LexRAM SUNDER SEN versus NARENDER @ BODE SINGH PATEL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 12 S.C.R. 898 RAM SUNDER SEN v. NARENDER@ BODE SINGH PATEL (Criminal Appeal Nos.1793-1794 of 2011) OCTOBER 15, 2015 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- ss. 302, 376(2)(f) and 201 ~Murder c and Rape -Allegation of commission of rape and murder of 'a girl aged 12 years against the accused - Conviction of accused for the offence punishable u/s. 302 and imposed death sentence, conviction uls. 376(2)(f) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and conviction uls. 201 and 0 sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years - High Court acquitted the accused since the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances to connect the accused with the offence - Interference with - Held: Not called for- Case is based purely on circumstantial evidence - High E Court rightly held that the links collected by the prosecution have not at all been proved by any cogent evidence and, thus, it is difficult to hold that it was the accused who committed rape upon the deceased and thereafter killed her. F Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Reliance upon by the prosecution to convict the accused - Tests to be established - Stated. Dismissing the appeals, the Court G HELD: 1.1 The instant case is based purely on cir- cumstantial evidence. The prosecution, however, failed at the foremost to link the accused with the incident. The prosecution has the responsibility to present a chain of events. The accused's culpability could have been es- H tablished if the blood samples were tested and matched, 898 RAM SUNDER SEN v. NARENDER@ BODE SINGH 899 PATEL the recovery of underwear is not proven to be that of the A deceased. Otherwise, the recovery was unnatural and did not adduce confidence. One prosecution witness who was an independent witness stated that the ac- cused had gone to another village on the date of inci- dent. There were material discrepancies in the state- B ments of the prosecution witnesses. The testimonies of the interested witnesses clearly show that they materi- ally improvised from their earlier depositions. The ac- cused also examined two defence witnesses who stated that the accused was attending function in some other C village on the fateful night. The High Court went into each and every material aspect of the case, examined at length the deposition of the witnesses and rightly held that the links which are collected by the prosecution have not at all been proved by any cogent evider:ice and, therefore, D it is difficult to hold that it was the accused who commit- ted rape upon the deceased and thereafter killed her. There is no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the High Court. [Paras 15, 16] [907-E; 908-G] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1793-1794 of 2011. E From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07 .2008 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal F No. 11 of 2008 and Criminal Reference No. 4 of 2007 WITH Crl. A. No. 1795-1796 of 2011. Gagan Gupta, Sunny Choudhary, Mishra Saurabh, G Parivesh Singh, M.S. Saran Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Advs., for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHCSE, J. 1. These appeals, by H 900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 12 S.C.R. /\ special leave, are directed against the judgment and order dated 23.07.2008, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2008 along with Criminal Reference No.4 of 2007, whereby the High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the respondent herein and B acquitted him and disposed of the Criminal Reference No.4 of 2007 filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. The case of the prosecution, stated briefly, is that on 19.05.2004 at 8.30A.M., the complainant Ram Sunder Sen c lodged a report at Police Chowki Kotar stating that there was a function in his house on 18.05.2004 in which his relatives and family members had gathered. His daughter Anita, aged about 12 years, after eating meal, had gone to sleep at 7.00 P.l\f.. in front of the main gate of his house as there was no D electricity in the house then. After the function was over, at about 11.00 P.M., he and his family members also slept there. Next morning i.e. on 19.05.2004 at 6.00A.M., the wife :.if Sarpanch \/ansbahadur informed that the dead body of Anita was lying in Bari nearthe house of the Sarpanch. She was not wearing 1: underwear
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.