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 = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.592 OF 2010 RAMESH ……APPELLANT Vs. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE ……RESPONDENT= 2014 -Aug.part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41800

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