IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya and Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar, JJ.
Soneram & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 2001 (Gwalior): against the judgment and sentence dated 26.3.2001 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in Sessions Trial No. 192/1999; Decided on 16.8.2023
(1) Criminal Trial -- case based on circumstantial evidence – evidence must satisfy five tests as enumerated. [Para 12]
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 6 -- incorporates doctrine of res gestae -- doctrine of res gestae is applied in wider connotation to include all statements, acts and incidents connected with facts in issue -- these need not be coincident or contemporaneous with occurrence of principal events -- however, it must be made at such time and under such circumstances as will exclude presumption that it is result of deliberation. [Para 13]
(3) Criminal Trial -- circumstance of last seen together – theory of "last seen" has roots in doctrine of inductive logic as provided in S. 7 of Evidence Act -- thus, where doing of any act by particular person is material or relevant to proof, that person's opportunity to do it is relevant -- "opportunity" includes all points of time, place and personal conduct which make it corporeally possible for given person to have been present and doing that act, and also all facts which make it less corporeally possible for some other person to have been present and doing it -- once proved that accused was last seen with subject and had opportunity to commit alleged offence, it does not follow that he is necessarily guilty -- but, it certainly raises presumption against accused -- shifts onus of proof from prosecution to accused because events and circumstances after he was last seen with victim are within special knowledge of accused. AIR 2019 SC 1367 followed. [Para 18]
(4) Motive -- is emotion which is supposed to have led to act -- generally not capable of tangible proof -- can only be ascertained by inferences drawn from facts -- primarily known to accused only -- very difficult for prosecution to put forth what actually prompted or excited accused to commit offence -- even more difficult to establish with full vigour, sufficiency or adequacy of motive -- sufficient for prosecution to establish existence of some motive -- sufficiency or adequacy of such motive may be inferred from attending circumstances. (2004) 12 SCC 521 and (1990) 4 SCC 370 followed. [Paras 19 & 20]
(5) Evidence -- absence of documentary evidence -- money transaction for obtaining appointment of son -- overwhelming reliable oral evidence -- absence of documentary evidence with regard to transaction of money does not affect credibility of prosecution -- such transactions are generally not recorded in documents. [Para 24]
(6) Recovery -- presumption that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed -- nothing on record to suggest previous animosity or bias of Investigation Officer against accused -- accused present along with witnesses at place of recovery of dead body -- dead body recovered on information given by him and from place he pointed out -- presumption stands fortified that Investigation Officer has duly performed his duties of investigation -- even in absence of specific corroboration by panch witness, testimony of Investigation Officer annot be discarded. AIR 1995 SC 1930 and (2019) 8 SCC 359 followed. [Para 36]
