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

2016 Supreme(SC) 486

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Praful Sudhakar Parab – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2008
Decided On : 29-06-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
If there is proximity in the last seen an murder, it will be a link in the circumstances.
Conviction on the basis of evidence of last seen, conduct of the accused, recovery of dead body and clothes of the accused worn by him at the time of incident pointing to the guilt of the accused, cannot be faulted.
Motive, if proved, would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence; but absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case.

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Proximity of last seen and murder – Evidence of last seen rightly relied upon by courts below. (Para 15)

       (2005) 3 SCC 114 – Relied upon

       (b) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Accused last seen with victim in proximity of time of murder – Dead body and clothes and other articles recovered at the instance of the accused – Conduct of the accused, recovery of clothes which was worn by him at the time of occurrence and recovery of keys which were with the deceased when he left the house completes the chain of events – Circumstances unerringly pointing out that guilt of the accused – No error in conviction. (Para 15)

       (2001) 9 SCC 277; (2006) 10 SCC 681; (2006) 10 SCC 151 – Relied upon

       (c) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Motive – It is impossible to prove what precisely impelled the murderer to kill a particular person – Motive, if proved, would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence – Absence of motive, however, cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. (Para 17)

       (2001) 7 SCC 690; (2010) 10 SCC 439 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant, an employee of PTS Marol was convicted u/s 302 for murder of his colleague Prabhudas Narayan Raut.

       High Court dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction of the appellant.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no merit in the appeal.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok Bhushan, J.

The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 14.2.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.703 of 2001 by which the High Court by dismissing the appeal of the appellant has affirmed the conviction and sentence order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay dated 31.07.2001 in Sessions Case No. 459 of 1997 recorded against the accused awarding him life sentence and fine of Rs. 5000/-.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that both, the victim Prabhudas Narayan Raut and accused Praful Sudhakar Parab were working in the police Department of the State of Maharashtra. The victim was working as Senior Clerk in Police Training School Marol whereas the accused was working as Pay Sheet Clerk attached to LA-IV, Police Training Centre, Marol. On 7.12.1996, the victim after finishing his office work at 6:30 p.m. reached at his residence by 7:30 p.m. The accused came at the residence of victim at about 8:00 p.m. and informed the victim that he has been called in the office by his superior Mr. Patil and victim should accompany him to the office. The victim after making a phone call to PTS Marol stated that he has not been called in the office and he shall not accompany the accused. When the accused came to the residence of victim, the wife of the victim Kalpana Raut and his son Anis were also present. Victim also told his wife that he will inquire on Monday as to who had given such a false message. At about 9 p.m., the victim and Kalpana went to nearby telephone booth and while Kalpana was having conversations with his brother, accused after enquiring about the whereabouts of the couple from child Anis again came to them at the telephone booth. Accused persuaded Prabhudas to accompany him to the office. After telephonic call was over, Kalpana along with victim and accused returned to the house of victim. The victim took up the bag brought from office with all its contents and left the house along with accused after 9:00 p.m. After above departure from house on 7.12.1996 after 9 p.m. Prabhudas never returned. On next day morning Kalpana, the wife inquired from telephone operator PTS, Marol about her husband. She was informed that nobody had gone to the office of Police Training School, Marol on the preceding night. Kalpana along with a relative visited the Police Training School, Marol and made enquiries. Police Constables Sanap and Khamkar, who were colleagues of the deceased suggested Kalpana that she would find out the person with whom her husband had gone last night. Kalpana approached Sawant who was maternal uncle of the victim. Sawant took the Kalpana to his sister i.e. mother of accused, accused was not present there. Kalpana was handed over photograph of accused by his mother from which photograph Kalpana identified the accused as the person with whom her husband went last night. Subsequently on the same day, Sawant family informed that accused is available at their residence. Kalpana went to Sawant family and inquired the accused regarding whereabouts of her husband. Accused gave evasive reply. Accused flatly refused that he had gone to house of Raut on previous night. The accused was taken to the Police Station Meghwadi by Kalpana Raut and her relatives. Kalpana met Police Sub Inspector Shinde who recorded the statement of Kalpana Raut and a complaint of missing person Prabhudas Raut was registered. The accused was asked to stay back at the Police Station. Shinde inquired from the accused about the whereabouts of victim, accused was reluctant to answer. On further inquiry by Shinde and Inspector Sonar, accused informed that he took Prabhudas Raut with two other friends Dalvi and Waingankar at Panvel in one hotel. Police team took the accused to Panvel who pointed out a Suman Motel. On inquiry from the hotel staff it was revealed that Prabhudas and other two did not visit the hotel or stayed there. The prosecution case further is that on further int











































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