Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals filed by Khomu Kasar Bahadur Raul (appellant no.1) and Yeshori Keshav Bahadur Raul (appellant no.2), husband and wife, against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Premkumar Khadka, the brother of appellant no.2. The prosecution case was that the deceased arrived at the appellants' rented room on 3.1.2012. On 4.1.2012, appellant no.1 and the deceased consumed alcohol and dinner, and later slept in the same room. On the morning of 5.1.2012, the appellants left for work, leaving the deceased sleeping. When appellant no.1 returned around 11:00 hours, he found the deceased still sleeping and tried to wake him, but the deceased was dead. The prosecution alleged that the appellants murdered the deceased by strangulation and inflicted injuries with a knife. The trial court convicted both appellants based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen together, motive (the deceased had allegedly misbehaved with appellant no.2), and recovery of a knife at the instance of appellant no.1. The High Court, in appeal, re-appreciated the evidence and upheld the conviction, holding that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the appellants. The court rejected the defence of alibi and found that minor discrepancies in the evidence did not affect the prosecution case. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Motive - Recovery of Weapon - The appellants, husband and wife, were convicted for murder of the deceased, brother-in-law of appellant no.1. The prosecution relied on last seen evidence, motive, and recovery of a knife at the instance of appellant no.1. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the appellants, rejecting the defence of alibi and inconsistencies in evidence. (Paras 1-30) B) Evidence Act - Recovery under Section 27 - Discovery of Weapon - The recovery of a knife at the instance of appellant no.1 from a bush near the scene was held to be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as it led to the discovery of a fact (the weapon) which was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. (Paras 15-20) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against Conviction - Appreciation of Evidence - The High Court, in appeal, re-appreciated the evidence and found that the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court held that minor discrepancies do not affect the prosecution case. (Paras 25-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- motive
- recovery of weapon
- Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
- conviction upheld