(7) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- joint disclosure -- plurality of information received from number of accused before discovery -- will not necessarily take any of these informations out of section -- words “a person” will take in more than one person -- that information will be admissible against all informants. 1955 CrLJ 586 and (2017) 3 SCC 760 followed. [Para 38]
(8) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 27, 3 and 8 -- recovery from open place -- expression “fact” in S. 3 includes not only physical fact which can be perceived by senses, but also psychological fact or mental condition of which any person is conscious -- “fact discovered” embraces place from which object was produced and knowledge of accused as to it -- but information given must relate distinctly to that effect -- discovery of fact arises by reason of fact that information given by accused exhibited knowledge or mental awareness of accused as to its existence at particular place -- knowledge of dead body lying in well concealed beneath sugarcane leaves is relevant – knowledge of blood-stained full pant concealed in dry well and farsa concealed in wheat crop is also relevant – three inferences can be drawn – (i) accused himself concealed it, (ii) accused had seen someone else concealing it, or (iii) someone told accused that it is concealed there – failure to explain knowledge of such concealment raises inference that he concealed dead body, farsa and full pant. (2010) 2 SCC 583, (2005) 7 SCC 714, AIR 1947 PC 67, (1976) 1 SCC 828, (2005) 11 SCC 600, AIR 2000 SC 1691, (2000) 1 SCC 471, (2016) 14 SCC 640 and (2013) 13 SCC 1 followed. [Paras 43 to 46]
(9) Investigation -- defective investigation -- mistake or gap in investigation not always fatal -- Investigation Officer did not forward weapons for medical opinion -- did not conduct test identification of full pant recovered at instance of accused -- in view of overwhelming evidence available against appellants, such mistakes cannot be given much importance so as to discard prosecution case in toto. 2022 (2) JLJ 574 (SC) (June) = (2022) 8 SCC 668 followed. [Para 56]
(10) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 302, 201 and 420 -- case based on circumstantial evidence -- nonexplanation of last seen together is strong incriminating circumstance in chain of circumstances that unerringly points to guilt of appellants -- incriminating circumstances, taken cumulatively, establish guilt of accused beyond all doubt -- rule out possibility of any other hypothesis except guilt of accused -- no error in holding that accused deceived complainant and dishonestly induced him to deliver money -- no mistake in holding that appellants committed murder of his son and in order to screen themselves, concealed dead body in dry well -- conviction and sentence affirmed. [Paras 57 to 59]
¼1½ nkafMd fopkj.k & ekeyk ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; ij ifjxf.kr ikap dlkSfV;ksa ij [kjk mrjuk vko';dA ¼iSjk 12½
¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 6 & lacaf/kr rF; vkSj dk;Z dk fl)kar lekfo"V gS & lacaf/kr rF; vkSj dk;Z dk fl)kar fookfnr rF;ksa ls lacaf/kr leLr dFkuksa] dk;ksZ vkSj ?kVukvksa dks lfEefyr djus ds fy, foLr`r vFkZ esa ykxw fd;k x;k gS & budk eq[; ?kVukvksa ds gksus ds le; gh vFkok ledkyhu gksuk vko';d ugha & rFkkfi] og ,sls le; vkSj ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fd;k tkuk vko';d gS ftlls ;g mi/kkj.kk vioftZr gks tk, fd og ea=.kk dk ifj.kke gSA ¼iSjk 13½
