Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vijay Babasaheb Nanavare, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 88 of 2006 for kidnapping a minor girl aged about ten years with intent to commit rape, committing rape on her, and murdering her. The offences were punishable under Sections 366A, 376(2)(f), and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and rigorous imprisonment for ten years each for kidnapping and rape, with fines. The prosecution case was that on 23/2/2006, the dead body of a girl was found in a field, identified as Swapna @ Rinku, daughter of Sanjay Nikam. A missing complaint had been filed earlier. The appellant was last seen with the deceased near the field. Medical evidence showed the girl was raped and died of strangulation. The appellant was arrested and his clothes had bloodstains. The trial court convicted him based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen theory, motive, and failure to explain. The appellant appealed against conviction, and the State appealed for enhancement of sentence. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the chain of circumstances was complete, pointing only to the appellant's guilt. The appellant failed to explain his presence with the deceased. The court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appellant's appeal, while the State's appeal for enhancement was dismissed as the sentence was already life imprisonment.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused - Prosecution established that appellant was last seen with deceased minor girl and failed to explain her death - Held that conviction under Sections 366A, 376(2)(f), 302 IPC is sustainable (Paras 1-46). B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Burden of Proof - When facts are within special knowledge of accused, burden lies on him to explain - Appellant failed to explain presence with deceased and her death - Held that presumption under Section 106 applies (Paras 30-35). C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 366A, 376(2)(f), 302 - Kidnapping, Rape, and Murder - Minor girl aged 10 years kidnapped with intent to rape, raped, and murdered - Medical evidence corroborated rape and strangulation - Held that offences proved beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 20-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 366A, 376(2)(f), and 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2010 filed by the appellant is dismissed. Criminal Application No. 1290 of 2012 is disposed of. Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2011 filed by the State for enhancement of sentence is dismissed.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- chain of circumstances
- presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act
- conviction based on circumstantial evidence
- sentencing for life imprisonment
