Manharan Rajwade vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

NON-REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 560 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 818/2019

MANHARAN RAJWADE APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

FACTS

2. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the

IPC”), and he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

According to the prosecution’s case, the appellant murdered his

wife, Geeta. Her body was found in the house of the appellant at

about 5:00 p.m. on the date of the incident. The case of the

prosecution is that the appellant strangulated her.

3. The prosecution's case is based on the theory of last seen

together. Consequently, the prosecution contends that the

appellant had not discharged the burden on him under Section 106 of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Evidence Act”). Signature Not Verified

The Digitally signed by ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2024.07.31 09:52:24 IST prosecution examined two witnesses, Sonawati (PW-1) and Hirmaniabai Reason:

(PW-2).

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 818/2019 1 SUBMISSIONS

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that

this is a case of no evidence as the theory of last seen together

has not been established, and no evidence has been adduced to prove

the motive.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State

submitted that the presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence

Act would apply. As the appellant has not discharged the burden on

him, the order of conviction deserves to be confirmed. He also

relied upon the answer to question no.27 given by the appellant in

his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.PC”). He pointed out that the

appellant admitted that he came back around 4:00-5:00 p.m.; and

therefore, the presence of the appellant is established.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

6. We have carefully perused the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1

did not support the prosecution. She stated that in the evening,

at around 5:00 p.m. on the date of the incident, her Jethani

Harmania had gone to the house of the deceased to bring a

stabilizer. She saw that the deceased was sleeping on a bed. She

tried to wake her up, but there was no response. After that, a

doctor was called who declared that the deceased had died. The

witness stated that on that day, the appellant had gone to crush

the stones, and he returned home at 7:00 p.m. PW-1 was declared

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 818/2019 2 hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.

Unfortunately, the Public Prosecutor did not confront PW-1 with the

relevant part of her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.PC.

PW-2 has not deposed anything about the presence of the appellant

in the house close to the time at which the dead body of the

deceased was found. Even PW-2 was declared hostile.

7. For invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution

ought to have discharged the burden on it by adducing cogent

evidence to prove the appellant’s presence at the relevant time in

his house. In this case, going by the evidence of PW-1, the

deceased had already died before 5:00 p.m., and the said witness

stated that the appellant came back home at 7:00 p.m. There is no

evidence to prove the theory of the last seen together. Therefore,

the prosecution has not discharged the burden on it to prove that

the appellant was last seen together with the deceased wife. Thus,

Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to shift the

burden on the appellant.

8. Even the appellant's answer given to question no.27, if taken

in its entirety, does not support the prosecution. The appellant

vaguely stated that he came back around 4:00-5:00 p.m. when PW-1

and PW-2 were in the house and told him that the deceased was not

talking and moving. Thus, he reached home after the death of his

wife. The allegation was that the death was caused due to

strangulation by the appellant.

9. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 818/2019 3 only circumstance it relied upon, namely, that the appellant and

the deceased were last seen together. Therefore, the prosecution

has failed to bring home the charge of the offence of murder

punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

10. Hence, the impugned judgments and orders are set aside, and

the appellant is acquitted of the offence alleged against him. The

appellant shall be forthwith set at liberty unless his detention is

required in any other case.

11. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

..........................J. (ABHAY S. OKA)

..........................J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

..........................J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

NEW DELHI;

JULY 25, 2024.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 818/2019 4