¼3½ nkafMd fopkj.k & vafre ckj lkFk ns[ks tkus dh ifjfLFkfr & ^^vafre ckj ns[ks tkus** ds lw= dh tM+ lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 esa ;Fkk micaf/kr vuqxkeh rdZ ds fl)kar esa gS & vr% tgka fdlh fof'k"V O;fDr }kjk fdlh dk;Z dk fd;k tkuk lcwr ds fy, rkfRod ;k lqlaxr gS] ogka ml O;fDr dks og dk;Z djus dk volj gksuk lqlaxr gS & ^^volj** esa og leLr le; fcUnq] LFkku vkSj O;fDrxr vkpj.k lfEefyr gSa tks ml O;fDr dk mifLFkr gksuk vkSj og dk;Z djuk ewrZ :i ls laHko cukrs gSa] rFkk og leLr rF; Hkh tks fdlh vU; O;fDr dk mifLFkr gksuk vkSj og dk;Z djuk ewrZ :i ls de laHko cukrs gSa & ;g lkfcr gksus ij fd e`r O;fDr ds lkFk vafre ckj vfHk;qDr ns[kk x;k Fkk mlds ikl vfHkdfFkr vijk/k djus dk volj Fkk] ;g fu"d"kZ ugha fudyrk fd og vko';dr% nks"kh gS & ijarq blls vfHk;qDr ds fo#) mi/kkj.kk vo'; mn~Hkwr gksrh gS & lcwr dk Hkkj vfHk;kstui{k ls vfHk;qDr ij varfjr gks tkrk gS D;ksafd mls vafre ckj vkgr ds lkFk ns[ks tkus ds mijkar ds ?kVuk,a vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ka vfHk;qDr dh fo'ks"k tkudkjh esa gksrh gSaA , vkb vkj 2019 ,l lh 1367 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 18½
¼4½ gsrq & og euksHkko gS ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i dk;Z fd;k x;k ekuk tkrk gS & lk/kkj.kr% HkkSfrd lcwr ds ;ksX; ugha gksrk & rF;ksa ls fudkys x, vuqekuksa }kjk gh vfHkfuf'pr fd;k tk ldrk gS & ÁkFkfedr% vfHk;qDr dks gh Kkr gksrk gS & vfHk;kstui{k ds fy, ;g crkuk vR;ar dfBu gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr dks vijk/k djus ds fy, okLro esa fdl ckr us Ásfjr ;k mÙksftr fd;k & blls Hkh dfBu gksrk gS gsrq dh i;kZIrrk ;k mi;qDrrk dks iw.kZ cy ls LFkkfir djuk & vfHk;kstui{k }kjk fdlh gsrq dk vfLrRo LFkkfir fd;k tkuk i;kZIr & ml gsrq dh i;kZIrrk ;k mi;qDrk dk vuqeku vkuq"kafxd ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2004½ 12 ,l lh lh 521 rFkk ¼1990½ 4 ,l lh lh 370 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19 ,oa 20½
¼5½ lk{; & nLrkosth lk{; dk vHkko & iq= dks fu;qfDr fnyokus ds fy, /ku dk laO;ogkj & vR;f/kd fo'oluh; ekSf[kd lk{; & /ku ds laO;ogkj ls lacaf/kr nLrkosth lk{; ds vHkko ls vfHk;kstui{k dh fo'oluh;rk ÁHkkfor ugha gksrh & ,sls laO;ogkj lk/kkj.kr% nLrkostksa esa vfHkfyf[kr ugha fd, tkrsA ¼iSjk 24½
¼6½ cjkenxh & mi/kkj.kk fd U;kf;d vkSj inh; dk;Z fu;fer ढax ls fd, x, gSa & vfHk;qDr ds Áfr vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dk iwoZ ls oSeuL; ;k iwokZxzg lq>kus ds fy, vfHkys[k ij dqN ugha & 'ko dh cjkenxh ds LFkku ij lkf{k;ksa ds lkFk vfHk;qDr mifLFkr & mlds }kjk nh xbZ tkudkjh ij rFkk mlds }kjk crk, x, LFkku ls 'ko cjken & ;g mi/kkj.kk n`ढ+ gks tkrh gS fd vUos"k.k vfèkdkjh us vUos"k.k ds vius drZO; dk lE;d~ ikyu fd;k gS & iap lkf{k;ksa ls fofufnZ"V laiqf"V ds vHkko esa Hkh vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dk ifjlk{; R;Dr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1995 ,l lh 1930 rFkk ¼2019½ 8 ,l lh lh 359 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 36½
¼7½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 27 & la;qDr ÁdVhdj.k & [kkst ds iw.kZ ,dkf/kd vfHk;qDrksa ls ÁkIr cgqla[;d tkudkjh & vko';d ugha fd blls buesa ls dksbZ Hkh tkudkjh /kkjk dh ifjf/k ls ckgj gks tk,xh & 'kCn ^^O;fDr** esa ,d ls vf/kd O;fDr vk,xk & og tkudkjh lHkh bfÙkyk nsus okyksa ds fo#) xzkg~; gksxhA 1955 lh vkj,y ts 586 rFkk ¼2017½ 3 ,l lh lh 760 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 38½
