PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARAB versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 29-06-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2016] 4 S.C.R. 95 
PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARAB 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 261 of2008) 
JUNE 29, 2016 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - Murder - On facts, victim and accused 
working in the same department - 01i the fateful day accused went 
to the residence of victim and persuaded him to accompany him to 
office - Victims son and wife witness to the same - An hour later 
accused again ca111e to the victim and persuaded him to accompany 
him to office - Victim left for office with the bag brought from office _ 
and did not return - Thereafter, on interrogation, accused confessed 
that he 111urdered the victim - On basis of circumstantial evidence, 
conviction of accused for committing murder of the victim and mvard 
of life sentence - Order of trial court upheld by the High Court -
On appeal, held: Courts below considered the statement of the wife 
of the victim, cross examination of the accused and rightly found 
that it was accused who was last seen together with the victim -
There was no time gap between accused being last seen together 
and discovery of dead body - Thus, the evidence of last seen together 
became relevant - There were other evidence on record, recovery 
of shirt button, bag containing treasury books and keys, and other 
articles which complete the chain of events - Failure of prosecution 
to establish motive would not effect the prosecution case - Instant 
case is not of solitary evidence of last seen together but sufficient 
evidence were led to complete the chain of events and link accused 
to the crime -Thus, .the order passed by the courts below upheld. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, no eye witness is produced. 
The statements made before police by the accused wherein the 
accused is stated to have confessed murder cannot be said to ·be 
a valid confession as has rightly been held by the Sessions Judge. 
The prosecution based its case on circumstantial evidence. [Para 
8] (102-F] 
95 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
96 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
1.2 The instant is a case where the evidence of last seen 
together on 7.12.1996 has b~en relied by the courts below. PW-
8 clearly stated that she along with her husband went to telephone 
booth near her house to call her brother and wheit she was talking 
to her brother, accused again came and had talk with victim. 
The.reafter, both. victim and accused came at th·e house. The victim 
took up his bag which he brought from the office and left for office 
along with accused at about 9:15 p.m. on the same day. The child 
witness PW-11 was also relied by the Sessions Judge, who had 
made the same statement about leaving the home by victim along 
with the accused. The High Court decided not to rely on child 
witness looking to his age at the time of incident. [Para 12) (105-
C-F) 
1.3 Both the Courts below considered the statements of 
PW-8, wife of victim, referred to the cross examination of the 
accused and rightly found that it was accused who was last seen 
together with the victim on 7.12.1996. Last seen theory is a 
circumstance, which can be relied but it is well settled that only 
on the basis of last seen together conviction cannot be recorded. 
Further, if there is long time gap between last seen together and 
the date of incident, the evidence of last seen together loses 
much of its importance. But instant is a case where there is no 
long time gap. The victim went along with the accused on 
7.12.1996 after 9 p.m. and next day morning the wife carried 
rigorous search, met the accused and took him to the police 
station. In the early morning of 9.12.1996, the accused is stated 
to have confessed his guilt and thereafter dead body and other 
articles were recovered from the spot. Thus, there is no time 
gap between accused being last seen together and discovery of 
dead body. The prosecution case is that murder took place on 
9.12.1996 itself. Thus, the present is a case of absolutely no time 
gap hence, evidence of last seen together becomes very relevant 
and important and has rightly been relied by the courts below. 
There were other evidence on record which complete the chain 
of events. From the scene of occurrence, recovery of three shirt's 
button; recovery of stone recovery of bag containing the treasury 
books, recovery of keys and other articles which had been taken 
by the victim at the time of departing for the office at

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