Satpal vs State Of Haryana

Supreme Court1 May 2018Navin Sinha · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar · Kurian Joseph

SCC(2018) 6 SCC 610
Neutral2018 INSC 436
AIRAIR 2018 SC 2142

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

1. The last seen theory, while weak as standalone evidence, can support conviction when coupled with circumstantial evidence including: the time of last seeing the accused with the deceased, recovery of the corpse in close temporal and spatial proximity, and additional corroborative factors such as motive, absconding, and recovery of incriminating articles, provided these circumstances form an unbroken chain leading to the only inference of guilt incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. 2. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when a person is last seen with a deceased in circumstances suggesting they were together at or near the time of death, the accused owes an explanation regarding the circumstances of death; failure to provide an explanation, or providing a wrong explanation, constitutes an incriminating factor that strengthens circumstantial evidence against the accused. 3. Convictions based on circumstantial evidence require an unbroken chain of circumstances leading exclusively to guilt; if there is any doubt or break in the chain, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused through acquittal. 4. The absence of details from an FIR regarding matters later adduced in evidence, such as an earlier altercation between the accused and deceased or specific items recovered, does not affect the veracity of the prosecution case or create doubt about it, and such details may be established through testimony at trial without being mentioned in the FIR. 5. Recovery of articles on the basis of a confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, when the articles are duly identified and the confession is corroborated by other evidence, forms part of a valid chain of incriminating circumstances and may support conviction; the failure to examine a secondary seizure witness is inconsequential if the primary witness has identified and proved the recovered articles.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NONREPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1892 OF 2017

SATPAL .........APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

The appellant assails his conviction under Section 302 read

with Section 201 I.P.C., by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar

in case No.54SC (RBT) of 2008, affirmed by the High Court,

based on the last seen theory.

2. PW7, Krishan Kumar lodged an F.I.R. on 11.09.2007 with

regard to his missing nephew, the deceased Kapil Kumar who was

thirteen years old. The deceased had gone to the village the Signature Not Verified

previous evening at about 6:00 PM to deliver milk to customers. Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2018.05.01 18:40:46 IST Reason:

The witness and his relative PW9, Richhpal had seen the

1 deceased with the appellant at about 9:00 PM on the Khairpur

Road, Sarangpur, going on a bicycle together. The deceased did

not return home at night. His dead body was found the next

morning lying concealed in a heap of dry fodder in the fields of

Subhash. The appellant was stated to have had an altercation

with the deceased a few days ago with regard to payment of milk.

The disclosure by the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence

Act after his arrest, led to recovery of the atlas bicycle belonging

to PW7, and the milk can with the name of the witness inscribed

on it.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the conviction,

submitted that the dead body was found at a considerable

distance from where he was last seen with the deceased and in

the opposite direction. It is highly unlikely that the appellant

would have carried the dead body for the long distance. The

recovery is planted, as the second seizure witness Kheda had not

been examined. The appellant would not have hidden the bicycle

and the milk can near his own house to facilitate his implication.

The story of the milk can and an altercation few days earlier in

2 Court, were improvements as no such statement had been made

by PW7 in the FIR or statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

4. There was a contradiction between the evidence of PW7 and

PW9 with regard to intimation given to the Sarpanch at night

itself. There was also a contradiction between the statement of

the two witnesses with regard to time when the dead body was

discovered and the police reached the spot. There was no

evidence with regard to the bicycle as belonging to PW7. The

father of the deceased, PW8, Subhash had come to the village in

the morning itself looking for his son which is suggestive that the

deceased was missing since earlier creating doubts about the last

seen theory. Alternately, if the deceased was missing since the

previous night, the conduct of PW7 in not informing PW8 at

night itself was highly unnatural. PW7 and PW9 were thus not

reliable witnesses. To sustain a conviction on basis of

circumstantial evidence, it was necessary that all links in the

chain of circumstances must be complete leading to the only

hypothesis for guilt of the accused. If there were any missing link

in the chain of circumstances and the possibility of innocence

cannot be ruled out, the benefit of doubt must be given by 3 acquittal. Any recovery on basis of confession, under Section 27

of the Evidence Act, cannot form the basis for conviction.

5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the deceased

was last seen with the appellant the previous night at about 9.00

PM going on a bicycle and did not return at night. The dead body

was found next morning in the vicinity of the area they were last

seen together. The postmortem conducted on 12.09.2007 at

2:15 PM estimates the time elapsed since death as 2436 hours

and which coincides with when the deceased was last seen with

the appellant. Motive for the crime existed. The conduct of the

appellant in absconding after the occurrence is also an

incriminating factor against him. PW7 had identified the bicycle

as belonging to him and the milk can had his name inscribed on

it.

6. We have considered the respective submissions and the

evidence on record. There is no eye witness to the occurrence but

only circumstances coupled with the fact of the deceased having

been last seen with the appellant. Criminal jurisprudence and

4 the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for

reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last

seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly

stated, it may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found

conviction upon the same singularly. But when it is coupled with

other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last

seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in

very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation

under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the

circumstances under which death may have taken place. If the

accused offers no explanation, or furnishes a wrong explanation,

absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative

evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise

forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for

guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of

innocence, conviction can be based on the same. If there be any

doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit

of doubt must go to the accused. Each case will therefore have to

be examined on its own facts for invocation of the doctrine.

7. Both PW7 and PW9 have consistently stated having seen

the deceased going with the appellant on a bicycle at 9.00 PM the

previous evening. The deceased did not return home at night.

The appellant was also not to be found at home. The corpse of

the deceased was recovered the next morning hidden in a heap of

fodder in the fields. The FIR was lodged promptly on 11.09.2007

naming the appellant as a suspect. An FIR is not to be read as

an encyclopedia requiring every minute detail of the occurrence to

be mentioned therein. The absence of any mention in it with

regard to the previous altercation, or the presence of the milk

can, cannot affect its veracity so as to doubt the entire case of the

prosecution. The altercation suffices to establish motive. The

appellant has not led any evidence regarding his not being in the

company of the deceased or that they had subsequently parted

ways. The appellant has not led any evidence, despite his

statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he would do so, why he

did not return home at night or his whereabouts otherwise. PW8,

father of the deceased, was informed in the morning of

11.09.2007 by PW7 after which he came to the village. The 6 deceased was a thirteen year old hardly in a position to resist the

appellant. We see no reason why the two witnesses being related

to the deceased would depose falsely and shield the real offender,

especially when the appellant has not given any reason or led any

evidence for his false implication.

8. The postmortem was done on 12.09.2007 at about 2:15 PM

by PW12, Dr. Sunil Gambhir opining that death was due to

strangulation by manual throttling. The time elapsed since death

has been estimated as 24 to 36 hours. The witness has deposed

that death could be estimated to have occurred at about 10.00

PM on 10.09.2007. The body has been recovered in the vicinity of

where the deceased was last seen with the appellant. The fact

that it may be in the opposite direction is hardly relevant.

9. The recovery of the atlas cycle on the confession of the

appellant, identified by PW7 as belonging to him, as also the

recovery of the milk can on the same basis with the name of PW7

inscribed on it with nail polish and the fact that the appellant was

absconding after the occurrence till his arrest on 16.09.2007 7 are additional incriminating factors which complete the links in

the chain of circumstances. The recovery having been proved by

PW7, the failure to examine the other seizure witness, Kheda, is

of no consequence.

10. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we

find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant.

11. The appeal is dismissed.

………………………………….J. (Kurian Joseph)

………………………………….J. (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)

.……….………………………..J. (Navin Sinha)

New Delhi, May 01, 2018

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free