Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 364 and 201 – Kidnapping and murder – FIR by the father that a day before the incident, the appellant and his friends forcibly took his son in their auto and kidnapped him and the next day, he was found dead with multiple injuries – Animosity between the parties on account of the previous report lodged by the mother of the deceased against the appellant – Conviction of the appellant u/ss.302,
364 and 201 for kidnapping and murder of the informant’s son and was sentenced accordingly – Order upheld by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: Animosity between the parties may be the motive behind the crime but not sufficient to prove the commission of the crime unless the evidence proves kidnapping/abduction and killing of the deceased, either by direct or circumstantial evidence – Prosecution witness did not utter a single word so as to prove the kidnapping as alleged or even that the deceased was with them at any point of time in the evening of fateful day – Only that there was some ‘galata’ under the banyan tree was proved but were unable to identify the persons involved in it – They failed to testify that any information was given by them to the father regarding the alleged kidnapping of the deceased – In the absence thereof and the fact that both prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, it cannot be held that the appellant was involved in the incident and that was responsible for the killing of the deceased, on the basis of the last seen theory – No evidence to either prove the kidnapping of the deceased or that he was last seen in the company of the appellant – Keeping in mind the five golden principles, the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the commission of the offence at the hands of the appellant – Courts below erred in convicting the appellant on complete misreading of the evidence – Thus, the impugned judgments and orders set aside. [Paras 11-15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. 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.