and recoveries made at his instance.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the trial court had failed to properly evaluate the circumstantial evidence and had made several erroneous findings of fact. The court held that the motive for the crime was not established, the accused's presence at the scene of the crime was not conclusively proven, and the other incriminating circumstances were either not supported by reliable evidence or were not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also criticized the trial court for its lack of seriousness in considering the case and for failing to properly apply the principles governing the appreciation of circumstantial evidence.

Issues: 1. Whether the motive for the crime was established. 2. Whether the accused's presence at the scene of the crime was conclusively proven. 3. Whether the other incriminating circumstances were sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the trial court had failed to properly evaluate the circumstantial evidence and had made several erroneous findings of fact. The court held that the motive for the crime was not established, the accused's presence at the scene of the crime was not conclusively proven, and the other incriminating circumstances were either not supported by reliable evidence or were not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused and acquitted him of the charges against him. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside.

V. D. GYANI, J.

( 1 ) THIS death reference u/s. 366 (1), Cr. P. C. by IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore is heard along with Criminal Appeal No. 90/91, preferred by accused Neeraj against his conviction and sentence of death u/ S. 302, I. P. C. as recorded by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 26/02/1991 passed in S. T. No. 65/89. It's a case of double murder. The place of occurrence is House No. 46, New Dewas Road, Indore; time night intervening 21st and 22nd of December, 1988. A couple Prakash s/o Dwarkadas Agarwal aged about 36 years and his wife Smt. Premlata Agarwal aged about 33 years were d one to death. Deceased Prakash was found to be having apart from two minor abrasions, as many as ten incised wounds on his head allegedly inflicted with an axe, while his wife Premlata as throttled to death. Thumb pressure marks on her neck with nail scratches were observed on lower part of the neck.

( 2 ) FIRST Information Report, Ex. P/1 was lodged at 8-40 a. m. on 22-12-1988 at Police Station Tukoganj, Indore where Crime No. 847/88 (as it appears in Ex. P/1) was registered u/s. 302, IPC and investigations proceeded.

( 3 ) THE situation and occupants of the house has some bearing on the case. It is also therefore noted. House No. 46, New Dewas Road, Indore is a single storeyed house. The incident is said to have taken place on the first floor. As per inmates, of the house, apart from the deceased their two sons P. W. 2 Ghanshyam and P. W. 8 Naresh, accused Neeraj who happens to be the nephew (sister's son 'bhanja') of the deceased, also lived in the same house along with his mother Shakun. These family members apart, one Shreesh, a student of Local Engineering College also resided as a tenant, on the first floor in the same house. Dr. Surendra Agarwal has his Clinic, just adjoining this house. Ex. P/2 is the sketch map of the house in question.

( 4 ) DECEASED Prakash was running a fair price grain shop just adjacent to the house. On the date of incident having closed the shop around 8. 00 in the night, he returned home, had his meals and thereafter, had drinks in the company of his servants one Ganesh and Rajesh, a cycle shop owner. His son P. W. 2 Ghanshyam after taking meals was sitting at the shop of his uncle Prahlad just adjoining the house. Around 10-30 when Rajesh and Ganesh had left the deceased asked his son to get him packet of cigarettes which he brought and supplied and again came to his uncle's shop. After some time he came home and went to bed along with his brother Naresh and cousin Sanjay who were on the ground floor.

( 5 ) AS per FIR Ex. P-1 Ghanshyam having gone to bed after giving cigarettes to his father, accused Neeraj came and went to sleep, in his room on the first floor. It was around 6-30, when Ghanshyam who was sleeping on the ground floor, went to awake his parents, who were sleeping on the first floor, but as it was still dark they did not awake so he returned. Around 8-15 a. m. it is said, his younger brother Naresh went to awake their mother, but only to return and report that their mother was bleeding from the mouth and was not speaking at all. On being informed neighbours also collected. It was Radhakishan, who declared to the brothers son that their parents were dead. Dr. Dube was sent for immediately, who also rushed in only to find the couple dead. It was after his visit that FIR Ex. P-1 came to be lodged by P. W. 2 Ghanshyam at 8-40 a. m.

( 6 ) THIS report Ex. P/1 led to registration of crime No. 847/88 (as it seemingly appears in the FIR Ex-P. 1) u/s. 302, IPC an investigation proceeded. The I. O. (P. W. 16) visited the spot and prepared spot map Ex. P/2. The blood stained bed sheets, pillow covers, quilts and blood stained soil were seized. It is also claimed that a bunch of hair found in the right hand fist of deceased Premlata was also seized and recovered as per seizure memo Ex. P-5. Inquest Ex. P. 13 and P. 14 were also prepared followed by requisitions for post mortem examinations
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top