Case Title: Arun Shankar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case No.: CRL.APL. No. 1186/2022
Dated on: 10 April 2024
Coram: Hon’ble JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA AND JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant and deceased (Sushildhar Dubey) were related and were residents of village Amgoan. They used to go together to drink liquor. On 29th September 1993, in the evening, around 7.00, the appellant went to the house of the deceased and asked the deceased to accompany him to drink liquor. They both went to the house of PW-2 (Ramdas) in village Kohaka. They consumed liquor in PW-2’s house, and they left after consuming the liquor. Nobody saw the deceased alive thereafter, and his dead body was found on the morning of 30th September 1993 on the road leading to Village Bijholidhar Amgoan. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code later on confirmed by the High court. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence such as the recovery of knife, last seen together, medical opinion and accused being the habitual drinking partner of deceased. Aggrieved from the sessions court and high court’s judgement the accused has filed a appeal in the supreme court of India.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
Section 302 prescribes the punishment for the crime of murder, which can include the death penalty or life imprisonment.
Section 201 of Indian Penal Code
This section deals with the actions taken by an individual to destroy, concealor giving false evidence of a crime to protect the perpetrator.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. He submitted that every circumstance constituting a chain of circumstances has not been established. He submitted that last seen together is a very weak circumstance as there is evidence on record to show that the appellant and the deceased were related. Very often, they used to consume liquor together. He submitted that the recovery of the knife at the appellant’s instance had not been proved. He submitted that even the existence of motive has not been pleaded and proved by the prosecution. The appellant urged that the possibility that the death occurred due to an accident of motorcycle cannot be ruled out if the oral evidence of the witnesses is considered. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the appellant.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The counsel for the state supported the conviction by the sessions court and the high court. The respondents submitted that the proximity of time in which the dead body was found nearby the area the appellant and the deceased were last seen together strengthened their case. The State maintained that the weapon used to commit the murder, a knife, was recovered at the instance of the appellant. This recovery was presented as a significant piece of evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The respondent contended that all the circumstances forming part of the chain of evidence had been duly established.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court was of the view that the evidence provided by the prosecution, particularly the recovery of the knife and the last seen circumstance, was not conclusive. The recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant was not adequately proved, and the testimony regarding the last seen together was weak and unconvincing, especially given the relationship and habitual drinking behaviour of the appellant and the deceased. The presence of glass pieces at the crime scene and the testimony of the medical expert (PW-15) was inadequately explained b the prosecution which raised doubts about the cause of death. The possibility of an accidental death involving a motorcycle accident could not be ruled out. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence necessary to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The Supreme court acquitted the appellant of all offences alleged against him and cancelled his bail bonds following the acquittal.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – PRATYASA MISHRA
