Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 397, 450 – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Case of the prosecution that appellantsaccused (A1 and A2) trespassed into house of PW-1, wherein he also did his gold and silver business, concealing iron rods and robbed gold ornaments and brutally killed his son and wife – Accused held guilty of offences punishable u/ss.302, 397 and 450 and sentenced accordingly – Legality of – Held: Though there were no eye-witnesses to the actual killings, there were three separate witnesses PWs 4, 6, and 10, who were independent of each other and had no animosity with the accused and spoke in unison about seeing one or both of the accused running away from the house of PW-1 on the fateful night with bags in their possession – No explanation given as to why three separate witnesses would choose to implicate the accused falsely – Sequence of events unfolded in quick succession on the fateful night, leading to not only identification of the accused by the witnesses present but also their apprehension and arrest, apart from seizure of the stolen gold ornaments and cash from their possession, there was no time or possibility for the police to hoist a false case upon them – Minor discrepancies and shortcomings in the statements made by witnesses after passage of a few years would necessarily have to be discounted in such a scenario – No patent illegality or manifest injustice committed by the Trial Court and the High Court, warranting exercise of discretionary jurisdiction u/Article 136 –Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.27, 106, 114(a) – Constitution of India – Article 136 – Evidence – Circumstantial evidence.
Constitution of India – Article 136 – Scope of jurisdiction – Concurrent findings of guilt against the accused, interference with u/Article 136 – Discussed.
Pappu vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 10 SCC 321; Sambhu Das alias Bijoy Das and another Vs. State of Assam (2010) 10 SCC 374 : [2010] 11 SCR 493 Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343 : [1952] SCR 1091; Karnel Singh Vs. State of M.P. (1995) 5 SCC 518 : [1995] 2 Suppl. SCR
629 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.