LexRISHIPAL versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 917 RI SHI PAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 928 of 2009) JANUARY 8, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] A 8 Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 171, 201, 365 and 420 - Prosecution - Case based on circumstantial evidence - Corpus delicti not recovered - Conviction by trial court ulss. C 302, 171, 201, 364 and 420 /PC - High Court acquitted the accused u/s.302 while upholding the conviction ulss. 171, 201 and 420 and further altering the conviction uls.364 to that ul s.365 - Appeal to Supreme Court by accused challenging conviction order - Notice to State as well as to the accused D to show cause as to why the order acquitting him uls.302 not be set aside - Plea of accused to withdraw his appeal rejected - Held: Conviction u/ss. 171, 201, 420 and 365 upheld - Acquittal of the accused uls.302 is correct since charge of murder not proved beyond reasonable doubt as it was not E proved that the deceased met a homicidal death - Circumstances of the case also did not form a complete chain as to leave no option except to hold that accused alone was guilty of the offences - Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence. Criminal Trial - Absence of corpus delicti - Effect of - Held: Absence of corpus delicti, by itself is, not fatal to a charge of murder, if prosecution successfully proves that the victim met a homicidal death. F Appellant-accused was convicted by the trial court G u/ss.302, 171, 201, 364 and 420 IPC. In appeal, High Court acquitted him u/s. 302 IPC and upheld the conviction u/ ss.171, 201 and 420 IPC. It further altered conviction u/s. 917 H 918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A .364 to that 11/s. 365 IPC. The accused filed appeal to this Court challenging his conviction. This Court issued notice to the State as well as to the appellant-accused to show cause as to why his acquittal u/s.302 IPC might not be set aside. The appellant-accused prayed for B withdraw.al of SLP filed by him. However, the prayer was declined by the Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In the present appeal, no attempt was made C by ~he appellant to question the correctness of the findings reco~ded by the trial court in so far as the commission of offences punishable u/ss. 171, 201, 365 IPC were concerned. The appellant had also sought withdrawal of the SLP which implied that he did not D question the correctness of the sentence recorded by the High Court in so far as other offences were concerned. That prayer was rejected which effectively kept the SLP alive, but no serious attempt was made to pursue the challenge against the order passed by the High Court in E so far as the conviction recorded by the said court under other offences was concerned. Thus, the Court is not called upon to examine the correctness of the conviction of the appellant for other offences. Even otherwise the findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the F High Court are supported by evidence in so far as commission of other offences are concerned. There is no miscarriage of justice in the appreciation of the evidence or recording of those finding to call for interference of this Court. [Para 8] [925-C-G] G 2.1. The instant case is entirely bas&d on circumstantial evidence. No direct evidence has been adduced to prove that the deceased, whose corpus delicti has not been recovered, was done to death, nor any evidence adduced to show where and when the same H was disposed of by the appellant assuming that he had RISHIPAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 919 committed the crime alleged against him. [Para 9] [925- A H; 926-A] 2.2. In the absence of corpus delicti, what the court looks for is clinching evidence that proves that the victim has been done to death. If the prosecution is successful 8 in providing cogent and satisfactory proof of the victim having met a homicidal death, absence of corpus delicti will not by itself be fatal to a charge of murder. Failure of the prosecution to assemble such evidence will, however, result in failure of the most essential requirement in a case involving a charge of murder. In the present C case, there is no evidence either direct or circumstantial about the deceased having met a homicidal death. The charge of murder levelled against the appellant, therefore, rests on a rather tenuous ground of the two having been last seen together. [Para 13] [929-A-C] D Rama Nand and Ors. v. State of Himacha/ Pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.