LexI. RAVINDRA REDDY versus SHAIK. KHADER MASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 [2008] 11 S.C.R. 873 I. RAVINDRA REDDY II. SHAIK. KHADER MASTHAN AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1216 of 2008) AUGUST 4, 2008 ~ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- ss. 364, 302, 404 and 201 rlw s. 109 A B - Prosecution under - Circumstantial evidence - Deceased last seen together with the accused persons - Time gap be- c tween the point when deceased was seen alive and when he was missing was very small - Accused persons identified by the witness who had seen the deceased last in the company of the accused - Conviction- by trial court - Acquittal by High Court holding that chain of circumstances not complete - On D appeal, held: Acquittal not justified - High Court did not indi- ~ cate any reasons for its finding - Order of trial court restored. Respondents-accused Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith ac- cused No. 3 were prosecuted for having killed one per- son. According to prosecution case there was some dis- E pute between father of the deceased (P.W.1-complainant) and father of appellant-accused No. 1 (Accused No.3) in respect of purchase of a car on loan and payment of instalments thereof. Deceased and accused No. 1 study- ing in the same college, had also some dispute on the F ~ issue in the college. On the same day appellants-accused bought two kitchen knives from the shop of P.W. 5. The deceased was last seen together with accused No. 1 and 2 by P.W. 9. One hour later deceased was not seen by him with accused Nos. 1 and 2. P.W. 9 also got suspicious G about the circumstances there. During Test Identification Parad, PW-9 also identified both the accused. Initially on f the complaint of PW-1 missing report of lodged. After ar- rest of accused Nos. 1 and 2, at their instance, Demains 873 H 874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. "( A of skeleton and some burnt articles were found. Some of I the articles were identified by P.W. 1. Knives were also t recovered from the house of accused Nos. 1 and 34. Thereafter report was altered u/ss. 364, 302, 404, 201 r/w r s. 109 IPC. Trial Court relying on the evidence of PW 9 B and applying .the theory of last seen together convicted the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2. However, accused -f No. 3 was acquitted. High Court acquitted both the ac- cused on the ground that chain of circumstances were not complete. Hence the present appeal by the complain- c ant. Allowing the appeal, the Court ) HELD: 1.1 The judgment of the High Court is inde- fensible. The High Court has not indicated any reason D whatsoever as to why he found the evidence of PW-9 to be not acceptable or as to why the chain of circumstances highlighted by the prosecution did not unerringly point "' at the accused persons to be guilty as the authors of the I crime. PW-9 identified A-1 and A-2 at the Test ldentifica- \.- tion Parade. His evidence regarding identification has re- r E mained unshaken. [Paras 20 and 21] [887 A,8] 1.2 PW-5 stated that A-1 had purchased two knives which were seized by PW-24 covered under M.Os. 7 and 8. The High Court took exception to the fact that when F pw.:s produced a duplicate bill to the police, the investi- gating officer did not produce the original in the Court. It is ·not understood as to how the duplicate becomes irrel- ¥ evant. [Para 20] [886 G,H] 2.1 Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial G evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found \ to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the_ guilt of any other person. The circumstances from -:, ~ which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn H have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to ,.... I. RAVINDRA REDDY v. SHAIK KHADER 875 MASTHAN & ORS. ¥ be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact A sought to be inferred from those circumstances. [Para 8] [882 C, 882 E] Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 UP v. Sukhbasi and B ~ · Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P AIR 1989 SC 1890; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P (1996) 10 sec 193 - relied on. c "Circumsantial Evidence" by Sir Alfred Wills - referred to. 2.2 There is no doubt that conviction can be ba
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.