LOCHAN SHRIVAS versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2021] 14 S.C.R. 809 · Decided: 14-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
809
[2021] 14 S.C.R. 809
809
LOCHAN SHRIVAS
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 499-500 of 2018)
DECEMBER 14, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Penal Code 1860: ss.363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377, 201, 302 and
376A – Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, the minor daughter
of complainant was found missing – They went in search for her but
she was not found anywhere – When they came back home, PW-3 told
them that appellant who was neighbour had said that if they would
allow him to conduct worship, he could find the child in an hour –
They agreed and after the worship, appellant informed them that the
child was tied and kept inside the sack in the bushes – PW-1 informed
police and on suspicion, appellant was interrogated and he confessed
his crime before police – Thereafter, sack was recovered from bushes
containing the blood soaked body of the victim girl – Trial court
convicted appellantfor offences punishable u/s363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377,
201, 302 and 376A and s.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and passed death sentence for the offence
punishable u/s.302 – High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence
– On appeal, held: For resting a conviction in the case of circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn, should be fully established, and all the facts so established
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
– In the instant case, proven circumstances established a chain of
circumstances, which lead to no other conclusion than the guilt of the
appellant – In the statement recorded under s.313 Cr.P.C., though all
these incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant, he did not
offer any explanation except saying that it was wrong and false –
Conviction u/ss.363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377, 201, 302 r/ws.376A and s.6
of the POCSO Act is maintained – However, taking into consideration
the state of mind of appellant, his socio-economic background, etc., it
cannot be said that there is no possibility of the appellant being
reformed and rehabilitated – Death penalty commuted to life
imprisonment.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
810
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
Partly allowing the appeals, the court
HELD: 1. For resting a conviction in the case of
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established,
and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 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. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused, and it must be such as to show that
within all human probabilities, the act must have been done by
the accused. [Para 14][817-C-D]
2. The circumstances establish a chain of circumstances,
which lead to no other conclusion than the guilt of the appellant.
Apart from that, in the statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., though all these incriminating circumstances have been
put to the appellant, he has not offered any explanation except
saying that it is wrong and false. It is trite law that though the
false explanation cannot be taken to complete a missing link in
the chain of circumstances, it can surely be taken to fortify the
conclusion of conviction recorded on the basis of the proven
incriminating circumstances. The non-explanation of the
circumstances would fortify the finding, which is based on the
chain of incriminating circumstances that leads to no
other conclusion than the guilt of the appellant. [Paras 44, 45]
[829-G-H; 830-D]
Hanumant, son of Govind Nargundkar v. State of
Madhya Pradesh [1952] 0 SCR 1091; Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4
SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Prakash Chand v. State
(Delhi Administration) (1979) 3 SCC 90 : [1979] 2 SCR
330; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om
Prakash (1972) 1 SCC 249 : [1972] 2 SCR 765; A.N.
Venkatesh and Another v. State of Karnataka (2005) 7
SCC 714; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh
(1999) 4 SCC 370; John Pandian v. State represented
by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2010) 14 SCC 129:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
811
[2010] 15 SCR 1012; Krishan Mohar Singh Dugal v.
State of Goa (1999) 8 SCC 552; Nilesh Dinkar
Paradka

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