RAGHUNANDAN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 27-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

y-
RAGHUNANDAN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
AUGUST 27, 2007 
(C.1(. THAKKER AND D.I(. JAIN, JJ.) 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r.w. s.34-Accused called deceased to this 
house-Deceased later found dead in the house of accused-Courts below 
convicted accused u/s.302-Justification of-Held: Justified as chain of C 
circumstances was complete to connect accused with the crime-Evidence-
Circumstantial evidence. 
Judgment/Order : Remarks in the record-Deletion of-Trial Court 
negatived the assertion of PW/ that he was eye-witness of murder of his 
father-Court farther remarked that witness had falsely concocted certain D 
facts-On facts and circumstances, remarks found unnecessary and uncalled 
for Ordered to be deleted from the record. 
Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, the appellant came to the 
house of deceased and asked him that one S was calling him. The deceased 
went with the appellant He did not return till afternoon whereafter PW-1-
E 
son of deceased went to the house of appellant for calling his father, where he 
saw that appellant was mounted on the chest of the deceased and S chopped 
off the neck of the deceased. As a result, deceased died on the spot. 
PW-I lodged FIR. Both the accused were charged for offence punishable 
under s.302 r.w. s.34 IPC. The trial Court held that deceased died homicidal F 
death and that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be 
said that PWI had seen the incident. But, considering the circumstances in 
their entirety, including the testimony of PW4 who was an independent 
witness, the trial Court held that the chain of circumstances was complete to 
connect the appellant with the crime, however, as there was no reliable evidence G 
against co-accused S (accused No.I), he was acquitted. On appeal, High Court 
confirmed the conviction of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
475 
H 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007} 9 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. It cannot be said that by convicting the appellant-accused, 
any illegality is committed either by the trial Court or by the High Court. 
Both the Courts have held that no implicit reliance can be placed on evidence 
of PWl-son of the deceased when h" claimed to be an eye witness seeing 
accused Nos.I and 2 killing the deceased. That, however, does not mean that 
B circumstantial evidence also should be discarded. 
(Para 11 t (480-D, Et 
1.2. There is ample evidence to show that the deceased was at his 
residence and it was the appellant who went to the deceased at the latter's 
residence, told him that S wanted him and took the deceased along with him. 
C There was evidence of last seen together i.e. when the deceased was taken by 
the appellant at his residence. It was seen by PWl; PW3, both the sons of the 
deceased and PW2, widow of the deceased. PW4 was an independent witness. 
He had seen accused taking deceased at his residence. He also heard the 
shriek of the deceased; motive of commission of crime i.e., the appellant wanted 
his daughter to get married to PW3, son of the deceased but the proposal was 
D not approved by the deceased, PW2, widow of the deceased and other family 
members. Medical evidence of PW7 who had conducted post mortem 
examination of the deceased had proved the injuries on the person of the 
deceased which were responsible for the death of the deceased. The most 
important and clinching circumstances that the dead body of deceased was 
E lying inside the house of the appellant having serious injuries on his person. • 
No explanation has been offered by the appellant as to how the dead body of 
deceased came inside his house; seizure of empty bottles of liquor from the 
house of the appellant and the presence of liquor in the viscera of the deceased 
which went to support the allegation of the prosecution that initially the 
accused served liquor to the deceased and thereafter killed him. 
F 
tpara llt (480-G; 481-A, B, C, D, Et 
G 
1.3. If, on the basis of all these facts, both the Courts have come to the 
conclusion that it was the appellant who had caused death of deceased at his 
residence, it cannot be said that by taking such view, any error was committed 
by them. (Para 12t (481-E, Fl 
2. The trial court was not right in making certain remarks against 
PWl, son of the deceased while not accepting his claim to be an eye witness. 
The Court, while negativing the assertion of the witness that he had s~en the 
incident of killing his father

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