Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the murder of a 10-year-old girl named Soru Kharia (also known as Haru Kharia), who was adopted by Smt. Sumitra Panika, the mother of the appellant Debojit Pankika Charaideo Sonari. The deceased had been residing with the appellant and his mother for about seven years. In the first week of June 2015, Smt. Sumitra Panika left for medical treatment, leaving the deceased in the sole custody of the appellant. Subsequently, the child went missing. On 27 June 2015, Babu Paik, the maternal uncle of the deceased, lodged a complaint at Sonari Police Station alleging that the deceased had been missing for 22 days and that the appellant had neither searched for her nor informed the family. An FIR was registered under Section 365 IPC. During investigation, police suspected the appellant based on the disclosure statement of Kishore Mall (PW-4), who revealed that the appellant had informed him that the deceased had died and that he had disposed of the body. The appellant led the police to a place where the skeletal remains of the deceased were recovered. The appellant was charged under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The trial court convicted him, and the High Court upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court, in the present appeal, examined the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, the disclosure statement, and the recovery of the body. The Court noted that the deceased was last seen with the appellant, and the appellant failed to explain the circumstances of her death. Relying on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that the burden was on the appellant to explain how the deceased died while in his custody. The Court found that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Sections 302, 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellant was convicted for murder of a minor girl and causing disappearance of evidence. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including the appellant being the last person seen with the deceased, his disclosure statement leading to recovery of the body, and his failure to explain the death. The Supreme Court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent only with the guilt of the appellant, and the conviction was upheld. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - When the deceased was in the custody of the appellant and died in his house, the burden shifted to the appellant to explain the circumstances of the death. The appellant's failure to provide any explanation led to an adverse inference against him. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- disclosure statement
- recovery of dead body
- Section 106 Evidence Act
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
