LexSTATE OF GOA versus PANDURANG MOHITE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
(2008] 17 S.C.R. 176
STATE OF GOA
II.
PANDURANG MOHITE
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 598-599 of 2002)
DECEMBER 8, 2008 .
· ·
. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
Ss.302, 392 and 201 - Conviction by trial court on the
basis of circumstantial evidence relating to accused last seen
with deceased - Acquittal by High Court - Held: Conviction
can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should
o be tested by the touch-stone of Jaw relating to circumstantial
evidence - In the instant case, the evidence of two witnesses
to have seen the accused with the deceased at the same
time at different places seems to be an impossibility -
. Judgment of High Court warrants no interference -
E Circumstantial evidence -Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- s.378 - Appeal against acquittal""" Constitution of India,
1950 - Article 136.
-
On 2.3.1998 at 7 .15 A.M. a report was lodged at the
Police Station that complainant's son was missing. It was
F stated that on 1.3.1998 at about 7.30 A.M. whenrthe
I
complainant along with his son was returning from the -+-·
annual fair, his son stayed behind and thereafter did not
reach home. When the complainant returned from the
Police Station, PW 3 told him that he saw his son with the
G accused at 7.15 P.M the previous day. The matter was
reported to the police and the acc1:1sed was taken to the
police sta~ion on 2.3.1998 itself. At the instance of the ,,_
accused, dead body of the son of the complainant was
' rec9vered from the jungle. The trial court relying up'?~ the
H
176
STATE OF GOA v. PANDURANG MOHITE
177
-
last seen theory ·and the evidence of PWs 3 and 8 in this A
regard, convicted and sentenced the accused u/ss 302,
392 and 201 IPC. However, the High Court set aside the
conviction. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD:1.1. It has been consistently laid down by this
~-
Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial
'~
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when
all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found
to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or c
the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from
which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn
have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have
to be shown to be closely connected with the principal
fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. D
[Para 7] [185-A-D]
...
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621;
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR't977 SC 1063; Eradu
-1
and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316;
E
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State
Qf U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; Ba/winder
Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar
Chatterjee v. State of M.P. AIR 1989 SC 1890; C. Chenga
Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193; Padala
F
~
Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79 and
....
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 Crl.LJ 1104,
relied on.
'Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI), referred
to.
G
~
1.2. There is no doubt that conviction can be based
(
--{
solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested
(
!
by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial
~
...,..,
evidence laid down by the this Court. [Para 12] (187-8-C]
H
--{ •
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 17 S.C.R.
A
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8) SCC.180; State of Haryana
v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003 (11) SCC 261 and Kusuma
B Ankama Rao v State of A.P. 2008(10) SCR 89, referred to.
1.3. So far as the last seen aspect in the instant case
is concerned, PWs 3 and 8 claimed to have seen the
accused a~ the same time and to have carried him in the
C motor cycle which itself is an impossibility. Additionally,
neither PW 3 nor PW 8· claimed to have seen the other
Witness along with the accused at the relevant point of
time. The High Court noticed that PW 3 stated that on
1.3.1998 he had taken the accused and the deceased, to
Hedode Bridge and he was available in the police station
D on 2.3.1998 at 11 PM. The High Court found it strange that
his statement was not recorded on that day. On 2.3.1998
police was treating the respondent as an accused and
had started inExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.