Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(MP) 441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. Ahluwalia and Vishal Mishra, JJ.
Ashish Pathak v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2011 (Jabalpur): against the judgment and sentence dated 9.6.2010 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No. 332/20; Decided on 16.10.2024

Advocates:
Akshay Pawar for appellant;
Abhishek Singh, Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Prosecution must prove the entire chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt, failing which conviction cannot be sustained.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Conviction set aside for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt regarding the murder of the deceased with whom the appellant was allegedly seen last - Circumstantial evidence examined. (Paras 11, 25, 45)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Legal standards for its admissibility in criminal trials established - The prosecution must ensure that a complete chain of circumstances must be established without leaving any reasonable doubt about the innocence of the accused; mere last seen theory is weak and requires corroborative evidence. (Paras 13, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Umashanker and concealment of evidence, based on circumstantial evidence including the last seen theory and seizure of incriminating articles, which was contested and found insufficient. (Paras 2-5, 11)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; thus, the trial court's findings were overturned. (Paras 45-46)

Issues: Primary questions involved whether the prosecution established a strong and consistent circumstantial case and if the last seen evidence implicated the appellant in the murder. (Para 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding last seen proximity and the lack of corroborative circumstantial evidence mandated the acquittal of the appellant. The prosecution did not adequately prove its case. (Paras 44-46)

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment and sentence set aside.

Table of Content
1. criminal appeal details and convictions outlined (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. defense arguments against the conviction (Para 9 , 10)
3. circumstantial evidence requirements discussed (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18)
4. post-mortem findings confirm homicide (Para 19 , 20)
5. last seen principle explained (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. witness testimonies regarding last seen (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 35 , 36)
7. seizure of articles and fsl report examination (Para 39 , 40 , 41)
8. analysis of circumstantial evidence and final judgment conclusions (Para 42 , 43 , 44)
9. final verdict and order to acquit (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)

JUDGMENT

Ahluwalia, J. -- 1. This Criminal Appeal under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment and Sentence dated 9.6.2010 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No.332/2009, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the following offences:

S. No.	Conviction under section	Sentence
1.	302 of IPC	Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default 2 years R.I.
2.	201 of IPC	2 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default 6 months R.I.

2. According to prosecution story, the complainant Phoolchand Saket lodged an FIR that he is a scrap dealer and deals with waste Cartoon and bottles. His hut is situated by the side of canal. On 10.7.2009, at about 7-8 p.m.., he closed his shop and went back. In the morning, at about 7:30 a.m., he came to his hut and found that near the Dhaba of Lala Pathak, lot of persons had gathered. He also went there and saw that the dead body of Lala Pathak was lying with only a shirt on the dead body. Injuries were there on head, hand and buttocks. Yesterday, i.e., 10.7.2009, the appellant was drinking liquor with the deceased. It appears that somebody has killed Lala Pathak and his dead body is lying near his Dhaba. Accordingly, the police registered the offence.

3. The dead body was sent for postmortem. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Blood stained and plain earth were seized from the spot. Blood stained cloths of the deceased, empty liquor bottle, one piece of Dari, one dirty shirt, one white coloured Gamchha were also seized from the spot. On the basis of disclosure statement made by appellant, one iron Tangi stained with blood, one blood stained shirt, one pair of socks, one pair of black coloured shoe were seized from the house of the appellant. The appellant was arrested. The seized articles were sent to F.S.L. for forensic examination. The police after completing investigation filed the charge sheet for offence under sections 302, 201 of IPC.

4. Trial Court by order dated 17.11.2009 framed charges under sections 302, 201 of IPC.

5. Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.

6. Prosecution examined Keshav Prasad Pathak (P.W.1), Dr. Atul Singh (P.W.2), Badri Prasad Pathak (P.W.3), Umakant Pathak (P.W.4), (No one has been examined as P.W.5), Saraswati Pathak (P.W.6), Smt. Neelam Pathak (P.W.7), Phoolchand Saket (P.W.8), Shyamlal Rawat (P.W.9), Lal Chand Gupta (P.W.10), Bhagwandeen Dahiya (P.W.11), Shivakant Tiwari (P.W.12), Smt. Geeta Pathak (P.W.13), K.P. Tripathi (P.W.14), Arun Kumar Mishra (P.W.15), Resham Singh (P.W.16) and Satya Prakash (P.W.17).

7. Appellant examined Lovkush Prasad Dwivedi (D.W.1) in his defence.

8. Trial Court by impugned Judgment and Sentence, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the above mentioned offences.

9. Challenging the Judgment and Sentence passed by the trial Court, it is submitted by Counsel for appellant that prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

10. Per contra, Counsel for State has supported the findings recorded by the trial Court.

11. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

12. This Case is based on circumstantial evidence of Last Seen

Together and recovery of incriminating articles.

13. Before considering the facts of the case, this Court would like to conside