Case Note & Summary
These four criminal appeals arose from a common judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji, in Sessions Case No.50/2009, convicting the appellants under Sections 365, 302, 394 and 201 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants, Ravindra Jha (A.1), Srinivas Gauramkondu (A.2), Mohammad Imdar Ali (A.3), and Bijoy Kolita (A.4), were sentenced to life imprisonment along with fines for offences of criminal conspiracy, abduction, murder, robbery causing hurt, and causing disappearance of evidence. The prosecution alleged that on 17 July 2009, the accused hatched a conspiracy and hired a Maruti van of deceased Sudan Dabhale from Mapusa Bus Stand under the pretext of transporting household goods. They took him to an isolated spot at Cuelim, Cansaulim, murdered him, robbed his articles and the van, and dumped his body. Later, they used the van with a fake number plate to kidnap one Aiyaz. In parallel Sessions Case No.38/2009, A.2 and A.3 were earlier convicted under Section 364 IPC for kidnapping and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeals challenged the conviction on several grounds. The appellants contended that lodging two FIRs for what was essentially the same transaction was illegal, violating Article 21 and causing serious prejudice. They relied on Supreme Court rulings in Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. State of Gujarat. They further argued that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence which the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. They pointed to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 164 and 281 Cr.P.C., contradictions in the prosecution theories, and insufficient appreciation of evidence. The prosecution, on the other hand, maintained that the two incidents were distinct, and the overlap did not attract the bar on multiple FIRs. It stressed that the last seen circumstance was proved, shifting the burden on the accused to explain the disappearance, which they failed to do. The prosecution highlighted confessions of two accused recorded before a Special Executive Magistrate, admissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act against co-accused. It also argued that even though PW.6 Francis D'Souza was declared hostile, his testimony partly supported the case, and the conspiracy was inferable from the conduct of the accused. The High Court heard the rival submissions and reserved judgment on 25 January 2019. The judgment, pronounced on 8 February 2019, set out to determine the legality of the two FIRs and the sufficiency of evidence. The text excerpted does not include the final operative findings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Multiple FIRs - Same Transaction - Constitution of India, Article 21; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154, 164, 281 - Appellants contended that the two FIRs leading to Sessions Cases No.38/2009 and 50/2009 pertained to the same offence or parts of the same transaction, rendering the second FIR illegal and violative of Article 21. The court examined the gist of both charge-sheets to determine if they related to distinct offences. (Paras 4, 11-13) B) Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 365, 394, 201 read with 120-B - Appellants argued that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances, pointing to non-compliance with Sections 164 and 281 Cr.P.C. and inherent contradictions. The prosecution relied on the last seen theory, confessions, and conspiratorial conduct. The court was to weigh the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence. (Paras 5, 7-9) C) Criminal Procedure - Confession of Co-accused - Evidentiary Value - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 30 - The prosecution contended that the confessions of two accused recorded before the Special Executive Magistrate could be taken into consideration against co-accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, in conjunction with other incriminating circumstances. (Para 8) D) Criminal Conspiracy - Proof - Inferential Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120-B - The prosecution submitted that conspiracy was proved by surrounding circumstances, previous and subsequent conduct of the accused, and the testimonies of witnesses including PW.6 Francis D'Souza, who though hostile, gave partial evidence. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the registration of two FIRs for the same transaction violates Article 21 and prejudices the accused; Whether the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt; Whether the mandatory provisions of Sections 164 and 281 CrPC were complied with; Whether the confessions and last seen evidence can sustain conviction.
Law Points
- Legality of multiple FIRs for same transaction
- Proof of criminal conspiracy
- Circumstantial evidence
- Last seen theory burden of proof
- Confession of co-accused
- Hostile witness testimony
