Case Note & Summary
The criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the V-Additional District and Sessions Court, Mandya, in S.C. No.47/2011 dated 06.08.2016, convicting the appellants (accused Nos. 1 and 2) for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentencing them accordingly. The trial court acquitted them of charges under Sections 143 and 120-B, IPC, and acquitted accused Nos. 3 to 5 of all charges. The prosecution case was that on 29.06.2010, due to prior enmity between the families, accused No.1, the wife of accused No.2, lured the deceased minor girl K.Shalini, granddaughter of PW1, to her house while the deceased was playing near the school with her friend PW2. Thereafter, accused No.4 assaulted her with a knife and all accused suffocated her to death. The body was concealed under a cot in the bedroom of accused Nos.1 and 2, covered with coconuts. PW1, the grandmother, filed the complaint (Ex.P1), leading to registration of crime No.70/2010. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was committed to sessions. The prosecution examined 26 witnesses (PWs 1 to 26), marked exhibits P1 to P24 and material objects MOs 1 to 5. The defence did not lead any evidence. The trial court relied heavily on the last seen theory through PW2, corroborated by PWs 6,7,9, and the recovery of the knife (MO5) stated to be at the instance of accused No.4 under a disclosure statement. It noted that though the panchnama witnesses (PWs 12,13,15) did not fully support the seizure, the recovery stood proved. The conviction was based on this circumstantial evidence. In appeal, the appellants challenged the conviction, urging that the evidence was insufficient, the panch witnesses had turned hostile, and the last seen theory was not firmly established. The High Court heard the arguments of Sri Basavaraju P. for appellants and the learned Additional SPP for the State. The impugned judgment and the evidence were perused. The High Court's final decision on the appeal is not included in the available text of this extract.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder and Destruction of Evidence - Conviction Based on Last Seen and Recovery - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 201 - The trial court convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 relying on the evidence of PW2 (a child last seen with the deceased) and PWs 6, 7, 9, along with recovery of the knife (MO5) on the disclosure statement of accused No.4; panch witnesses PWs 12, 13, 15 did not fully support the seizure panchnama. The High Court examined whether such conviction is sustainable (Paras 3-6). B) Evidence - Hostile Witness - Effect on Recovery - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The trial court accepted the recovery of the knife despite the panchnama witnesses not having withstood the fulcrum, giving credence to the seizure. The High Court was called upon to assess the evidentiary value of such recovery when panch witnesses turned partly hostile (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC by the trial court is justified based on the last seen theory and recovery of weapon, considering that panch witnesses turned hostile.
Law Points
- Last seen theory
- recovery of weapon under disclosure statement
- hostile witness
- burden of proof
- circumstantial evidence
- appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC
- murder
- destruction of evidence
