SURAJDEO MAHTO AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 911 · Decided: 04-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
911
SURAJDEO MAHTO AND ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1677 of 2011)
AUGUST 04, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, SURYA KANT AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Evidence: Circumstantial evidence – Conviction on basis of
– Permissibility of – On facts, prosecution case that appellant no. 1
lured the victim out of his house, remained with him all along, on
the fourth day joined by appellant no. 2 thereafter, both conspired
and murdered the victim – Conviction of appellant no. 1 and 2, u/s.
302 r/w 34 and 120B and sentenced accordingly – Appellant no. 1
also convicted u/s. 364 – Upheld by the High Court – On appeal,
held: Upon considering the prosecution evidence in entirety, no
reason to disbelieve the prosecution version of last seen theory
against the accused – Medical evidence fully corroborates the
prosecution story of murder of the victim having being taken place
on the fourth day – Motive attributed to the appellants that they
murdered the victim because he was allegedly having an illicit affair
with the sister of appellant No.1, sufficiently proved by the
prosecution – False information given by appellant No.1 and his
post occurrence conduct of absconding and surrendering before
the court only after coercive measures were taken, is relevant to
prove an additional link in the chain of incriminating circumstances
– As regard, appellant No.2, only substantial evidence against him
is that he too was seen in the company of the victim and appellant
No.1 on the fourth day – Mere suspicion cannot be accepted as
impeccable evidence to prove his guilt beyond any doubt – Further,
no allegation against appellant No.2 of being evasive or absconding
post occurrence levelled – Thus, due to missing links in the
prosecution case as regards 2nd Appellant, guilt of 2nd Appellant
not proved beyond the pale of doubt – Thus, 2nd Appellant entitled
to the benefit of doubt and is acquitted of the charges, while the
conviction and sentence of appellant No.1 is upheld – Penal Code,
1860 – u/s. 302 r/w 34 and ss.120B and 364.
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 911
911
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
Principle of ‘Last seen theory’ - Explained.
Motive – Proof of – Important piece of corroborative evidence
– Explained.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000:
s. 7A – Juvenility – Plea of – Held: Initial onus is on the accused to
produce some cogent evidence to prima facie establish the juvenility
on the date of commission of the offence – On facts, 1st Appellant
raised plea of juvenility for the first time before this Court –
Documents relied upon by 1st Appellant-School Leaving Certificate
and Admit Card issued by the School Examination Board do not
inspire any confidence and is not possible to verify the veracity of
the two documents at this highly belated stage – Plea of juvenility
raised by the 1st Appellant is rejected.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Although the powers vested in this Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution are wide, this Court in a criminal
appeal by special leave will ordinarily loath to enter into a fresh
re-appraisement of evidence and question the credibility of
witnesses when there is a concurrent finding of fact, save for
certain exceptional circumstances. While it is difficult to lay down
a rule of universal application, it has been affirmed time and again
that except where the assessment of the High Court is vitiated
by an error of law or procedure, or is based on misreading of
evidence, or is inconsistent with the evidence and thus has led
to a perverse finding, this Court would refrain from interfering
with the findings of the Courts below. [Para 25][928-C-E]
2.1 The case of the prosecution in the instant case heavily
banks upon the principle of ‘Last seen theory’. The last seen
theory is applied where the time interval between the point of
when the accused and the  deceased were last seen together,
and when the victim is found dead, is so small that the possibility
of any other person other than the accused being the perpetrator
of crime becomes impossible. The fact of last seen should not be
weighed in isolation or be segregated from the other evidence
led by the prosecution. The last seen theory should rather be
applied taking into account the case of the prosecution  in  its
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
913
entirety.  Hence,  the Courts have to not only consider the factum
of last seen, but also have to keep in mind the circumstances
that preceded and follow

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