SC enunciates that when the theory of “last seen together” is proved against the accused, then the explanation by the Accused becomes crucial,

 

The division bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi of the apex court in the case of Ram Gopal S/O Mansharam Vs State of Madhya Pradesh held that if the case is based on circumstantial evidence, then furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the Accused would be a very crucial fact, especially when the theory of “last seen together” as propounded by the prosecution was proved against him.

Brief Facts:

The factual matrix of the case was that the Complainant alleged that at about 5 pm his uncle (Pratap Singh) was taken by the Ram Gopal, who was the Ex- sarpanch of the village. Thereafter, he found the dead body of his uncle lying on the road. The complaint was registered and the charge sheet was filed against the Petitioner and the other three accused after conducting the investigation. The charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. The Session Court convicted the Petitioner under Section 302 IPC and acquitted all the other three accused. 

Contentions of the Petitioner:

It was contended that the case of the prosecution was solely based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the entire chain of circumstances. Furthermore, the Court committed an error in convicting the Accused based on the last-seen theory. It was also contended that the relations of the parties were quite cordial. 

Contentions of the State:

It was contended that the Petition in his statement under Section 313 had failed to justify when and how he disappeared from the company of the deceased. 

Observation of the Court:

 

The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that once the theory of last seen is established, then, it is expected from the Accused to offer some justification as to when and under what circumstances he has parted the company of the deceased. 

It was noted that the Prosecution must prove the guilt of the Accused. However, as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, then the burden of proving that fact lies upon him. It doesn’t mean that it will absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, any failure on the part of the Accused to not throw any light upon the facts which are proved within his special knowledge may be used against the Accused. 

It was also noted

 

“it is discernible that though the last seen theory as propounded by the prosecution in a case based on circumstantial evidence may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to base conviction solely on such theory when the said theory is proved coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused does owe an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act about the circumstances under which death might have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, and absconds, the motive is established and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon, etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the conviction could be based on such evidence.”

The decision of the Court:

Based on the aforementioned explanation, The Hon’ble Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and didn’t interfere with the order of conviction passed by the Session court and the High Court. 

Case Title: Ram Gopal S/o Mansharam Vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 107 SC

Case No: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9221 of 2018

Advocates for Petitioner: Adv. Yogesh Tiwari, Adv. Sanjay K. Agarwal, AOR, Adv. Neema, Adv. Vikrant Singh Bais, Adv. Amna Darakshan. 

Advocates for the Respondent:  Adv. D. S. Paramar, AAG, Adv. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Adv. Sunny Choudhary, AOR, Adv. Rushant Malhotra

 

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free. 

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant. 

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our

journalism free from government and corporate pressure .