Sections 376, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code – Non- mentioning of Name in FIR – not fatal – Last seen theory proved – Confessional statement of Accused was duly corroborated – Apex court held that Lower courts rightly convicted the accused – dismissed the appeal =
Whether the absence of name of the accused in the FIR points towards the
innocence of the accused and entitles him for acquittal?
Whether the present case is a fit case to apply the last seen theory to
establish the guilt of the accused?
Whether the circumstantial evidence in the present case indicate towards
the guilt of the accused and whether these evidences are sufficient to
establish the guilt of the accused?
In the case in hand, the deceased child was taken to the backyard of the
mill by the accused and the same was seen by PW 5 and PW 12. The deceased
child went missing since then and was found dead the next morning. The
accused did not explain why did he take the child to the backyard. On the
other hand, he confessed to his crime which was corroborated by the
recovery of a shawl at the instance of the accused himself in the presence
of witnesses. Therefore, in the light of the principle laid down by this
Court, we are of the opinion that the High Court was justified in holding
the accused guilty of rape and murder of the deceased child. We accordingly
answer this point in favour of the respondent.
It is true that in the present case, there is no direct evidence
which prove that the rape and murder of the deceased child was committed by
the appellant. There are no witnesses available on record who have
testified having witnessed the appellant committing the crime. However, all
the circumstances point towards the appellant as being the author of the
crime in the present case.
“5. The mode of evaluating circumstantial evidence has been stated by this
Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 and it is
as follows:
“It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established, and all
the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be
a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must
be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.”
19. Again, in the present case, the recovery of the body of the deceased
child from the same well where PW-8 had seen the accused appellant the
previous night throwing something in the well provides for a strong
circumstantial evidence.
The unusual behaviour of the accused
in taking the
deceased child to the backyard of the mill,
sending of his employee for
lunch at the same time and
also the opening the mill in the odd hours of
the night the very same evening points towards the guilt of the accused.
We
answer this point in favour of the respondent.
20. Since, all the points are answered in favour of the respondent, we
hold that the High Court was correct in upholding the decision of the
Sessions Judge in convicting the accused of rape and murder of the deceased
child. We therefore, sustain the decision of the High Court and hold that
the charges under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of IPC are proved against the
appellant. His sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and in
default one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 376, life imprisonment
and fine of Rs.5000/- and on default, one year rigorous imprisonment under
Section 302 and also 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-
and on default, rigorous imprisonment of six months under section 201 of
IPC is confirmed. All sentences are to run concurrently. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed as the same is devoid of merit.
2014 – Aug.part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41800
Discussion
Comments are closed.