Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vaibhav Shantaram More, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai, for offenses under Sections 363, 377, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, including life imprisonment for murder. The prosecution case was that the accused kidnapped a 7-year-old boy, Pratiksha Jagtap, from near his house, committed unnatural sex upon him, murdered him by throttling, and threw his body into a nullah to destroy evidence. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, recovery of the body at the instance of the accused, medical evidence of asphyxia and anal injuries, and the accused's failure to explain the circumstances. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the accused. The court upheld the conviction under all sections, finding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable if the chain of circumstances is complete and points to the guilt of the accused - The prosecution proved that the accused was last seen with the deceased child, and the body was recovered at his instance - Held that the circumstances were sufficient to convict the accused (Paras 1-30). B) Criminal Law - Unnatural Offense - Section 377 IPC - Medical evidence of anal injuries and presence of semen on the deceased's clothes established the offense of unnatural sex - Held that the conviction under Section 377 IPC was proper (Paras 15-20). C) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - The deceased died due to asphyxia caused by throttling, and the accused failed to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Evidence Act - Held that the conviction for murder was justified (Paras 21-25). D) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 363 IPC - The deceased was a minor aged 7 years, and the accused took him away from lawful guardianship without consent - Held that the conviction under Section 363 IPC was correct (Paras 10-14). E) Criminal Law - Destruction of Evidence - Section 201 IPC - The accused caused the disappearance of evidence by throwing the body into a nullah - Held that the conviction under Section 201 IPC was proper (Paras 26-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 377, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Sections 363, 377, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act
- unnatural offense
- murder
- kidnapping
- destruction of evidence
