LexKIRITI PAL versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015] 4 S.C.R. 726 KIRITI PAL V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2014) APRIL 16, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.30211208- Conviction based on circumstantial evidence -A-1 became acquainted with the victim-deceased, a widow and developed intimacy with her - On fateful day, deceased wen! out with A-1 to attend a 0 function at a school and next day she was found dead - Trial court convicted A-1 to A-3 u/ss.302!120-B/376(2)(g) and passed death sentence and convicted A-4 u/s. 1208 and sentenced him to life imprisonment - High Court upheld conviction uls.302 and set aside the conviction u/s.376(2)(g) E and modified death sentence to life imprisonment - On appeal, Held: The time when the deceased was with A-1 and was found dead was so proximate which pointed to the guilt of A-1 - A-1 failed to explain the circumstances in which he parted the company of the deceased which was strong F militating circumstance against A-1 - The subsequent conduct of A-1 threatening A-4 and PW-7 was also a relevant circumstance - The recovery of crime weapon at the instance of A-1 was yet another incriminating circumstance in the chain which led to the conclusion pointing to the guilt G of A-1 -As regards A-2 and A-3, there was no evidence to prove as to how A-2 and A-3 had gone to the place of occuffence and what was their subsequent conduct - Apart from the extract of the call records, no other evidence was H 726 KIRITI PAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 727 adduced by the prosecution to establish the conspiracy - A No evidence was adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the recovery of objects and the seizure list for implicating A-2 and A-3 - Likewise, apart from telephone calls, no other evidence was adduced by prosecution to bring home guilt of A-4 - Conviction of A-1 is upheld while B A"2 to A-4 are acquitted. Dismissing the appeal of first appellant and allowing the appeals of appellant 2 to 4, the Court c HELD: 1.1 From the evidence of PWs 6, 7 and 10, prosecution established that the victim-deceased was last seen alive in the company of A-1 on the fateful evening and that at about 10.00/10.30 p.m., A-1 came alone. The theory of "last seen alive" comes into play o when the time gap between the way the accused and the deceased were last seen together and the deceased was found dead was so small, the possibility of any other person committing the murder becomes impossible. On the next day morning, body of deceased E was found in jungle an isolated place 25 k.m. away from her residence. The time when the deceased left with A- 1 and the time she was found dead was so proximate which pointed to the guilt of A-1. Having regard to the time gap being small, it is for A-1 to explain the F circumstances how and where and in what manner he parted company with the deceased. A-1 having failed to discharge the onus under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and offer any explanation as to how, as to when and how and in what manner he parted the company of the G deceased, is a strong militating circumstance against A- 1 It came out from the testimony of PW6 that on the fateful evening, the deceased left her home stating to PW6 that she is going to Rajnagar to attend the function H 728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A of the school. The fact that there was no function scheduled to be held at Rajnagar High School was yet another incriminating circumstance against A-1.The subsequent conduct of A-1 threatening A-4 and PW7 was a relevant circumstance as such conduct of B accused indicated his nexus with the offence. The recovery of crime weapon at the instance of A-1 was yet another incriminating circumstance in the chain which led to the conclusion pointing to the guilt of A-1. [Paras C 14 to 18] [739-E-H; 740-B, 741-G-H, 742-C, 743-B] 1.2. It is true that motive is an important factor in cases where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence but that does not mean in all cases of circumstantial evidence if prosecution is unable to prove D the motive satisfactorily, the prosecution must fail. In this case, of course, prosecution has not adduced evidence as to what was the motive for committing murder of the deceased. Mere fact that the prosecution has failed to translate the mental disposition of the E accused into evidence, that does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the acc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.