Summary
On a circumstantial-evidence prosecution for murder, the Court upheld Surajdeo Mahto’s conviction but acquitted Prakash Mahto. Evidence of sustained companionship, motive, false explanations, subsequent disappearance and a recovered article completed the chain against Surajdeo. Comparable corroboration was missing against Prakash, whose presence with the deceased created suspicion but did not prove guilt. Surajdeo’s late juvenility claim failed because the documents bore another name and were not credibly linked to him.
Issues
- Whether the circumstances proved each appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the first appellant’s documents justified an inquiry into juvenility.
Provisions considered
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872An unexplained departure from the deceased’s company was assessed with the other established circumstances, rather than treating last-seen evidence alone as decisive. (¶¶ 29, 30, 35, 43)
- Section 7A, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000A claim could be raised at any stage, but required cogent material establishing a prima facie basis for inquiry. (¶¶ 46, 47, 48)
Held
- Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Last-seen evidence is ordinarily weak by itself and must be assessed with surrounding events and corroboration; it cannot automatically establish every accompanying person’s guilt. (¶¶ 27, 29, 30, 43)
- Related witnesses’ evidence cannot be rejected merely because of relationship. An adverse inference from absence of independent witnesses requires a basis that available best evidence was withheld; the witnesses’ accounts here were natural and withstood cross-examination. (¶¶ 32, 33)
- Medical evidence and the discovery circumstances answered the suggested gap in time. Against Surajdeo, the continuing companionship, motive, misleading accounts of the deceased’s whereabouts, subsequent disappearance and identification of his lungi supplied corroborating links. (¶¶ 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44)
- Prakash was not shown to have participated in the initial enticement, shared the motive, conspired with Surajdeo, possessed a recovered article or behaved evasively afterwards. Even accepting identification evidence, the chain remained incomplete and he was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44, 45)
- Section 7A permits juvenility to be claimed even after final disposal, but the accused must first produce cogent prima facie material. The school documents bore the name Suryadev Prasad, without a credible link to Surajdeo Mahto; no fact-finding inquiry was warranted on those documents. (¶¶ 46, 47, 48)
Result
Appeal partly allowed: Surajdeo’s conviction and sentence upheld and his surrender directed; Prakash acquitted and his bail bonds discharged.