LexDURGA BURMAN (ROY) versus STATE OF SIKKIM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 311 DURGA BURMAN (ROY) v. STATE OF SIKKIM (Criminal Appeal No.1010 of 2004) JULY 31, 2014 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 380 rlw s. 34 - Murder - Caused due to strangulation by ligature - Wrist watch stolen from the house of deceased - Case set up only on circumstantial evidence - Two accused including the appellant - Trial Court convicted both the accused - High Court upheld conviction of appellant but acquitted the other accused - On appeal, held: The prosecution failed to lay foundation for effective prosecution and it was not proved beyond doubt that appellant had committed the murder - It is not enough that the circumstances lead to possibility or probability of the involvement of the accused; the circumstances should point all the fingers to the accused and the accused only - That was not the situation in this case - The chain was also not complete - The other accused, who according to the prosecution was perpetrator of the offence u/s.302 /PC, had been acquitted by the High Court- The State did not file appeal against the acquittal - The only piece of shaky evidence against the appellant was of recovery of the wrist watch of PW1 from and through the mother of the appellant - She was not examined - No explanation as to how despite the availability of appellant, the recovery was effected through his mother - No explanation for delay of about ten days in effecting recovery - Witnesses did not support the disclosure statement or the seizure - Owner of the ,wrist watch- PW1 (husband of deceased) did not have a case that his· wrist watch had been stolen by the appellant- That version not also supported by children of the deceased - They had no case 311 312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A of theft of wrist watch or cash - Prosecution miserably failed in proving case against the appellant - Conviction of appellant u/ss.3021380 /PC therefore set aside. The prosecution case was that in furtherance of their 8 common intention, the appellant along with one other accused 'R' murdered a woman by putting a strip of cloth around her neck and then strangulating her; and that thereafter they stole a wrist watch and some cash from the house of the deceased. The Sessions Court convicted both the accused under Section 3021380134 C IPC. In appeal, the High Court acquitted 'R' but upheld the conviction of appellant. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court 0 HELD:1.1. In the in,stant case, none of the circumstances by itself would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant is the aut'1or--Of tile crimes under Sections 302 and 380 IPC. On the basis of the evidence, it is extremely difficult to hold that the E prosecution has laid a foundation for an effective prosecution and has proved beyond doubt that it is the appellant who committed the murder. This case is set up only on circumstantial evidence. All the circumstances should lead to, without breaking the chain, the involvement of the accused and the accused only. On the F only ground that the accused was seen with the deceased in the morning of the date of incident and that they were not seen in that place for another two days, cannot, by themselves, lead to the conclusion that it is the appellant who authored the crime. [Paras 9, 13] [321- G C; 323-8, C] 1.2. 'To abscond' means, go away secretly or illegally and hurriedly to escape from custody or avoid arrest. It has come in evidence that the accused had told others that H they were going from their place of work at Gangtok to their DURGA BURMAN (ROY) v. STATE OF SIKKIM 313 home at New Jalpaiguri. They were admittedly taken into A custody from their respective houses only, at New Jalpaiguri on the third day of the incident. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that the accused had been absconding. Even assuming for argumentsake that they were not seen at their work place after the alleged incident, it cannot be B held that by itself an adverse inference is to be drawn against them. [Para 14) [323-D-F] 1.3. If the motive for the accused in committing the murder was theft, it is again difficult to understand why the accused did not remove any ornaments worn by the C deceased. Hence, the prosecution version regarding the motive also, is shaken. [Para 15) [324-C-D] 1.4. The evidence available on record would on the contrary give an indication that theft is a st
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.