RAM GOPAL S/O MANSHARAM VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
RAM GOPAL S/O MANSHARAM VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 9221 OF 2018
RAM GOPAL S/O MANSHARAM .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH .....RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2018 passed by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal
Appeal No. 70/2000 has been sought to be challenged by the
petitioner-accused by way of present petition. The said appeal was
dismissed by the High Court confirming the judgment and order
dated 17.01.2000 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge,
Morena (hereinafter referred to as the “Sessions Court”) in ST No.
205/1996, whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence
under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life
1
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof to suffer
further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. The petitioner-accused Ramgopal alias Gopal was the ExSarpanch of the village Har Gangoli. On 20.12.1995 at about
09:30 AM, the complainant Upendra Singh (PW-1) reported at the
Police Station Baghchini that on 19.12.1995 at about 5 PM his
uncle (Tau) Pratap Singh Sikarwar was taken by the Sarpanch
Ram Gopal from Arhela, and the dead body of his uncle Pratap
Singh was lying on the road near the house of Bharosibaba at
village Chachiha. He further alleged in the complaint that there
were injuries found on the head and ear of his uncle and blood
was oozing out from the said parts. The said complaint was
registered at the Police Station Baghchini as FIR No. 132/95 on
20.12.1995. The Investigating Officer after carrying out the
investigation submitted the chargesheet against the petitionerRamgopal along with other three accused i.e., Suresh Singh,
Chhotalli @ Chhotey Singh and Mintoo @ Karan Singh. The
Sessions Court framed charge against the accused for the offence
under Section 302 and in the alternative Section 302 read with 34
IPC. The Sessions Court after appreciating the evidence on record
convicted the petitioner-Ramgopal for the charged offence under
Section 302 IPC, however acquitted the other three accused giving
2
them benefit of doubt. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
had preferred the appeal before the High Court, which came to be
dismissed by the impugned order.
3. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Salman Khurshid appearing for
the petitioner submitted that the case of the prosecution rested
solely on the circumstantial evidence, however the prosecution
had miserably failed to prove the entire chain of circumstances
leading unerringly to the guilt of the petitioner-accused. According
to him, the courts below have committed an error in convicting the
petitioner merely on the theory of “last seen together”, however
there was a big time gap between the time when the petitioner was
lastly seen with the deceased and the time when the dead body of
the deceased was recovered. The alleged recovery of weapon axe
from the petitioner also could not be a ground for conviction, more
particularly when the doctor who had carried out the post-mortem
of the dead body of the deceased, had not opined that the injuries
found on the dead body of the deceased were possible with the
said weapon. According to Mr. Khurshid, there was no animosity
between the deceased and the petitioner, and on the contrary as
per the evidence of PW-1 Upendra Singh and PW-8 Ramshree,
their relations were quite cordial. In absence of examination of any
independent witness, runs the submission of Mr. Khurshid, the
3
benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the petitioner, when the
other three co-accused were given such benefit. Mr. Khurshid has
placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of
Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1
,
in case of Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs.
State of Maharashtra2
, and in case of Nizam and another vs.
State of Rajasthan3
in support of his submissions.
4. However, the learned Advocate Mr. D.S. Parmar appearing for the
respondent-State submitted that there being concurrent findings of
the guilt recorded by the courts below against the petitioner, this
Court should not interfere with the same. He further submitted that
the petitioner in his further statement under Section 313 had failed
to explain as to when and how he departed from the company of
the deceased, when undisputedly he was with the deceased
during the previous evening of his death, and therefore both the
courts below had rightly held the said circumstance as a
circumstance adverse to the petitioner.
5. It cannot be gainsaid that when the entire case of the prosecution
hinges on the circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of
circumstances has to be completely proved, which unerringly
1 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706
2 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 883
3 (2016) 1 SCC 550
4
would lead to the guilt of the accused and none else. So far as the
evidence on record in the present case is concerned, it emerges
that it was not disputed that on 19.12.1995 at about 5 PM, the
petitioner-accused had taken the deceased Pratap Singh from his
house. Thereafter, the deceased and the petitioner were also seen
together at the shop of one Shripal at village Arhela by the witness
Vijay Singh (PW-4). It was also not disputed that on the next day
morning the dead body of the deceased was found lying near one
field at village Chachiha. Hence, the death of the deceased
Pratap Singh had taken place during the night hours of 19th and
20th December,1995, and that the petitioner was lastly seen with
the deceased on the previous evening. Thus, it was the petitioner
alone, who knew as to what happened after the evening of 19th
December, 1995.
