In this post, we shall
discuss the latest judicial pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein
it has discussed the theory of “Last Seen” in criminal jurisprudence.
Brief Facts
It has been alleged
that the Appellant, Ganpat Singh, used to visit one Shantibai (Widow), who used
to reside with her son Rakesh, minor. On 08.07.1996, the Police received information
that a dead body was found in a dry well, which was later on identified as that
of Shantibai. The period of death was estimated to be between two to four weeks
prior to recovery of the dead body.
Rakesh had lodged a
Missing Report alleging that the Appellant took her Mother to a different place
and on next day, the Appellant returned alone stating that Shantibai had stayed
back at the home of Rakesh’s maternal aunt. Soon thereafter, the Appellant is
said to have absconded and was later on arrested on 12.12.1997 on the charge of
Murder. Also, some silver ornaments were recovered from the house of the Appellant.
Some of the witnesses
who were examined stated that Shantibai (Deceased) visited them and requested
to lend silver ornaments to her. Rakesh stated that the Appellant never took
her mother to his maternal aunt’s house.
Trial Court
The Learned Court below
convicted the Appellant, Ganpat Singh, for offence punishable under Section 302
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The
reasoning of the Learned Court below was based upon the following: -
a. The Deceased was
last seen accompanying the Appellant;
b. Silver Jewellery belonging
to some of the witnesses lent to the Deceased, was recovered from the Appellant;
c. The Appellant had no
explanation of how the silver ornaments were found in his possession.
High Court
The High Court affirmed
the conviction on the following grounds: -
a. The Deceased was last
seen in the company of the accused.
b. The Appellant made
false statement to Rakesh that her mother had gone to the maternal aunt.
c. The body of the Deceased
was recovered at the instance of the Appellant.
Supreme Court
The findings of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court are as follows: -
1. The High Court
manifestly erred in holding that the body of the Deceased was recovered at the
instance of the Appellant as the Appellant was arrested several months after
recovery of the body.
2. The false statement
made by the Appellant to Rakesh that her mother had gone to the maternal aunt,
coupled with the fact that the Appellant absconded after the date of the
incident, raises strong suspicion against the Appellant. However, a strong
suspicion in itself is not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the guilt
of the Appellant stands established beyond reasonable doubt.
3. There were no
identification marks on the recovered silver ornaments and the mere
circumstance that the Appellant was last seen with the Deceased is an unsafe
hypothesis to found a conviction. The lapse of time between the point when the
Appellant was last seen with the deceased and the time of death is not minimal.
4. Thus, the conviction
was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
A. Para 9 – “There
are no eye-witnesses to the crime. In a case which rests on circumstantial
evidence, the law postulates a two-fold requirement. First, every link in the
chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be
established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Second, all the
circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused.”
B. Para 10 – “Evidence
that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased assumes
significance when the lapse of time between the point when the accused and the
deceased were seen together and when the deceased is found dead is so minimal
as to exclude the possibility of a supervening event involving the death at the
hands of another. The settled formulation of law is as follows: -
“The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap
between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last alive
and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person
other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible. It would
be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last
seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons
coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to
conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together, it would be
hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases”.
Conclusion and
Comments
In my considered
opinion, the facts of this case are a perfect example of how a person can be
made to suffer even adequate proof. With all due respect, the growing tendency
of the Trial Courts to presume one as guilty unless proven innocent is a
dangerous proposition in today’s times. This case should not have come to the Supreme
Court and the Appellant could have been easily acquitted by the Trial Court
itself. This verdict is a welcome one and is also a message to all the Courts
in this country that one is innocent until proven guilty and such proof must
exist beyond reasonable doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment