Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed the surviving appellants’ convictions and sentences for murder with common intention, house-breaking and theft. The proved circumstances included motive, movement of the accused in a van, recovery and identification of stolen property, the weapon, bloodstained clothes and the shop’s lock and key. Together they established the complete incriminating chain. No perversity, material evidentiary omission or illegality warranted interference with the concurrent findings.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence established the surviving appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether concurrent factual findings warranted interference in the Supreme Court appeal.
Held
- Interference with concurrent factual findings requires grounds such as perversity, absence of evidence, misreading or disregard of material evidence. The Court nevertheless examined the evidence and found the findings sustainable. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 51)
- The prosecution proved motive through witnesses to the earlier hostility and threats, and proved the accused’s relevant movement in the van through the witnesses accepted by both courts. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)
- Recovery and identification of the stolen articles, discovery of the wheel-pana compatible with the head injuries, recovery of clothes containing human blood, and discovery of the shop’s lock and key formed further proved links. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49)
- The circumstances cumulatively established the appellants’ involvement beyond reasonable doubt and excluded another perpetrator. The concurrent conviction and sentence required no interference. (¶¶ 50, 51, 52)
- The appeal concerning Rameshwar Singh had already abated on his death; the merits decision concerned Surendra Singh and Ram Singh. (¶¶ 5, 6)
Result
Appeal dismissed as to the two surviving appellants; concurrent convictions and sentences maintained. Appeal concerning the deceased co-appellant stood abated.