Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, Prakash Chandra Gupta, JJ.
Kashiram S/o.Ram Bagas – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2000/2011
Decided On : 13-10-2022
IPC - Conviction under section 302 of IPC - [302] - The judgment discusses the circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confession, motive, and the principle of last seen together to establish the guilt of the accused under section 302 of IPC. The court relied on the principles laid down in various judgments to evaluate the evidence and concluded that the prosecution had proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 302 of IPC for the murder of the deceased. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confession, and motive. The accused denied the charges and sought trial. The trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confession, and motive. The court also discussed the principles of last seen together and relied on various judgments to support its findings.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, reliability of the extra-judicial confession, establishment of motive, and the principle of last seen together.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in various judgments to evaluate the evidence, including the test for convicting based on circumstantial evidence, the admissibility and reliability of extra-judicial confession, and the significance of motive and last seen together in establishing guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court were affirmed. The court found the accused guilty under section 302 of IPC based on the established circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confession, motive, and the principle of last seen together.
JUDGMENT
Prakash Chandra Gupta, J. - Appellant has filed this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.08.2011, passed by Sessions Judge Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 26/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the accused Kashiram is father-in-law and deceased Pooran Singh was father of Suresh (PW-3). On 26.11.2010 at around 10.30 pm accused Kashiram came at police station Ahmedpur, District Sehore and gave intimation to SHO Charan Singh Chauhan (PW-7) that his Samdhi deceased Pooran Singh, resident of village Gopalpura has rendered his son ill by black magic. He asked him many times to cure his son but he was not doing the same, so today i.e. 26.11.2010 at around 10.00 pm by the bank of Parva river near his field he killed the deceased Pooran Singh. About this intimation a Roznamcha Sanha ( Ex.P/14A) and thereafter at 10.35 pm Suchna Panchnama also has been written by SHO Charan Singh Chauhan (PW- 7), before witnesses Babulal (PW-1) and Pyarelal (PW-2). At 10.40 pm SHO Charan Singh Chauhan (PW-7) proceeded to the spot for verification of intimation given by accused Kashiram along with ASI P.C. Loat (PW-6), Constable 163 Mahendra, Constable 543 Manoj, Nagar Sainik 85 Kuldeep singh and the accused Kasiram, witnesses Babulal (PW-1) and Pyarelal (PW-2). In this respect Roznamcha-Sanha (Ex.P/12A) has been written.
3. SHO Charan Singh Chauhan (PW-7) along with police personnel and witnesses at the instance of accused reached near the agricultural field of Kashiram by the bank of Parva river in Majheda village and they had seen that Pooran Singh was lying injured on the track path of the farm. Police personnel taking the witnesses and the deceased Pooran Singh in their vehicle came to Police Thana. ASI P.C Loat (PW-6) and Constable Manoj were sent to the deceased's house in Gopalpura to intimate about his death. Constable 163 Mahendra and Sainik Kuldeep Singh took the deceased to Doctor Alok Rai (PW-8). Doctor Alok Rai (PW-8) examined Pooran Singh and declared that he was brought dead. On receiving intimiation Suresh (PW-3) and Gyan Singh (PW-4) reached police station Ahmedpur.
4. Suresh (PW-3) on 27.11.2010 at 2 am had given intimation that on day before yesterday i.e. on Thursday the accused Kashiram had come to Gopalpura at his home and told his father deceased Pooran Singh that Himmat Singh son of accused is unwell, so let he be treated by the deceased Pooran Singh. On 26.11.2010 at 2.30 pm accused took Pooran Singh to Majheda village. On that night after getting information he (Suresh) along with Gyan Singh (PW-4) came to police station Ahmedpur by motorcycle. At that time accused was also present at police station. He asked the accused about the whereabouts of his father. Then the accused confessed that the deceased had spell bounded his son that is why he killed the deceased and dead body of the deceased was on the bank of Parva river. He enquired with police about his father then the police informed that the deceased's body was sent to Shyampur hospital. Thereafter Suresh (PW-3) and Gyan Singh (PW-4) went to the hospital and saw Pooran Singh dead and his clothes were immersed with blood.
There were sharp injuries on head and back of the deceased. Suresh (PW-3) also told that when he had been to matrimonial house his father- in-law Kashiram has said to him that his father is doing spell bounded on Himmat Singh and he must ask his father to cure Himmat Singh otherwise he would kill the deceased. On the aforesaid intimation Charan Singh Chauhan (PW-7) written a Dehati-Nalsi (Ex.P/7) at Community Health Centre, Shyampur and he also lodged Dehati Marg intimation (Ex.P/8). On the basis of Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/7) on 27.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confession, motive, and the principle of last seen together to prove the guilt of the ac....
Extra-judicial confessions require corroborative evidence to ensure reliability; circumstantial evidence must present a complete chain connecting the accused to the crime without reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
Extrajudicial confession can support a conviction if credible, corroborated by other evidence, and satisfies standards for circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain conclusively proving guilt and excluding innocence hypothesis; failure of key links like last seen, extra-judicial confession, motive, recover....
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
