Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Mahesh Jagan Surti, by the Sessions Judge, Daman, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his two young daughters, Divya (aged 8) and Nisha (aged 5), and causing disappearance of evidence. On 23rd April 2006, the appellant, his wife P.W.1 Pravina, and their three daughters had gone to a fair near Mahalaxmi Temple. After taking darshan, the appellant took Divya and Nisha towards the giant wheel while P.W.1 waited with the youngest child. When the appellant did not return with the daughters, P.W.1 searched for them and then went home and informed P.W.5 Ravi, the appellant’s brother. The appellant returned home the next evening alone and gave evasive replies, initially claiming the daughters died in an accident and later stating he had drowned them in the Arabian Sea and buried them. A complaint was lodged at Daman Police Station, and investigation led to the recovery of the dead bodies from a forested area near the seashore at the instance of the appellant. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses, while the defence examined one witness, the brother-in-law of the appellant, who testified that the daughters had gone missing and a search was conducted. The trial court convicted the appellant relying on the circumstances of last seen together, recovery of bodies at the appellant’s instance, and his false explanation. In appeal, the appellant argued that no motive was proved and key witnesses including the wife and brother turned hostile, and that the evidence was insufficient. The prosecution contended that the two incriminating circumstances—last seen together and recovery—were clinching. The High Court, after reappreciating the evidence, held that the death of both girls was due to drowning, which the appellant did not dispute. The evidence of P.W.1 Pravina and P.W.5 Ravi, though hostile in part, established that the girls were last seen with the appellant and that a thorough search was made when they did not return. Crucially, the recovery of the corpses from a pit wrapped in cloth and with flowers, as disclosed by the appellant under a panchnama, was proved by panch witness P.W.2 Rajubhai Purohit and Investigating Officer P.W.12 PI Rohit. The court found the appellant’s explanation—that he went to a hotel for water and returned to find the girls missing—to be inherently improbable and false because he did not report to the police or even to his wife immediately. The court drew the inevitable inference that the appellant alone committed the murders and concealed the bodies. The chain of circumstances was held to be complete and consistent only with guilt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence affirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Together – Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 – The prosecution established that the two deceased minor daughters were last seen alive in the company of the appellant at a fair; this circumstance, when combined with other evidence, formed a crucial link in the chain of circumstances proving guilt. Held that the last seen theory, when the time gap is narrow and the accused fails to offer a plausible explanation, points to his involvement (Paras 10-11). B) Criminal Law – Recovery at Instance of Accused – Discovery Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – The dead bodies of the two girls were recovered from a pit near the seashore pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure statement, as proved by the panch witness and investigating officer. Held that such recovery, especially of bodies buried and concealed, is a strong incriminating circumstance (Para 12). C) Criminal Law – False Explanation – Conduct of Accused – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 – The appellant gave evasive and inconsistent explanations—first claiming an accident, later stating the daughters went missing while he went to fetch water—and failed to report to police or conduct a sincere search, which constituted additional circumstantial evidence. Held that a false explanation is a relevant link in the chain of circumstances (Paras 11, 13). D) Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 201 – The circumstances of last seen together, recovery of bodies at the accused’s instance, and the appellant’s false explanation formed a complete chain inconsistent with innocence, leading to the inference that the appellant alone caused the deaths by drowning and concealed the bodies. Held that conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was proper (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence of last seen together and recovery of dead bodies at the instance of the accused is sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were confirmed.
Law Points
- last seen together
- recovery at instance of accused
- false explanation
- circumstantial evidence
- drowning
- asphyxia
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Section 313 CrPC
- disclosure statement
- panchnama
