SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 1023 · Decided: 08-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 7 S.C.R. 1023 
SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2008) 
JULY 8, 2010 
[DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134, 392 and 411 - Murder 
and robbery - Unknown miscreants ransacking house of 
complainant's and committing death of complainant wife -
C 
Conviction and sentence u/ss. 302134, 392 and 411 by court 
below - Justification of - Held: Justified - Prosecution was 
able to establish and prove complete chain of circumstances 
and events - Said circumstances collectively point to the guilt 
of accused beyond any reasonable doubt. 
o 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313 - Object and 
scope of - Discussed. 
According to the prosecution case, unknown 
miscreants caused death of complainant's wife. The 
assailants also ransacked the rooms of the complainant's 
house. Investigation was carried out. The appellants 
were arrested. On basis of the statement of the accused, 
the wrist watches as well as camera which were looted 
from the house of the deceased were recovered. The 
Sessions Judge as well as the High Court convicted and 
sentenced the accused u/ss. 302/34, 392 and 411 IPC. 
Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The doctrine of circumstantial evidence is 
brought into aid where there are no witnesses to give eye 
version of the occurrence and it is for the prosecution to 
establish complete chain of circumstances and events 
E 
F 
G 
1023 
H 
1024 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A leading to a definite conclusion that will point towards 
the involvement and guilt of the accused. [Para 1) [1030· 
B·C] 
2.1 Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 clearly states 
that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in 
8 consequence of the information received from a person 
accused of any offence, in the custody of the police 
officer, so much of such, information, whether it amounts 
to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact 
thereby discovered, may be proved. [Para 5) [1035-G] 
c 
2.2 In the instant case, the handkerchief, that was 
recovered from the place of occurrence, was 
subsequently owned by the accused. The fact recorded 
that he admitted his guilt was not admissible and could 
D not be proved and has rightly been rejected by the trial 
court in the impugned judgment. The wrist watches and 
the camera, which were recovered after the statement of 
the accused was recorded, while in custody, cannot be 
faulted with as those items have not only been recovered 
E but duly identified by the owners during investigation as 
well as at the trial stage. PW 13-lnvestigating Officer, in 
his statement has referred to the recording of the 
statement of the accused after they were taken into 
custody and resultant recoveries of the articles. While 
F referring to the cross examination of PW 13, efforts were 
made to involve the local witnesses, which he did not 
succeed and later when the seizure memos were 
prepared PW8 and PW9 were present. Ext. 18 clearly 
shows their presence and nothing contrary was 
suggested to them in their cross examination. Their 
G presence during search and seizure of the house of the 
accused on two occasions has been c9mpletely 
established by the prosecution. No confessional 
statement made to the police, as alleged, has been relied 
upon by the Courts. It is only the objects recovered, in 
H 
SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST 
1025 
BENGAL 
furtherance to the statement of the accused while in 
A 
police custody like wrist watches, camera etc., that has 
been relied upon to by the court to complete the chain 
of events relating to the crime in question. Thus, any of 
these acts are not hit by section 27 of the Act. [Para 5] 
[1035-G-H; 1036-A-F] 
B 
Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC 657; 
Salim Akhtar v. State of UP. (2003) 5 SCC 499 - referred 
to. 
2.3 PW 8 and PW 9 specifically stated that on the date 
C 
of occurrence they had seen the accused near the place 
of occurrence. PW5 and PW 6 also stated that the 
accused were known to the family of the deceased. Most 
important statement pointing towards the normal practice 
of the house and likely involvement of the accused is o 
pointed out in the statement of PW6, the daughter-in-law 
of the deceased. Besides referring to their departure from 
the house along with others and returning back to the 
house at about 9.30 P.M., she also stated that she found 
her mother-in-law, the decea

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