6. It may be noted that once the theory of “last seen together” was
established by the prosecution, the accused was expected to offer
some explanation as to when and under what circumstances he
had parted the company of the deceased. It is true that the burden
to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution,
however in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact
is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that
fact is upon him. Of course, Section 106 is certainly not intended
5
to relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove the guilt of the
accused, nonetheless it is also equally settled legal position that if
the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are
proved to be within his special knowledge, in view of Section 106
of the Evidence Act, such failure on the part of the accused may
be used against the accused as it may provide an additional link in
the chain of circumstances required to be proved against him. In
the case based on circumstantial evidence, furnishing or nonfurnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very
crucial fact, when the theory of “last seen together” as propounded
by the prosecution was proved against him.
7. In case of Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi)4
, it was observed as
under:
“12.2.4. Having observed so, it is crucial to
note that the reasonableness of the
explanation offered by the accused as to how
and when he/she parted company with the
deceased has a bearing on the effect of the
last seen in a case. Section 106 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the burden
of proof for any fact that is especially within
the knowledge of a person lies upon such
person. Thus, if a person is last seen with the
deceased, he must offer an explanation as to
how and when he parted company with the
deceased. In other words, he must furnish an
explanation that appears to the court to be
probable and satisfactory, and if he fails to
offer such an explanation on the basis of facts
4 (2019) 10 SCC 623
6
within his special knowledge, the burden cast
upon him under Section 106 is not
discharged. Particularly in cases resting on
circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to
offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of
the burden placed on him, such failure by
itself can provide an additional link in the
chain of circumstances proved against him.
This, however, does not mean that Section
106 shifts the burden of proof of a criminal trial
on the accused. Such burden always rests on
the prosecution. Section 106 only lays down
the rule that when the accused does not throw
any light upon facts which are specially within
his/her knowledge and which cannot support
any theory or hypothesis compatible with his
innocence, the court can consider his failure
to adduce an explanation as an additional link
which completes the chain of incriminating
circumstances.”
8. In Satpal Vs. State of Haryana5
, this Court observed as under: -
“6. We have considered the respective
submissions and the evidence on record.
There is no eyewitness to the occurrence but
only circumstances coupled with the fact of
the deceased having been last seen with the
appellant. Criminal jurisprudence and 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
5 (2018) 6 SCC 610
7
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.”
9. In view of the afore-stated legal position, it is discernible that
though the last seen theory as propounded by the prosecution in a
case based on circumstantial evidence may be a weak kind of
evidence by itself to base conviction solely on such theory, when
the said theory is proved 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 does owe an explanation under Section 106 of
the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which
death might have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation
or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established
and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of
8
weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the
conviction could be based on such evidence.
10. So far as the facts in the instant case are concerned, it was duly
proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal. It was not
disputed that the petitioner had taken the deceased with him on
the previous day evening and thereafter he was also seen with the
deceased by the witness Vijay Singh (PW-4) and the very next day
early morning, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in
the field at village Chachiha. The time gap between the period
when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the
recovery of the corpse of the deceased being quite proximate, the
non-explanation of the petitioner with regard to the circumstance
under which and when the petitioner had departed the company of
the deceased was a very crucial circumstance proved against him.
Having regard to the oral evidence of the witnesses, the enmity
between the deceased and the petitioner had also surfaced. The
corroborative evidence with regard to recovery of the weapon –
axe alleged to have been used in the commission of crime from
the petitioner, also substantiated the case of prosecution.
11. The entire oral as well as documentary evidence having been
threadbare considered by the Sessions Court as also High Court
9
while holding the petitioner guilty of the charged offence, this Court
need not again reappreciate the same in the petition under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. Suffice it to say that the learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Khurshid has failed to point out during the
course of his arguments any perversity or illegality in the impugned
orders passed by the courts below, which would shake the
conscience of this Court warranting interference in the impugned
judgments.
12. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below. The
Special Leave Petition stands dismissed accordingly.
..………………………. J.
[AJAY RASTOGI]
…..................................J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]
NEW DELHI
17.02.2023
10
Comments
Post a Comment