Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kiran Sampat Badhekar, was convicted by the 5th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay at Sewree, in Sessions Case No. 187/2006 for kidnapping an 11-year-old boy named Sandip (also known as Pappu), son of PW1 Sojarbai and PW2 Keshav Bele, on 28th May 2005, for the purpose of murder, committing his murder, and causing disappearance of evidence of those offences. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and fines under Sections 364, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution case was that on 28th May 2005 at 5:00 AM, Sandip left his home to buy marbles for his sisters. When his mother PW1 awoke at 8:00 AM, she could not find him. Despite a frantic search, he was not located. PW1 lodged a missing complaint at R.C.F. Police Station, recorded by PW12 PSI Giri at 0:15 hours. The next day at about 16:20 hours, a person calling herself Aparna called PW1 on the phone of PW3 Satish Yadao, stating that her son Pappu was taken by a person named Jojo, accompanied by two ladies and one person. PW3 later realized the caller was a male speaking in a disguised voice. The investigation led to the appellant, who was known as Jojo. The appellant was last seen with the deceased. The dead body was recovered at the instance of the appellant from a nullah. The medical evidence indicated death due to asphyxia. The trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory and recovery of the body. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after examining the evidence, held that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent only with the guilt of the appellant. The court found that the appellant was last seen with the deceased, the body was recovered at his instance, and the medical evidence supported the prosecution case. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain of circumstances pointing to guilt - The appellant was last seen with the deceased child shortly before his disappearance, and the dead body was recovered at his instance - Held that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 364 IPC - Kidnapping for murder - The appellant took away the 11-year-old boy from lawful guardianship without consent, and the boy was later found murdered - Held that the offence of kidnapping for murder was proved (Paras 2-5). C) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence - The medical evidence showed death due to asphyxia, and the body was recovered at the instance of the appellant - Held that the appellant committed the murder (Paras 6-8). D) Criminal Law - Causing Disappearance of Evidence - Section 201 IPC - The appellant concealed the dead body in a gunny bag and threw it in a nullah - Held that the offence of causing disappearance of evidence was made out (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 364, 302, and 201 of IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentences passed by the trial court are upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act
- conviction based on complete chain of circumstances
- murder
- kidnapping
- causing disappearance of evidence
