LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MANGI LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 4 S.C.R. 49 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v MANG I LAL Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2002 MARCH 6, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860-ss. 302 and 201 - Prosecution under - Eye-witness to the incident turning hostile - Conviction on A B the basis of circumstantial evidence and the circumstance in C which the eye-witness resiled - Acquittal by High Court - On appeal, held: Acquittal was justified - Prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of events. Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Reliance on - 0 Held: Conviction can be based on such evidence - Condition precedent for reliance before conviction, discussed. Administration of Justice - Administration of criminal ;ustice - Police protection to witnesses - In a case of murder - Held: Failure to provide police protection to the witnesses in E such case would result in injustice to the victim. Respondent-accused was prosecuted for having killed four persons. As per prosecution, there was an eye- witness to the incident, but he turned hostile. Trial court convicted the accused placing reliance on the F circumstances viz. the accused had illicit relation with two of the deceased (mother and daughter), there was objection for the relation with the daughter; mother deceased had made complaint on two occasions regarding threat from accused to kill them; police G statement of the eye-witness and the allegation of his being beaten to dissuade him from supporting prosecution case; police dog connecting the accused to 49 H 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R. A the murder; blood stained nail clipping of accused taken immediately after his arrest; and recovery of articles at • the instance of the accused. He was sentenced to death. High Court acquitted the accused holding that the eye- witness did not support prosecution case and that the B circumstances did not establish a complete chain. Death reference was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is true that four people had lost their lives and the accused does not seem to be a person of high • c morals, but that itself would not be a ground to record his conviction in the absence of reliable material and evidence. The circumstances highlighted by the prosecution are: (1) Illicit relations between deceased and D accused; (2) Illicit relations between accused and other deceased (daughter of the first cir-ceased); (3) Complaints by mother deceased against accu:;ed regarding threat to </ kill; (4) Statement of PW-1 recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C.; (5) Beating up of PW-1 to dissuade him from giving evidence E in support of prosecution; (6) Police dog traced the scent from the place of incident to the house of the accused; (7) Blood-stained nail clippings of accused taken upon medical examination immediately upon arrest; and (8) Recovery of blood-stained jersey of accused from septic F tank in the house of the accused and burnt pant at his instance. [Para 5] [61-8-H] 1.2 Instant case is not such, where the prosecution has established a complete chain of circumstances which rules out possibility of the involvement of any other person G and unerringly points fingers at the accused to be the author of the crime. So far as circumstance as regards • complaint made by the mother deceased a day before the incident, the trial Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence about the same. The police H dog traced the scent from the place of incident to the STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MANGILAL 51 house of the accused is really no evidence in the eye of A law. So far as the blood stains are concerned medical examination revealed that the deceased ladies had 'B' blood group while deceased boys had '0' blood group. Merely because blood stains were found on the jersey of the accused from septic tank in the house of the accused 8 and burnt pant, that is inconsequential since his blood group is also 'B'. The trial court observed that the weapon used was stone whereas the weapon recovered from the septic tank is stated to be 'Kadbatodi'. No finger printing was done. Though the blood of the accused was collected the same was not sent for chemical analyzer. [Paras 15- C 16 and 17] [65-F; 66-C] . 2.1 Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.