Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Nilesh @ Nilikrao Ukarda Jadhav, a police constable, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, for the murder of an unknown female and causing disappearance of evidence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The dead body was found in a nala on 24.04.2010. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence: the deceased was last seen with the appellant on the night of 23.04.2010, the appellant was found in possession of the deceased's mobile phone and other articles, and DNA evidence linked the appellant to the crime. The appellant failed to provide any explanation for his presence with the deceased or the recovery of her articles. The trial court convicted him, and the High Court upheld the conviction, finding the chain of circumstances complete and consistent with the guilt of the appellant. The court also noted that the appellant was acquitted of other charges including attempt to rape, theft, and offences under the SC/ST Act.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Together - The prosecution established that the deceased was last seen with the appellant on the night of the incident, and the appellant failed to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The chain of circumstances including recovery of the deceased's articles from the appellant's possession and DNA evidence linking the appellant to the crime was complete - Held that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was justified (Paras 1-20).
B) Criminal Law - Causing Disappearance of Evidence - Section 201 IPC - The appellant was found in possession of the deceased's mobile phone and other articles, and the dead body was recovered from a nala - The conduct of the appellant in not reporting the incident and the recovery of incriminating articles supported the charge under Section 201 IPC - Held that the conviction under Section 201 IPC was proper (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- recovery of incriminating articles
- DNA evidence
- presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act
- conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 131
Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2013
B.R. Gavai, Prasanna B. Varale
Dr. (Mrs.) U.K. Kalsi, Mr. S.D. Chande for appellant; Mr. T. A. Mirza, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent
Nilesh @ Nilikrao Ukarda Jadhav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, convicting him for murder and causing disappearance of evidence.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for two years respectively, with fine.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Whether the conviction under Section 201 IPC is sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient and the chain of circumstances was incomplete.
Respondent/State argued that the circumstantial evidence, including last seen together, recovery of articles, and DNA report, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent with the guilt of the accused. The failure of the accused to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when the deceased was last seen with him, strengthens the prosecution case. Recovery of incriminating articles and DNA evidence further corroborate the guilt.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, dated 17.12.2012 in Sessions Trial No. 107/2010, thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
A dead body of an unknown female was found lying in a nala near Kothari Watika No.8, Khadgi, Akola on 24.04.2010 at about 7.30 am.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the appellant on 17.12.2012. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2013 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 22.09.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 201, 376, 379, 403, 507
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(2)(v)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 106