¼8½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 27] 3 rFkk 8 & [kqys LFkku ls cjkenxh & /kkjk 3 esa vfHkO;fDr ^^rF;** esa bafæ;xkspj HkkSfrd rF; gh ugha vfirq og euksoSKkfud rF; ;k ekufld n'kk Hkh lfEefyr gS ftldk O;fDr dks Hkku gks & ^^rF; irk pyus** esa og LFkku tgka ls oLrq is'k dh xbZ rFkk mlds ckjs esa vfHk;qDr dk Kku lekfo"V gS & ijarq nh xbZ tkudkjh ÁR;{kr% ml mn~ns'; ls lac) gksuk vko';d gS & rF; dk ÁdVhdj.k bl rF; ds dkj.k gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr }kjk nh xbZ tkudkjh ls ml fof'k"V LFkku ij mlds gksus ds ckjs esa vfHk;qDr dk Kku ;k ekufld Hkku Ánf'kZr gksrk gS & dq,a esa xUus ds iÙkksa ds uhps fNis iM+s 'ko dk Kku lqlaxr gS & lw[ks dq,a esa fNis jDrjaftr Qqy iSaV vkSj xsgwa dh Qly esa fNis Qjls dk Kku Hkh lqlaxr gS & rhu vuqeku fd, tk ldrs gSa & ¼1½ Lo;a vfHk;qDr us mls fNik;k] ¼2½ vfHk;qDr us fdlh vkSj dks mls fNikrs ns[kk] vFkok ¼3½ fdlh us vfHk;qDr dks crk;k fd ogka fNik;k x;k gS & bl fNiko ds Kku dk Li"Vhdj.k nsus esa vlQy jgus ls vuqeku fudyrk gS fd 'ko] Qjlk vkSj Qqy iSaV mlus fNik, FksA ¼2010½ 2 ,l lh lh 583] ¼2005½ 7 ,l lh lh 714] , vkb vkj 1947 ihlh 67] ¼1976½ 1 ,l lh lh 828] ¼2005½ 11 ,l lh lh 600] , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 1991] ¼2000½ 1 ,l lh lh 471] ¼2016½ 14 ,l lh lh 640 rFkk ¼2013½ 13 ,l lh lh 1 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 43 ls 46½
¼9½ vUos"k.k & =qfViw.kZ vUos"k.k & esa Hkwy ;k varj lnSo ?kkrd ugha & vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh us vk;q/kksa dks fpfdRlh; jk; ds fy, vxzsf"kr ugha fd;k & vfHk;qDr ds crkus ij cjken Qqy iSaV dk 'kuk[r ijh{k.k ugha fd;k & vihykfFkZ;ksa ds fo#) miyC/k vR;f/kd lk{; dh n`f"V] ,slh Hkwyksa dks bruk egRo ugha fn;k tk ldrk fd vfHk;kstu dks laiw.kZ i{kdFku gh R;Dr dj fn;k tk,A 2022 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 574 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ % ¼2022½ 8 ,l lh lh 668 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 56½
¼10½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302] 201 rFkk 420 & ekeyk ifjfLFkfrd lk{; ij vk/kkfjr & vihykfFkZ;ksa dk nks"k lVhdrk ls bafxr djus okyh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh Ja`[kyk esa] vafre ckj lkFk ns[ks tkus dk Li"Vhdj.k ugha nsuk vijk/k esa Qalkus okyh Ácy ifjfLFkfr gS & vijk/k esa Qalkus okyh lexz ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls vfHk;qDr dk nks"k lHkh lansg ds ijs LFkkfir gksrk gS & vfHk;qDr ds nks"k ds flok; vU; fdlh Hkh ÁkDdyu dh laHkkouk lekIr gks tkrh gS & ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa dksbZ xyrh ugha fd vfHk;qDr ,l us ifjoknh dks Áoafpr fd;k vkSj mls /ku ifjnÙk djus ds fy, csbZekuh ls mRÁsfjr fd;k & ;g vfHkfuèkkZfjr djus esa dksbZ xyrh ugha fd vihykfFkZ;ksa us mlds iq= dh gR;k dh rFkk Lo;a dks cpkus ds fy, 'ko dks lw[ks dq,a esa fNik fn;k & nks"kflf) vkSj naMkns'k vfHkiq"VA ¼iSjk 57 ls 59½
JUDGEMENT
1. This criminal appeal, under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 26.03.2001 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in Sessions Trial No.192/1999, whereby the appellants Soneram and Jaswant have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| S. No. | Name of accused | Section | Sentence | Fine | In default stipulation |
| 1. | Soneram and Jaswant | 302 of IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs. 1000/- | Six months R.I. |
| 2. | Soneram and Jaswant | 201 of IPC | Seven years of R.I. | Rs. 1000/- | Six months R.I. |
| 3. | Soneram | 420 of IPC | Seven years of R.I. | Rs. 1000/- | Six months R.I. |
2. The Prosecution story, in nutshell, may be stated as under:-
