Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed concurrent convictions for murder and causing disappearance of evidence. The proved circumstantial chain included last-seen evidence, the joint purchase of whisky, recovery of the body, fingerprint evidence and recoveries at the accused’s instance. Some witnesses turning hostile and immaterial inconsistencies did not discredit the consistent material evidence. No perversity, arbitrariness, absurdity or illegality warranting interference with the concurrent findings was shown.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence sustained the concurrent convictions.
- Whether hostile witnesses or alleged contradictions justified interference.
Held
- Concurrent evidence-based findings are ordinarily respected in this Court, but remain open to interference for demonstrated perversity, arbitrariness, absurdity or illegality. No such defect was established after consideration of the record in this case. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 13, 14)
- The Court accepted the combined proved circumstances, including last-seen evidence, purchase of whisky, recovery of the injured body, fingerprints on seized articles, recoveries at the appellant’s instance, motive and his failure to explain the incriminating circumstances. The material circumstances formed an unbroken chain connecting him to the crime; silence was considered within that proved chain. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The prosecution evidence did not fail merely because some of its witnesses turned hostile. The consistent testimony concerning the material circumstances was properly relied on. Minor contradictions did not justify rejection of the whole evidence, and counsel identified no material contradiction or inconsistency. (¶¶ 11, 13, 14, 15)
Result
Appeal dismissed; concurrent convictions under sections 302 and 201 IPC and concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and three years’ rigorous imprisonment, with fines, upheld.