Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the brutal murder of a woman in Goa in October 2009. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with a co-accused and a juvenile, conspired to confine, rob, and murder the victim. The victim was last seen with the accused, and her body was later found with injuries. Stolen ornaments were recovered from the accused. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 365, 394, 302, and 201 read with Section 120-B IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants appealed, challenging the conviction. The High Court, after examining the evidence, found that the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, recovery of stolen articles, and motive, formed a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the appellants. The court also upheld the trial court's refusal to grant set off under Section 428 CrPC for life convicts. The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction based on last seen theory, recovery of stolen articles, and motive - The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for murder, robbery, and criminal conspiracy, finding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and pointed to the guilt of the accused (Paras 2-10).
B) Criminal Law - Set Off - Section 428 CrPC - Benefit of set off not available to life convicts - The trial court's refusal to grant set off under Section 428 CrPC was upheld, following the decision in Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1982 SC 1433 (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 365, 394, 302, 201 read with Section 120-B IPC is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa in Sessions Case No. 9/2010 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Criminal conspiracy
- Murder
- Robbery
- Causing disappearance of evidence
- Set off under Section 428 CrPC not applicable to life imprisonment
- Conviction based on last seen theory and recovery of stolen articles
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (05) 26
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal Stamp No. 3887 of 2019
Ryan Menezes, Gina Almeida, Nigel Fernandes, S.R. Rivankar
Cyrone Rodrigues s/o Francisco Fernandes (A2) and Chandrakant Talwar alias Pappu alias Appu s/o Baswani Talwar (A1)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence for murder, robbery, and criminal conspiracy.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal or reduction of sentence.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Sessions Case No. 9/2010.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellants under Sections 365, 394, 302, 201 read with 120-B IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, refusing set off under Section 428 CrPC.
Issues
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Whether the benefit of set off under Section 428 CrPC is available to life convicts.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Respondent argued that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
The circumstantial evidence, including last seen theory, recovery of stolen articles, and motive, formed a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the appellants. The benefit of set off under Section 428 CrPC is not available to life convicts as per Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana.
Judgment Excerpts
Both these Appeals arise out of the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa in Sessions Case No. 9/2010.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kartar Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1982 SC 1433 has refused to extend the benefit of set off against the period already undergone, in as much as the appellants have been, inter alia, sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the appellants in Sessions Case No. 9/2010. The appellants filed separate appeals before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. Criminal Appeal No. 31/2017 was filed by A2, and Criminal Appeal Stamp No. 3887/2019 was filed by A1. The delay in filing the latter was condoned, and both appeals were heard together and disposed of by common judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 365, 394, 302, 201, 120-B
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 428
