STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus KASHI RAM

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 501 · Decided: 07-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
A 
v. 
KASHI RAM 
NOVEMBER 7, 2006 
[B.P. SINGH AND T ARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Indian Evidence Act. I 872; 
Section 106-deceased last seen together-Burden to prove what 
happened thereafter-Held, on the accused 
C 
Section 106-circumstantial evidence-facts specially within the 
knowledge of the accused--burden of proof-Held, -is not shifted but failure 
to adduce any explanation for the same is to be considered as an additional 
link in the chain of circumstances. 
Extra judicial/confession-conviction based upon-Held, is a weak 
piece of evidence but to base a conviction on the same, it must be proved 
like any other fact and the value thereof depended upon the veracity of the 
witnesses to whom it was made. 
The respondent was accused of committing murder of his wife and two 
daughters and disappearing thereafter. The trial court on an exhaustive 
consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the 
prosecution had successfully established that the deceased was last seen alive 
in her house by her brother. l_t also held that the prosecution had proved that 
D 
E 
the two doors of the house were found locked till the recovery of the bodies F 
when the concerned prosecution witnesses entered the house after removing 
the door. The trial court relied on the recoveries made of the weapon of offence 
namely - the waist chord, and the keys of the two locks, from possession of 
the respondent pursuant to his statement recorded under Section 27 of the 
Evidence Act Reliance was also placed by the trial court on the extra-judicial 
confession said to have been made by the respondent The trial court also found 
that till he was arrested, the whereabouts of the re:;pondent were not known. 
Even after his arrest he did not offer any explanation and even at the trial 
only denied the allegations made against him without offering any explanation 
501 
G, 
H 
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A for his absence during the crucial days. Relying on these circumstances, and 
finding that the deaths were homicidal as proved by the medical evidence on 
record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the only inference that 
could be drawn from the proved facts and circumstances was that the 
respondent after committing the murder of his wife and his two daughters 
locked the house and disappeared from the scene. He was arrested two weeks 
B later but failed to give any explanation in defence. Accordingly, the trial court 
finding the respondent guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 
IPC sentenced him to death having regard to the heinous nature of the crime 
committed by him in which three innocent lives were lost including two 
infants. In appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of fact recorded by 
C the trial court and acquitted the respondent. High Court held that the 
circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution was not strong enough 
to sustain the conviction of the respondent Accordingly, the High Court allowed 
the appeals preferred by the respondent and declined the death reference made 
by the trial court for confirmation of the sentence of death. Hence this appeal. 
D 
It was contended by the appellant-State that the High Court committed 
an apparent error in ignoring the evidence on record which disclosed that 
the respondent was last seen with the deceased. The disappearance of the 
respondent was rather suspicious because if at all only he could explain what 
happened thereafter. He, therefore, submitted that in the facts of the case, in 
E the absence of any explanation offered by the respondent, an inference must 
be drawn against the respondent which itself is a serious incriminating 
circumstance against him. 
It was contended by the respondent that no reliance can be placed on 
the statement of the brother of the deceased regarding his· having seen the 
F deceased last in the company of the respondent as the aforesaid statement 
was not specifically put to the accused when he was examined under Section 
313 Cr.P.C. It was also contended that, though the circumstance regarding 
his having been seen on the evening by his neighbour was put to the 
respondent accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C the 
name of the particular witness was not mentioned as the person who had also 
G seen him on that day with the deceased. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD 1.1 Extra-judicial confession ls a weak piece of evidence and 

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