Penal Code, 1860: ss. 364 and 302/34 –Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder – On facts, father not agreeing to proposal of main accused of marriage with his daughter – On the fateful day, main accused alongwith the appellant (his cousin brother) invited the father for dinner to main accused’s house, had dinner together, and immediately thereafter, the father died – Daughter had seen three of them sitting together and having dinner – Confessional statement of main accused and on basis thereof, recovery of weapons and clothes – Before trial could begin death of main accused – Conviction and sentence of appellant u/s. 364 and 302/34 by the courts below – On appeal, held: Chain of events appearing without any break, against the appellant which included the motive behind the commission of the crime followed by the manner in which the incident took place leading to the death of the father – Also accused last seen in the company of the deceased is a strong circumstance against the accused while appreciating the circumstantial evidence – Furthermore, death of the main accused was of no significance for the appellant’s prosecution since this was a case of common intention of the two accused persons to eliminate the father, and the appellant was found actively participating in the crime till last along with the other accused, who died – Thus, courts below rightly upheld the appellant’s conviction, based on circumstantial evidence which was proved by the prosecution by adducing ocular evidence.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 When the Courts below have recorded
concurrent findings against the accused person which are based on due appreciation of evidence, this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India would be slow to interfere in such concurrent findings and would not appreciate the evidence de novo unless it is prima facie shown that both the Courts below did not either consider the relevant piece of evidence or there exists any perversity or/and absurdity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below. [Para 20] [683-B-C]
1.2 Having gone through the evidence, it is found that the findings are legally and factually sustainable in law. The two courts below rightly held that the appellant’s conviction was based on circumstantial evidence which, in this case, the prosecution was able to prove it by adducing evidence. The prosecution was able to prove the chain of circumstances/events appearing against the appellant without any break therein and hence, the appellant’s conviction deserves to be upheld. [Paras 21, 22] [683-D-E]
1.3 The motive, according to the prosecution, was that K had a grudge against the deceased because he was not agreeable to the K’s proposal to marry his daughter-G. This was proved with the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 3. It was rightly believed by the two Courts below. The prosecution then proved that the appellant along with K had gone to the house of the deceased for inviting him for dinner at K’s house on the same night. The deceased accepted the invitation and went to K’s house to have dinner with K and the appellant. When the appellant was sitting in the company of the deceased (M) till 11 P.M. along with K in his house and had dinner with M and K, which was seen by G and immediately thereafter M died, the appellant in cross-examination of PWs-1,2 and 3 was not able to elicit anything to discredit the evidence of the said three w itnesses and to disprove the circumstances deposed against him. It was necessary for the appellant to have explained the aforementioned circumstances appearing against him in the proceedings under Section 313 of the Code. The appellant, however, failed to explain any circumstances and denied his involvement in the crime. [Para 25-28] [684-A-D]
1.4 From the evidence eight circumstances appeared against the appellant. These circumstances are: first motive was against the deceased due to his not agreeing to the proposal of marriage of K with his daughter; second, the appellant and K, both being the cousins, knew each other very well; third, both went together to the house of the deceased to invite him for a dinner at K’s house; fourth, all the three had dinner together at K’s house; fifth, M died immediately after dinner; sixth, K gave his confessional statement; seventh, recovery of weapon and cloths at the instance of K; and eighth, the dead body was found lying near iron cot where M(deceased) had last dinner with K and the appellant. The mentioned eight circumstances do constitute a chain of events against the appellant and lead to draw a strong conclusion against the appellant and K for having committed the murder of M. It clearly establishes that both (K and the appellant) had a common intention to eliminate M. There could be no other person other than the appellant and K, who committed the crime in question. [Para 29-31] [684-E-H; 685-A]
1.5 A theory of “accused last seen in the company of the deceased” is a strong circumstance against the accused while appreciating the circumstantial evidence. In such cases, unless the accused is able to explain properly the material circumstances appearing against him, he can be held guilty for commission of offence for which he is charged. In the instant case, it was rightly held by the two courts below against the appellant and there is no good ground to disturb this finding. [Para 32] [685-B-C]
1.6 Death of K-main accused was of no significance so far as the appellant’s prosecution is concerned. The reason being that this was a case of common intention of the two accused persons to eliminate M and the appellant was one of the accused persons, who was found actively participating in the crime till last along with the other accused, who died. [Para 34] [685-D-E]
1.7 The two Courts below were right in holding the appellant guilty of commission of the offences by properly appreciating the ocular evidence of the prosecution witness notwithstanding the death of the main accused, which was of no relevance for deciding the involvement of the appellant in commission of crime. There is no good ground to take a different view than what is taken by the two Courts below and concur with their reasoning and conclusion with the additional reasonings. [Paras 35-36] [685-F-G]
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.