Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, SANJIV KHANNA, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan And Others – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat Etc. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 333-334 of 2017
Decided on : 13-12-2019
(A) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – Every link in chain of circumstances necessary to establish guilt of accused must be established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt – All circumstances must be consistent pointing only towards guilt of accused – Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is lapse of time between point when accused and deceased were seen together and when deceased is found dead – It ought to be so minimal so as to exclude possibility of any intervening event involving death at hands of some other person – In a case based on circumstantial evidence Courts ought to have a conscientious approach and conviction ought to be recorded only in case all links of chain are complete pointing to guilt of accused – Each link unless connected together to form a chain may suggest suspicion but same in itself cannot take place of proof and will not be sufficient to convict accused. (Paras 12, 13, 14and 16)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Sections 363, 364, 364-A and 365 and Section 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 21 (1)(a) – Indian Explosives Act, 1908 – Sections 3 and 5 – Kidnapping, murder and conspiracy – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Circumstantial evidence – There is no eye witness of incident – There are material contradictions in testimonies of PWs – Theory of last seen rejected is a feeble and untrustworthy evidence – There was a huge time gap between point when accused and deceased were last seen together and time of death – This crucial fact has been miserably over looked by High Court – Apart from Extra-Judicial Confession by Appellant Accused No.-1 no direct evidence was adduced by prosecution to establish involvement of accused in alleged crime – Evidence adduced against appellants do not form complete chain connecting them with crime and prosecution has failed to prove guilt beyond doubt – Extra-judicial confession is questionable – Trial court had therefore rightly acquitted all accused after recording cogent reasons and good grounds – High Court should not have interfered with acquittals given by trial court unless acquittals were vitiated by manifest illegality – Conviction and sentences of appellants set aside. (Paras 8, 10, 17, 18, 21 and 22)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Where an appellate court is reversing a trial court’s order of acquittal, it should give proper weight and consideration to presumption of innocence in favour of accused and to principle that such a presumption stands reinforced, reaffirmed, and strengthened by trial court. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise from judgment of Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat dated 28th September 2016 convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Sections 363, 364, 364-A and 365 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Arms Act and under Sections 3 and 5 of Indian Explosive Act. Entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.
Findings of Court:
High Court should not have interfered with the acquittals given by trial court, unless acquittals were vitiated by manifest illegality or such a conclusion could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
These appeals arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat dated 28th September 2016 convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Sections 363, 364, 364-A and 365 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Arms Act and under Section 3 and 5 of the Indian Explosive Act. The Division Bench while reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, has imposed following punishment upon the appellants:
| Offence under Section | Sentence Imposed | Default Sentence |
| 302 of IPC | Life Imprisonment + Fine of Rs. 10,000/- each | Two month’s simple imprisonment. |
| 363 of IPC | Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment + Fine of Rs. 5,000/- each | One month’s simple imprisonment |
| 364 of IPC | Ten years’ rigorous imprisonment + Fine of Rs. 5,000/- each | One month’s simple imprisonment |
| 364-A of IPC | Life imprisonment + Fine of Rs. 10,000/- each | One month’s simple imprisonment |
| 365 of IPC | Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment + Fine of Rs. 5,000/- each | One month’s simple imprisonment |
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 5th February 2001, the complainant, Paramhansh Mangal Yadav (PW-1), had informed the police at Kapodra Police Station that his youngest son, Arjun, aged about 9 years who was studying in second standard, was missing from 4th February 2001. On the fateful day, the complainant, as per routine, had left for work at 8:00 am and had returned at 2:00 pm for lunch, when he noticed that Arjun was missing. The complainant had searched for Arjun in the streets and at the relatives’ residing nearby but he could not be located. This information given by the complainant was recorded by an entry made in the police diary. Thereafter, formal complaint was registered on 14th February 2001. In this complaint, Paramhansh (PW-1) had pointed out that initially Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan, Appellant/Accused No.1, had joined the search but thereafter he had suddenly vanished. After about four days, the Appellant No.1 had made a call to the complainant and disclosed that he was in Vapi. The complainant got suspicious and thereupon had sent his brother-in-law Sadhusharan Harinandan Yadav (PW-9) and two other relatives Sudarshan and Premchand Yadav to Vapi to bring Appellant No. 1 back. Upon returning, Appellant No. 1 is alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession before about 50 people near Paramhansh’s (PW-1) house. Appellant No. 1 had confessed that he had kidnapped Arjun at the behest of Ramkeval Mutur Yadav, Accused No. 5, who had animosity and grievance against the complainant. Appellant No. 1 had made Arjun sit on his bicycle and had taken him to the railway station, where he was handed over to Ram Ashish and Shivnath, Appellant/Accused Nos. 2 and 3.
3. Thereupon, Shailendra, Appellant No. 1, was arrested by the police on 14th February 2001.
4. After the alleged extra-judicial confession, the complainant had sent his brother-in-law, Sadhusharan (PW-9), again to Vapi along with one Jugeswar to search for Appellant Nos. 2 and 3. They had thereupon met Sanjay at Vapi who had informed that Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were residing at his home. Thereupon Jugeswar informed the complainant who in turn conveyed this information to police. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were thereafter arrested by the police from the house of Sanjay.
5. It is the case of the police that on 13th February 2001 a mutilated decomposed dead body without one leg was found by Naginbhai Kalyanji Patel (PW-15) and his son Sanjay Patel (PW-5) in their agricultural farm, who had then informed the police station at Pandesara. The said dead body was sent for post mortem to the New Civil Hospital in Surat and kept in the mortuary.
6. It is the case of the police that dead body was of Arjun and that the Appellant No. 1 after arr
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
