Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajesab Mujawar, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Sessions Case No. 20/2008 for the murder of Shekappa Bhandari and his wife Shekawwa, and for robbery of their belongings. The prosecution case was that on 21st April 2008, the appellant took Shekappa to a jungle area at Savlem, Pilerne, and assaulted him with a danda, causing instantaneous death. He then stole Shekappa's mobile phone. Later, the appellant went to Shekappa's house and told Shekawwa that her husband had called her, and took her by another route, where he strangulated her with her own sari, causing her death, and stole her gold ornaments. The bodies were discovered on 23rd April 2008. The appellant was arrested and certain stolen articles were recovered at his instance. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302, 392 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and other terms. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, which was entirely circumstantial. The court considered the motive (the appellant was in financial difficulty and had borrowed money from the deceased), the last seen evidence (the appellant was seen with both deceased shortly before their deaths), the recovery of stolen articles (including the mobile phone and gold ornaments), and the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW-10. The court found that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant. The court also noted that the appellant failed to explain the incriminating circumstances under Section 313 CrPC. Minor inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence were held to be not fatal. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder and Robbery - Circumstantial Evidence - Sections 302, 392, 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against conviction - The appellant was convicted for murder of two persons and robbery of gold ornaments and a mobile phone - The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence including last seen, motive, recovery of stolen articles, and extra-judicial confession - The High Court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant - Minor inconsistencies in prosecution evidence did not affect the core case - Appeal dismissed (Paras 1-50). B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Section 106 Evidence Act, 1872 - When the accused was last seen with the deceased and the deaths occurred shortly thereafter, the burden shifted to the accused to explain the circumstances - The accused failed to provide any explanation under Section 313 CrPC - Adverse inference drawn against the accused (Paras 30-35). C) Criminal Procedure Code - Examination of Accused - Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The accused's mere denial without explanation regarding incriminating circumstances can be used against him - The court may draw an inference of guilt if the accused fails to offer a plausible explanation (Paras 36-40).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentences under Sections 302, 392 and 201 IPC upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- motive
- last seen theory
- recovery of stolen articles
- Section 106 Evidence Act
- Section 313 CrPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 392 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
