LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. versus NISAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. v. NI SAR JUNE 4, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: Section 302-Double murder-Circumstantial evidence-Accused C convicted on the basis of his extra-judicial confession and recovery of dead body and weapon of murder at his instance-Blood group on blood found on axe not ascertained-FIR recorded much after extra-judicial confession not mentioning anything about it-Held : High Court rightly set aside conviction recorded by trial court-Evidence-Circumstantial evidence. D Respondent was prosecuted for double murder. The prosecution case was that two graziers, 'K' and 'C' did not reach home in the evening. A he- goat was also missing. The search party located the missing he-goat in the house of PW-4 in another village which had been brought there by the accused who had sought shelter for the night there. On being questioned, the accused E admitted having killed 'K' and 'C'. Next morning body of deceased 'K' was recovered and at the instance of the accused body of 'C' was also re.covered during the course of the day. The trial court convicted the accused of the offence charged. In the appeal before the High Court, it was contended for the accused that there was no eye-witness of the incident; that the so-called F extra-judicial confession had no foundation and that blood grouping of the blood found on the axe recovered was not done. The High Court having acquitted the accused, the State filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The First Information Report was lodged much after the so- G called extra judicial confession was made. Evidence on record show~- that the body of deceased 'K' was lying exposed in the jungle and .his lathi and 'Khomari' were lying close-by. In the FIR, there was no reference to the so- called confession by the accused. Informant's explanation that he may have H forgotten to disclose this fact to the police while lodging the FIR, is totally 926 -- / --+- p .. STATEOFMADHYAPRADESHv. NISAR[PASAYAT,J.) 927 improbable and wholly unacceptable. If, in fact, there was any confession as A claimed, that would have been the first thing to be mentioned and not that there was suspicion of the accused being the assailant. (Para SJ (929-A-BJ 1.2. PW-12 had admitted that the body of deceased 'C' was lying about 100 paces from the dead body of'K'. The High Court rightly noticed that no B disclosure was necessary for locating the dead body, the axe and the 'Khomari' were also lying close-by and even a casual search would have revealed the dead bodies and the articles. The Chemical Examiner in his report had found that the axe was stained with human blood. Curiously, the blood group was not ascertained. It was, therefore, not possible to conclude that the axe was C used for killing the two deceased persons. [Para 8) (929-C-Dj 1.3. In view of the nature of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the High Court was perfectly justified in finding the p:-osecution version vulnerable, and the evidence scanty to fasten the guilt on the accused in a case where the prosecution version rests on circumstantial evidence. D [Para 9) (929-E) CRIMINAL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 584 of 200 l. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 29.10.1999 of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in Crl. A. No. 206 of 1989. E Vijay Goel, Meru Sagar Samantrary and Vairagya Vardhan (for C.D. Singh) for the Appellant. Vidya Dhar Gaur for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court by a learned Additional Sessions Judge in ST. No.44of1988 and directed acquittal of the respondent. G ' Accused faced trial for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'Code'). 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The case, as presented at the trial was that Kandhai and Chherkoo did H . 928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R. A not return home in the evening. A he-goat of Sitaram was also missing. The search part)' located the he-goat in village Karhitola in the house of Barela! (PW-4). Accused Nisar had sought shelter for the night at Barelal's house and had brought the he-goat with him. On being questioned, the accused admitted having killed Kandha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.