Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kushal @ Akash Dattatray Prabhu, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Nashik for the murder of Mohitesh Pralin Baviskar and for offences under Sections 302, 201, 364-A and 384 IPC. The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and the 'last seen together' theory. On 15.10.2015, the father of the deceased (PW-1) received a ransom call from the deceased's mobile phone demanding Rs. 20 lakhs. The deceased was last seen with the appellant on the same day. The next day, the deceased's body was found in a gutter. The appellant was arrested and certain articles belonging to the deceased were recovered at his instance. The trial court convicted the appellant. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the chain of circumstances was complete. The court noted that the appellant was last seen with the deceased, failed to explain the circumstances, and gave false answers under Section 313 CrPC. The recovery of the deceased's articles at the appellant's instance further corroborated the prosecution case. The court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Together - Sections 302, 201, 364-A, 384 IPC - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and last seen theory upheld where the chain of circumstances is complete and points only to the guilt of the accused - The court held that the prosecution successfully established that the appellant was last seen with the deceased, and the subsequent recovery of the deceased's articles and the appellant's conduct completed the chain of circumstances (Paras 1-22). B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Burden of Proof - When the accused is last seen with the deceased, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances - The court held that the appellant failed to discharge this burden, and his false explanation under Section 313 CrPC added to the incriminating circumstances (Paras 15-18). C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Examination of Accused - False answers can be used as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence - The court held that the appellant's evasive and false answers to questions regarding his presence with the deceased and recovery of articles strengthened the prosecution case (Paras 17-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 201, 364-A and 384 IPC based on circumstantial evidence and last seen together theory is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court are upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen together
- chain of circumstances
- motive
- recovery of articles
- Section 106 Evidence Act
- Section 313 CrPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Section 364-A IPC
- Section 384 IPC
