Summary
A former village Sarpanch in Morena was convicted under Section 302 IPC on circumstantial evidence for the murder of a man he had taken from his house on the evening of 19 December 1995 and was seen with at a shop, whose body was found the next morning; the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition: the last-seen theory, weak by itself, when coupled with proximity between the last sighting and recovery of the body casts a burden on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain how he parted company, as held in Rajender and Satpal; his silence, the enmity disclosed in the evidence and recovery of the axe completed the chain, and no perversity was shown in the concurrent findings.
Issues
- Whether a conviction for murder could rest on the last-seen-together circumstance where the accused offered no explanation of when and how he parted company with the deceased, and the body was recovered within hours.
Provisions considered
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872When a fact is especially within the knowledge of the accused, the burden of proving it lies on him; the section does not relieve the prosecution of its burden, but where the last-seen theory is proved and the accused throws no light on facts within his special knowledge, his failure may furnish an additional link in the chain of circumstances. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9)
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Homicidal death was proved and the circumstances of last seen, proximate recovery of the body, non-explanation, enmity and recovery of the weapon together established the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 5, 10)
Held
- It was undisputed that the petitioner took the deceased from his house on the previous evening, that PW-4 saw them together at a shop, and that the body was found early next morning; the petitioner alone knew what happened thereafter, and his failure to explain in his Section 313 statement was a crucial circumstance against him. The evidence having been considered threadbare by both courts, no reappreciation is warranted under Article 136 absent perversity or illegality. (¶¶ 5, 10, 11, 12)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed; conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000, as affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 13.07.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2000, upheld.