LexHARISHCHANDRA LADAKU THANGE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A HARISHCHANDRALADAKUTHANGE v. _j ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA AUGUS'f 30, 2007 B (DRARIJITPASAYATANl)P.P.NAOLEKAR,JJ.] Penal Co'<ie, 1960-Sections 302 and 394-Conviction under, em basis of circumstantial evidence-Correctness of-Held: Prosecution case failed to c establish the complete chain of circumstances to hold accused guilty-Hence, conviction set aside-Evidence-Circumstantial evidence. According to prosecution case, D did not return home from her field. Her son-PW l and others searched for her but she was not found. Then on the fifth day, FIR was lodged of accidental death. Subsequently, appellant- D accused was arrested and on basis of his disclosure statement, sickle-weapon of assault and some ornaments belonging to D were recovered. The shirt of the accused and also the cloth in which the ornaments were tied had blood stains of blood group of D. It is alleged that ·three days prior to the incident, ';-- accused had threatened D for not paying his dues and left his job with D. On - the date of incident, the accused and D were last seen together in D's field. E Trial court relying on the circumstances highlighted by the prosecution, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under sections 302 and 394 IPC. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. It cannot be said that the complete chain of circumstances °-f · to hold the accused guilty has been established by the prosecution. The conviction cannot ·be maintained and, is set aside. (Para 18) 1.2. In the instant case, with regard to the last seen plea, it is to be G noted that PW-4 had· not actually seen the accused and the deceased· together. What he had said was that the accused was present at some distance nearby the field. That actually does not bring in the concept of accused and the . deceased being seen together last. If that was so, the logic equally applied tO PW-4 also. Regarding recovery of sickle-weapon of assault; the High Court ~ itself had discarded the plea of recovery. The alleged incident took place on H 562 .~ HARISHCHANDRALADAKUlHANGEv. STA TE 563 1.7.89. Till 5.7.89 the dead body was not seen by anybody. Acco~ding to PW- A 1, he and others had searched for the dead body. Curiously, the dead body was . found in the field next to the one where the deceased was purportedly working. Even on 5. 7.89 the case of accidental death was reported by the informant · PW-1. fParas 16 and 17) (569-C-E) 2.1. For a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be B seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. · The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that i~, the evi<!entiary facts. C To put it differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue which taken together form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. (Para 7] (566-B-C) 2.2. In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion.of guilt is to be drawn should in · the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave af!y reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act "must have been done by the accused. (Para 14) (568-C-El Hukatn Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1977) SC 106.3; Eradu v. State D E F of Hyderabad, AIR (1956) SC 316, Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR (1983) SC 446; State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors., AIR (1985) SC 1224; Ba/winder Singh alias Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 350; . Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of MP., AIR (1989) SC 1890 and Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.