Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns three criminal appeals filed against a common judgment and order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao in Sessions Case (302) No.6/2018. The appellants, Pradeep Horo (A1), Safar Khan (A2), Mangra Gope (A3), and Ettandevi Gope alias Ashadevi (A4), were convicted under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that on 12.12.2017 at about 14.00 hours at Pedda, Varca, in the room of accused no.3 Mangra Gope, the appellants with common intention committed the murder of the deceased and thereafter caused the disappearance of evidence. The key circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were: (i) the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused; (ii) the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused; (iii) motive; and (iv) the conduct of the accused. The defence raised the plea of alibi, which was rejected by the trial court. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the accused. The court found that the last seen evidence was credible and that the recovery of the body at the instance of the accused was a strong incriminating circumstance. The court also noted that the motive was established. Consequently, the court dismissed all three appeals and upheld the conviction and sentence. The court also directed that the appellants shall continue to serve their sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - The prosecution relied on the last seen evidence, recovery of the dead body, and motive to establish the guilt of the accused. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the accused, rejecting the defence of alibi. (Paras 5-30) B) Criminal Law - Destruction of Evidence - Section 201 IPC - The accused were convicted for causing the disappearance of evidence of the murder. The court upheld the conviction as the recovery of the body and other circumstances established that the accused had knowledge of the murder and attempted to destroy evidence. (Paras 5-30) C) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - The court found that the accused acted in concert with a common intention to commit murder and destroy evidence, as evidenced by their joint presence and actions. (Paras 5-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
All three appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- motive
- recovery of dead body
- common intention
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
