KESHAV versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 264 · Decided: 12-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KESHAV 
v. 
.... 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
DECEMBER 12, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Prosecution for murder -
Circumstantial evidence -Accused and deceased last seen together 
-Accused making extra-judicial confession to wife of the deceased 
c - No FIR or missing persons report lodged - Five days after the 
alleged incident, human skeleton, clothes of deceased on the side of 
the skeleton and post card bearing name and address of the deceased, 
found - Afotive was alleged that accused was demanding back the 
loan given to deceased - Recovery of knife at the behest of the 
D accused -- Conviction by courts below on the basis of motive and 
the circumstances of the case - On appeal, held: Conviction not 
;ustified- Conviction cannot be based solely on the motive - Death 
of the deceased not proved in the facts of the case - Circumstances 
E of last seen together becomes relevant only when the death is proved 
- Recovery of knife u/s 27 of Evidence Act is not admissible - It has 
no nexus with the cause of death since the prosecution case was 
that death was caused by hard blunt object - Identification of the 
deceased not established - Extra-judicial confession not worth 
F reliance - Evidence Act, 1872 - Medical Jurisprudence. 
Appellant-accused alongwith another accused was 
prosecuted for having killed his brother-in-law. Prosecution case 
was that the appellant was demanding back the loan given to the 
deceased. The deceased was expecting some amount towards 
G compensation from the State. The deceased, along with the 
appellant and PW 6 (another lender), left for collecting the amount· 
of compensation. They were seen together· by PWS. Deceased 
did not return back home. Two days thereafter, appellant informf'.d 
the wife of the deceased (P\V 3) that he had killed her husband. 
H 
264 
KESHAVv. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
265 
Neither an FIR was lodged nor a 'missing of person' report was A 
·~ 
given. Five days after the day, the deceased and the appellant · 
were seen together, PWl informed the police that he had seen a 
human skeleton in his brother's land. Investigating Officer found 
a human skeleton, some clothes and a post card. He also found 
a big stone having some blood stains. Post card bore the name B 
and.address of the deceased. After post mortem report, FIR was 
lodged. Appellant and the co-accused were arrested. A knife was 
'r 
recovered at the behest of the appellant. Trial Court convicted 
the appellant, relying on the circumstances viz. (1) motive, (2) last 
seen together with the deceased, (3) extra judicial confession C 
made to PW 3, (4) discovery of bloodstained clothes from the 
house of the accused, and (5) discovery of knife. However, the co-
accused was acquitted. High Court confirmed the conviction. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. The impugned judgment cannot be sustained. This 
case does not satisfy the tests laid down by the Supreme Court* 
for determination of the guilt of the accused charged for 
commission of murder on the basis of circumstantial evidence. E 
[Paras 14 and 15) [272 B-D] 
*Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 ( 4) 
SCC 1116; Bodhraj vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 2002 (8) SCC 
45; and State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 -
F 
relied on. 
2; By no norms, a dead body would be skeletalised within a 
period of 3-4 days. It shall in ordinary course take atleast a few 
·weeks, as the occurrence took place in the month of December. 
Atleast a week's time is necessary for a dead body to be G 
skeletalised even during a very hot summer. The doctor who 
performed the post-mortem report did not spell out the possible 
time of death. He probably was not in a position to determine the 
same. He might not have even been called upon to do so by the . 
Investigating Officer. [Paras 12 and 13) [271 G-H] [272 A-BJ 
H 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A 
HWV Cox s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology- referred 
~ 
~ 
3. There is nothing on record to show that vultures or other 
animals ate away parts of the dead body. Had that been so, the 
B same would have been noticed by PW-1 and his brother as well 
as by the Investigating Officer. At least it would have found som~ 
mention. All parts of the dead body including small intestine were 
missing. The dead body was lying in an open field at least for four 
days. How apparels and cloths purported to be be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.