Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajeshmukar Kunjbihaari Dwivedi, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, for the murder and robbery of Smt. Ramaben Somani, a 70-year-old widow residing alone in Mumbai. The incident occurred on 17 March 2003 between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. The deceased's neighbour found the door partly open and heard water flowing, leading to the discovery of the crime. The appellant, a security guard in the building, was last seen near the deceased's flat. Subsequently, stolen articles belonging to the deceased were recovered from the appellant's possession. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302, 449, and 397 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and other terms. The appellant appealed, but during the pendency of the appeal, he was released on parole and absconded. The High Court, after examining the circumstantial evidence, held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the appellant's guilt. The court upheld the conviction, applying the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act regarding recent possession of stolen property. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Sections 302, 449, 397 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - The appellant was convicted for murder and robbery of an elderly woman. The court examined whether the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant. The court upheld the conviction, finding that the circumstances including last seen, recovery of stolen articles, and conduct of the appellant established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-16) B) Evidence Act - Presumption - Section 114 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Recovery of stolen property - The court applied the presumption that a person in possession of recently stolen property is either the thief or has received it knowing it to be stolen. In this case, recovery of the deceased's articles from the appellant soon after the incident supported the inference of guilt. (Paras 10-12) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Absconding Accused - The appellant was released on parole and absconded. The court noted that the appeal could still be decided on merits as the appellant had already been convicted and the appeal was filed. The absconding did not bar the court from hearing the appeal. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 449, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentences under Sections 302, 449, and 397 IPC upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- chain of circumstances
- last seen theory
- recovery of stolen property
- presumption under Section 114 Evidence Act
- conviction for murder and robbery
