Penal Code, 1860:
ss.457, 380 and 302/34 – Prosecution under – Of three accused – Circumstantial evidence – Conviction of all the three accused by courts below – Appeal against A-1 abated due to death of A-1 during pendency of appeal to Supreme Court – Held: All the circumstances viz. motive, accused last seen, recovery of stolen articles at the instance of accused and identification of the articles, discovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused; recovery of blood-stained clothes of the accused and discovery of lock and key of the shop of the deceased at the instance of A-1, were proved by the prosecution with the aid of oral evidence beyond all reasonable doubt – It is established by the prosecution that none else other than the appellants were the persons involved in the crime. Constitution of India:
Art.136 – Jurisdiction under – Scope of – Held: When two courts below have appreciated the entire ocular evidence, the Supreme Court would be very slow in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction u/Art. 136 to appreciate the evidence afresh, unless the concurrent findings are wholly perverse or recorded without any evidence or recorded by misreading or ignoring the material evidence.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. When the two Courts below in their respective jurisdiction have appreciated the entire ocular evidence, then this Court would be very slow in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to appreciate the evidence afresh unless the appellants are able to point out that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below are wholly perverse or are recorded without any evidence or are recorded by misreading or ignoring the material evidence. [Para 30] [1064-C-E]
Lachman Singh v. State AIR 1952 SC 167 : [1952] SCR 839 – referred to.
2.1 The motive was held proved by the two Courts below with the aid of ocular evidence of PWs 3, 4, 10 and 11 by the prosecution. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these four prosecution witnesses on this issue. Firstly, no evidence was adduced by the defense; Secondly, no explanation was given by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings; Thirdly, all the four witnesses knew each other including the accused persons and ‘R’ because all were the residents of one village and of nearby area. [Paras 34 and 35][1065-A-D]
2.2 The second circumstance is of “appellants last seen”. This was held proved by the two Courts below with the aid of ocular evidence of PWs 3, 11 and 13. There is again no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these three witnesses on this issue. First, no evidence was adduced by the defense; Second, no explanation was given by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings and lastly, this was one of the relevant circumstances to prove the chain of events which led to commission of the crime. [Paras 37 and 38][1065-E, F-G]
2.3 The third circumstance is of “recovery of stolen articles at the instance of accused persons”. This was held proved with the aid of evidence of PWs 3, 8, and 14. This was also one of the relevant circumstances to prove the chain of events, which led to commission of crime. The reason was that the deceased was sleeping in his shop where he was found dead and several articles kept in his shop for sale which were found missing were later recovered at the instance of the accused persons. Neither any evidence nor any explanation was given by the accused on this issue. Therefore, there is no reason to find fault in this circumstance for reversing the finding on this issue. [Paras 39, 40 and 41][1065-D-G]
2.4 The fourth circumstance is of “identification of stolen articles”. This was held proved with the aid of evidence of PWs
3 and 8. It was proved that the items recovered at the instance of the appellants were got tallied with the stolen items with the aid of these two witnesses. As there was neither any defense evidence and nor any explanation given by the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings, the two Courts below were justified in holding the fourth circumstance as proved. It was undoubtedly one of the relevant circumstances to prove the chain of the event in proving the commission of crime by the appellants. [Paras 42 and 43][1066-B-D]
2.5 The fifth circumstance is of discovery of weapon of crime at the instance of A-3. This was held proved with the aid of evidence of PW-10. It was one of the important circumstances to prove the chain of events in commission of offence. Ext. Ka-20 is the weapon “wheel-pana” that was used for assaulting deceased on his head. The doctor, who performed the post mortem, also confirmed that the injuries sustained by the deceased on his head could be caused with the use of wheel-pana. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence and nor there is any material to discard this evidence. [Paras 44, 45 and 46][1066-D-G]
2.6 The sixth circumstance is of “recovery of clothes containing human blood”. The clothes were recovered at the instance of the appellants and it was held duly proved in evidence. This equally is one of the relevant circumstances in proving the chain of events, which led to commission of the crime and there is no ground to hold this fact as not proved for want of any challenge at the instance of appellants. [Paras 47 and 48] [1066-F-H]
2.7 The seventh circumstance is of “discovery of lock and key of shop of the deceased”. This was recovered at the instance of A-1 and was held proved with the aid of evidence of PWs-12 &
14. [Para 49][1067-A]
2.8 Thus, all the circumstances were proved by the prosecution with the aid of oral evidence beyond all reasonable doubt, which led to commission of the crime. All the circumstances, point the finger of guilt towards the appellants and their complicity in commission of the crime. It is established by the prosecution that none else other than the appellants who were the persons involved in the commission of offence in question and that they conspired to eliminate the deceased. There is no perversity or arbitrariness or illegality in the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below, when it was held that it is the appellants who committed the crime in question. [Paras 50 and 51][1067-A-D]
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.