MAHAVIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 370 · Decided: 23-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 6 ~.C.R. 370· 
MAHAVIR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2231 of 2010) 
MAY 23, 2014 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 1208 and 201 - Conviction 
·. under - Prosecution case that accused and co-accused killed 
C the deceesed at the instance of deceased's wife and threw 
away the body in the canal - Conspiracy among accused, co-
accused and wife of the deceased to do away with the 
deceased - Wife acquitted but accused and co-accused 
convicted u/ss. 302, 1208 and 201 and senteneed 
D accordingly by the courts below - On appeal, held: Courts 
below after appreciating the evidence on record rightly held 
the accused persons guilty of the offences - Chain of all the 
circumstantial evidence complete - No link missing and 
accused persons had an opportunity to commit the murder 
E of the deceased - Evidence. 
F 
Evidence - Last seen theory - When comes into play -
Held: In a case where the time gap is small between the point 
of time when the accused and the deceased were seen alive 
and when the deceased was found dead. 
Evidence -
Witness - Non-cross-examination on a 
particular issue - Effect of - Held: When question is not put 
to the witness in cross-examination who could furnish 
explanation on a particular issue, the correctness or legality 
G of the said fact/issue could not be raised. 
H 
According to the prosecution, it is alleged that co-
accused 'JS' had illicit relationship with the wife of the 
deceased; and the appellant had a grudge on account of 
370 
MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
37'1 
the marriage of 'SR' with the deceased. The appellant and 
A 
'JS' killed the deceased at the instance of deceased's wife · 
• 
and threw away the body in the canal. PW 13-brother of 
the deceased alongwith 'BS' filed a complaint alleging 
that his brother who was missing for past few days, was 
found dead· in the canal. FIR was lodged. Investigation 
B 
was carried qut. The decea"sed's wife was acquitted of all 
the charges; however, the appellant and 'JS' were 
convicted sections 302 and 120 B and section 201 IPC 
and sentenced accordingly. The High Court upheld the 
order. Hence the instant appeal. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the. Court 
.HELD: 1.1. The chain of all the circumstantial 
evidence is complete and no link is missing and the. 
accused persons had an opportunity to commit the 
D 
murder of the deceased. Both the courts below after 
appreciating the evidence on record held the appellant 
guilty of the offences. [Paras 14, 15) [381-H; 382-A] 
1.2. There is ample evidence on record and 
particularly the deposition of PW.6 that the appellant and 
'JS', co-accused had been seen last alongwith deceased 
on 21.6.1995. The dead body was recovered after several 
days and post-mortem was conducted after about a week. 
However, PW.1 opined that the deceased was murdered 
one week prior to conducting the post-mortem. There is 
no reason to disbelieve ·the said opinion. In such a fact-
situation, it is evident that deceased has been done away 
E 
F 
in close proximity of time of last seen. None of the 
accused could furnish any explanation in their statement 
under Section 31.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
G 
1973 as where did they drop him or where he had gone. 
In fact, PW.8, mother of deceased had deposed that PW.9, 
a family member had last seen deceased with the 
appellant and 'JS', co-accus~d on 21.6.1995. The 
H 
372 · 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 6 $;C.R. 
A appellant and his younger brother have assaulted the 
deceased with a lathi and a matter was reported to the 
police. She further deposed about the illicit relation 
between her daughter-in-law and 'JS', co-accused. [Para 
B 
7) [377-G-H; 378-A-D] 
1.3. As per the medical report, there were various 
grievous injuries on the neck and scalp of the deceased. 
There were multiple fractures on skull of the body of 
deceased. [Para 8) [378-F] 
C 
1.4. The recovery was made vide Exhibits, and in th~ 
presence of the witnesses. At the disclosure statement' 
of co-accused, 'JS' and the appellant the recovered 
material contained the chappal of deceased, blood 
stained shirt and pant of appellant. The said clothes were 
D sent for FSL and as per the report it contained human 
blood. Blood was also found on Hexa blade, frame of Aari 
(saw). [Para 9) (378-G-H; 379-8) 
1.5. Last seen theory comes into play only in a case 
E where the time gap is small between the point of time 
when the accused a

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