RAM GULAM CHAUDHURY AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 25-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM GULAM CHAUDHURY AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 201, 302 rlw 149. 
Murder-Corpus delicti-Whether necessary.for conviction.for murder-
Prosecution proves factum of death by reliable evidence-However corpus 
delicti not found-Trial Court convicted appellants-High Court upheld 
conviction-On appeal, held even in absence of corpus delicti direct and 
circumstantial evidence go to prove that murder has been conunitted. 
A 
B 
c 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 106-Burden of proving fact especially 
within the knowledge of the accused-Not discharged by the accused-Held, 
D 
there is everyjust{ficationfor drawing the inference that the accused committed 
the murder-Penal Code, 1860. 
According to the Prosecution the appellants-accused and some other 
persons came to the house of one 'KC' and assaulted him. One of the 
accused (appellant No. 9) gave a chhura blow on his chest which resulted in 
E 
his death. Thereafter all the persons left the place taking the body of the 
'deceased'. Trial Court after considering the evidence convicted the 
appellant No. 9 under Section 302 IPC and the other appellants under 
Section 302 r/w s.149 and sentenced all of them to life imprisonment. 
Appellants filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed. 
p 
Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants submitted that since the prosecution had failed to prove 
the murder by any reliable evidence, the conviction should be set aside. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD : 1.1. If there is no reljable evidence proving the factum of death, 
conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be maintained. It is not necessary 
for a conviction for murder that corpus delicti be found. In the absence of 
the corpus delicti there must be direct or circumstantial evidence leading to 
the inescapable conclusion that the person has died and that the accused are 
H 
. 279 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
the persons who had committed the murder. [287-G; H; 288-A; B] 
Ram Chandra v. U.P. State, AIR (1957) SC 381; Rama Nand v. State of 
Himachal Pradesh, (1981) 1 SCC 511; State v. Sardara, (1974) Crl. L.J. 43; 
Bandhu v. Emperor, (1924) Allahabad Law Journal 340; In Re Maya Basuva, 
AIR (1950) Madras 452; Brijesh Kumar v. State, AIR (1958) Allahabad 514; 
Rama nand & Ors. v. Siate of Himachal Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCR 444 and 
Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1991) 3 SCC 471, referred to. 
1.2. In the instant case, the courts below have come to the conclusion, 
based upon the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 who were eye witnesses that 
Appellant No.•9 had killed the accused and the body was taken away by all 
the Appellants.' The presence· of the two witnesses at the place of incident 
and their evidence clearly_ indicates that the incident took place before 
their eyes. Further; on reading the evidence as a whole both of them have 
given positive evidence that tht; murder took place in the courtyard and 
not on the road. [~88-A-DJ 
2, Even though Section 106 of the Evidence Act may not be intended 
to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused 
beyond reasonable doubt but the section would apply in the instant case 
• •' 
• 
' 
• 
1 • 
~' 
•11 
' 
J 
•• 
t 
' • 
where the prosecution has succeeded ill proving facts from· which a 
' 
I . <ii t ' 
<I l ' .... 
~ 
-
t 
" 
• • 
L 
• 
t" 
· ; 
reasonable inference can. be drawn. The appellants brutally assaulted 'KC'; 
"' 
' 
-
• 
• 
j. 
~ ' 
I 
I 
then gave a chhura blow and thereafter carried away the body. After that 
.. 
1 •. 1' 
~ 
' 
; 
' 
' 
-
' 
as to what happened to 'KC' is within the kno~ledge of t~e Appellants and 
they have given 'no explanation. 'KC' has not been since seen alive. In.the 
-
4 
1 
• 
41' 
~ 
I ' 
• 
' 
' 
t 
I 
• 
• 
' 
, 
' 
• 
• 
• 
absence of an explanation, and considering the fact that the Appellants 
, 
.• t 
'!' 
I 
I 
• 
j 
J 
• 
were suspecting 'KC''to'have kidnapped and killed a child in the family of 
• 
, 
I 
f . 
t 
• • 
• 
- , 
' 
• ~ 
• 
... 
the Appellants, it ·was for the Appellants who by virtue of their special 
knowledge should have offered an explanation which might lead the Court 
to , draw a different inference. Thus when the abductors withheld that 
. 
;. I 
I 
• 
L 
" 
• 
" 
~ 
" 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
-
inform~tion from t~e .Court tl~ere ,is every justification for ~rawing the 
inference that they had murdered 'Kq. (288

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