Around September to October, 1998, accused Soneram deceived the complainant Prabhu that he will secure a job of Hostel Superintendent at Bhopal for Harvilas, son of Prabhu but they will have to pay Rs.60,000/- for securing the job. The complainant Prabhu paid Rs.55,000/- to Soneram in the month of January, 1999. In order to arrange the payment, Prabhu had taken loan from other persons. Harvilas went along-with Soneram to Bhopal for getting the job as promised but Soneram escaped from Railway Station, Bhopal. So, Harvilas returned to his village Barakala, District Morena. After a few days, on 26.1.1999 Soneram and Jaswant again visited residence of Prabhu and stated that job for Harvilas has been arranged, therefore, Harvilas may be sent with them. Harvilas went to village Salampur on bicycle with Soneram. Three days thereafter, accused Jaswant returned bicycle of Harvilas with an inland letter to complainant Prabhu and Urmila Bai. In the said letter, it was mentioned that Harvilas has reached Bhopal comfortably and Rs.6,000/- be paid to Soneram.
3. Naresh, a relative of Prabhu informed that Harvilas did not reach village Salampur, therefore, Prabhu went to village Salampur and enquired about Harvilas from Soneram. Soneram informed that Harvilas is serving at Bhopal. Prabhu asked Soneram to accompany him to Bhopal so that he may meet Harvilas. Soneram and Prabhu proceeded for Bhopal by bus, but as the bus reached to Kailaras, Soneram fled away. On suspicion, Prabhu lodged a report at Police Station Vijaypur, District Sheopur on 1.2.1999 against the accused Soneram and Jaswant for abduction of his son Harvilas. The inland letter of Harvilas delivered by Jaswant to complainant Prabhu was seized.
4. T. I. Suresh Chandra Dohare arrested Jaswant and Mithlesh (since acquitted). Jaswant and Mithlesh on interrogation informed that dead body of Harvilas is lying in a well of village Tailari. Pursuant to such information given by Jaswant and Mithlesh in police custody, dead body of Harvilas was recovered from a dry well at village Tailari, concealed beneath dry leaves of sugarcane. Panchnama of dead body of Harvilas (Exhibit P/2) was prepared and dead body was sent for autopsy. The Medical Officer, on Post-mortem examination, opined that Harvilas had died 5-10 days before the examination due to anti-mortem injury on his skull.
5. The full pant of deceased and a tomahawk (farsa) were recovered at the instance of Jaswant. A pair of shoes and wooden stick were recovered at the instance of Mithlesh. Soneram was arrested on 5.3.1999 and a blood-stained stone was recovered on his information .
6. Sample of handwriting of accused Soneram and Jaswant was taken and natural handwritings of accused Soneram, Jaswant and deceased Harvilas were seized. The handwriting expert opined that the inland letter was in the handwriting of Jaswant. After recording the statement of witnesses and completing the investigation, police station Vijaypur submitted charge-sheet against accused Soneram, Jaswant and Mithlesh.
7. The trial Court framed charges against Soneram under section 420, 302, 201 of IPC and charges under section 302, 201 of IPC wer
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
The conviction under circumstantial evidence requires that all circumstances must form a complete, logical chain tying the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
When both the courts below recorded concurrent finding of facts, Supreme Court therefore should focus its analysis on the legal aspects emanating from the concurrent findings so recorded. It should n....
Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction – Theory of last seen – Reliability of - The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between point of time when Accused and deceased were seen las....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence, including motive, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the evidence must be cogent, trustworthy, and exclude every possible hypo....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.