Page 1

1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.261 OF 2008

PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARAB        ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA       ... RESPONDNET

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

The  appellant  has  filed  this  appeal  against  the

judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated

14.2.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.703 of 2001 by which the

High Court by dismissing the appeal of the appellant has

affirmed the conviction and sentence order passed by the

Additional  Sessions  Judge  for  Greater  Bombay  dated

31.07.2001  in  Sessions  Case  No.  459  of  1997  recorded

against the accused awarding him life sentence and fine of

Rs. 5000/- .

Page 2

2 2. Prosecution  case  in  brief  is  that  both,  the  victim

Prabhudas  Narayan  Raut  and  accused  Praful  Sudhakar

Parab were working in the police Department of the State of

Maharashtra.  The victim was working as Senior  Clerk in

Police  Training  School  Marol  whereas  the  accused  was

working  as  Pay  Sheet  Clerk  attached  to  LA-IV,  Police

Training  Centre,  Marol.   On  7.12.1996,  the  victim  after

finishing  his  office  work  at  6:30  p.m.  reached  at  his

residence by 7:30 p.m. The accused came at the residence

of victim at about 8:00 p.m. and informed the victim that he

has been called in the office by his superior Mr. Patil and

victim should accompany him to the office. The victim after

making a phone call to PTS Marol stated that he has not

been called in the office and he shall  not accompany the

accused. When the accused came to the residence of victim,

the wife of the victim Kalpana Raut and his son Anis were

also present. Victim also told his wife that he will inquire on

Monday as to who had given such a false message. At about

9 p.m., the victim and Kalpana went to nearby telephone

booth and while Kalpana was having conversations with his

Page 3

3 brother, accused after enquiring about the whereabouts of

the  couple  from  child  Anis  again  came  to  them  at  the

telephone  booth.  Accused  persuaded  Prabhudas  to

accompany him to the office. After telephonic call was over,

Kalpana  along  with  victim  and  accused  returned  to  the

house of victim. The victim took up the bag brought from

office  with all  its  contents and left  the house along with

accused after 9:00 p.m.  After above departure from house

on 7.12.1996 after 9 p.m. Prabhudas never returned. On

next day morning Kalpana, the wife inquired from telephone

operator PTS, Marol about her husband. She was informed

that nobody had gone to the office of Police Training School,

Marol on the preceding night.  Kalpana along with a relative

visited  the  Police  Training  School,  Marol  and  made

enquiries. Police Constables Sanap and Khamkar, who were

colleagues  of  the  deceased  suggested  Kalpana  that  she

would  find  out  the  person with  whom her  husband had

gone  last  night.  Kalpana  approached  Sawant  who  was

maternal uncle of the victim. Sawant took the Kalpana to

his sister i.e. mother of accused, accused was not present

Page 4

4 there. Kalpana was handed over photograph of accused by

his mother from which photograph Kalpana identified the

accused as the person with whom her husband went last

night.  Subsequently  on  the  same  day,  Sawant  family

informed  that  accused  is  available  at  their  residence.

Kalpana went to Sawant family and inquired the accused

regarding  whereabouts  of  her  husband.  Accused  gave

evasive reply.  Accused flatly  refused that  he had gone to

house of Raut on previous night. The accused was taken to

the  Police  Station  Meghwadi  by  Kalpana  Raut  and  her

relatives. Kalpana  met Police Sub Inspector  Shinde who

recorded the statement of Kalpana Raut and a complaint of

missing  person  Prabhudas  Raut  was  registered.  The

accused  was  asked  to  stay  back  at  the  Police  Station.

Shinde inquired from the accused about the whereabouts of

victim, accused was reluctant to answer. On further inquiry

by Shinde and Inspector Sonar, accused informed that he

took  Prabhudas  Raut  with  two  other  friends  Dalvi  and

Waingankar  at  Panvel  in  one hotel.  Police  team took the

accused  to  Panvel  who  pointed  out  a  Suman  Motel.  On

Page 5

5 inquiry from the hotel staff it was revealed that Prabhudas

and other two did not visit the hotel or stayed there. The

prosecution case further is that on further interrogation of

accused  in  the  morning  of  9.12.1996,  the  accused

confessed the murder of Prabhudas Raut and expressed his

willingness to show the place he had committed murder and

show  the  dead  body.  The  police  party  was  led  by  the

accused to the place of occurrence where the dead body was

seen in the  search light  pushed inside  a big  water  pipe.

Police party decided to carry on Panchanama in sun light

after putting two constables to guard the place. The first

information report was registered and thereafter  again at

8:00 a.m. Police party along with the accused went on the

scene in  the  presence of  two Panch,  a  Panchanama was

prepared Exh.-24, certain articles including one big stone

left near the body of the deceased , three button of shirts of

blue colour and a rexine bag were recovered. The body bore

the mark of injury. Face of the deceased was totally battered

and injuries were on his head.

Page 6

6 3. Accused further expressed his willingness to show

the clothes which he was wearing at the time of occurrence.

Accused led the police party  to the house of  his parents

from where the clothes worn by the accused were recovered.

Panchnama  Exh.-35  was  prepared  in  the  presence  of  a

witness. Subsequently, accused further led the police party

to PTS, Marol where the bunch of keys he alleged to have

taken out from the pocket of the deceased were kept. The

police party along with Panch went to the PTS, Marol where

in the Guardroom under the Stand for keeping the rifles, a

bag  containing  the  bunch of  keys  was  found  and memo

Exh.-30 and Panchanama Exh.- 30A were prepared.  

4. Accused was put on trial. Prosecution examined 21

witnesses and has filed various documentary evidence. The

statement  of  accused  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C.  was

recorded.  Defence did not examine any witness in support

of  defence  case.  Learned  Sessions  Judge  convicted  the

accused relying on the circumstantial evidence after holding

that there is no eye witness of the scene nor confessional

statements of the accused can be treated to be a confession.

Page 7

7 Sessions  Judge,  however,  believed  the  evidence  of  PW-8

Kalpana Raut and PW-11 Anish Raut son of victim that it

was accused who was last seen with the victim and with

whom victim went out on 7.12.1996 after 9 p.m.  The chain

of  events  clearly  pointed  out  that  it  was  accused  who

committed murder.  With  regard to  offence  under  Section

364, it was held by the Sessions Judge that the said charge

does not  survive.  On appeal  against  the judgment of  the

Sessions Judge, the High Court affirmed the conviction and

dismissed the appeal. The High Court however, relied on the

statement of PW-8 in holding that it was accused who was

last seen with the victim. However, High Court decided not

to  base  its  finding  on  the  child  witness  i.e.  PW-11.  The

evidence of Kalpana was elaborately noted and sequence of

events  and  chain  of  events  found  support  from  other

evidence on record including the evidence of PW-15 Shanta

Ram Sawant and the independent witnesses as well as the

statement  of  Inspector  Sonar  and  Sub  Inspector  Shinde.

The High Court after considering all the evidence on record

Page 8

8 dismissed  the  appeal  affirming  the  conviction  of  the

accused.  

5. This  appeal  has  been  filed  by  the  appellant

(hereinafter referred to as 'accused') through amicus curiae.

Learned amicus curiae appearing for the accused has raised

following submissions in support of the appeal:

(i)  There are no eye witnesses of the events. Circumstantial

links are not proved beyond doubt.

(ii)  PW-8  Kalpana  Raut  deposed  that  her  husband  took

dinner  and  after  dinner  left  out  with  the  accused  on

7.12.1996.  The  food  was  required  to  be  found  in  the

stomach which is negated by the medical report.

(iii)  Prosecution  story  was  that  accused  went  to  the

deceased twice to call deceased that Patil Sahib was calling

him.  However,  Patil  Sahib  was  not  examined  by  the

prosecution.

(iv) Police investigation did not blame the accused that he

was having any grudge, rivalry or bad relationship with the

deceased. No motive could be proved for the murder hence,

the conviction is bad.

(v) Recovery of  keys was to support that the accused was

planning for theft at police treasury where cash was kept

Page 9

9 but  in  whole  prosecution  evidence,  it  is  not  brought  on

record as how much cash was there.   

6. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  State  has

supported the judgment. It is contended that the findings

and conclusion arrived at by the courts below were based

on cogent evidence and circumstantial evidence brought by

the prosecution was sufficient to convict the accused. There

is no merit in the appeal.  

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.  

8. The  present  is  a  case  where  no  eye  witness  is

produced.  The  statements  made  before  police  by  the

accused in the morning of 9.12.1996 wherein the accused is

stated to  have  confessed murder  cannot  be  said  to  be  a

valid  confession as  has  rightly  been held  by  the  learned

Sessions  Judge.  The  prosecution  has  based  its  case  on

circumstantial  evidence.  Whether  conviction  based  on

circumstantial evidence can be upheld and whether there

was sufficient  evidence  to  support  the conviction are  the

questions  to  be  answered  in  this  appeal.  This  Court  on

Page 10

10 several occasions has considered the law regarding basing

of conviction by the Court on a circumstantial evidence. It is

useful  to  refer  to  the  judgement  of  the  apex  Court  in

Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1982 (2) SCC 351,

wherein the apex Court laid down that circumstances from

which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be

cogently  and  firmly  established.   Referring  to  the  above

judgment of  Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra),

principles were again reiterated by the Supreme Court in

K.V.  Chacko  Vs.  State  of  Kerala,  2001  (9)  SCC 277,

wherein following was laid down in paragraph 5:

“5. The law regarding basing a conviction by the courts  on  circumstantial  evidence  is   well settled. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such  evidence  must  satisfy  three  tests:  (1)  the circumstances  from which  an  inference  of  guilt  is sought  to  be  drawn,  must  be  cogently  and firmly established (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of  the  accused;  (3)  the  circumstances,  taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable  of  explanation  of  any  other  hypothesis

Page 11

11 than  that  of  the  guilt  of  the  accused.  The circumstantial  evidence  should  not  only  be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”

9. Again  in  Trimukh  Maroti  Kirkan  vs  State  Of

Maharashtra,  2006  (10)  SCC  681,  following  was  laid

down in paragraph 12:

“12. In the case in hand there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests  on  circumstantial  evidence.  The  normal principle  in  a  case  based  on  circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently  and  firmly  established;  that  those circumstances  should  be  of  a  definite  tendency unerringly  pointing  towards  the  guilt  of  the accused;  that  the  circumstances  taken cumulatively  should  form  a  chain  so  complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within  all  human  probability  the  crime  was committed  by  the  accused  and  they  should  be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than  that  of  the  guilt  of  the  accused  and inconsistent with his innocence.”

10. In  State of U.P.  Vs.  Satish,  2005 (3)  SCC

114,  this  Court  reiterated  that  there  is  no  doubt  that

conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence

but it should be tested  on the touch stone of law relating to

Page 12

12 circumstantial  evidence.  Following  was  laid  down  in

paragraphs 14,15 and 16:

“14. There  is  no  doubt  that  conviction  can  be based  solely  on  circumstantial  evidence  but  it should be tested by the touchstone of law relating to  circumstantial  evidence  laid  down  by  this Court as far back in 1952.  

15. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR (1952) SC 343 it was observed thus;  

"It is well to remember that in case where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the  circumstances  from  which  the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in  the  first  instance  be  fully  established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt  of  the  accused.  Again,  the circumstances  should  be  of  a  conclusive nature  and tendency and they should  be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there  must  be  a  chain  of  evidence so  far complete  as  not  to  leave  any  reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence  of  the  accused  and  it  must  be such  as  to  show  that  within  all  human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

16. A reference may be made to a later decision in  Sharad  Birdhichand  Sarda  v.  State  of Maharashtra, AIR (1994) SC 1622. Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held  that  the  onus  was  on  the  prosecution  to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by a

Page 13

13 false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on  circumstantial  evidence  must  be  fully established. They are:  

(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established;  

(2) The facts so established should be consistent only  with  the  hypothesis  of  the  guilt  of  the accused,  that  is  to  say,  they  should  not  be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;  

(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;  

(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any  reasonable  ground  for  the  conclusion consistent with the-innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”

11. The circumstantial evidence in the present case has

to be examined in the  light of the law as laid down above.

12. The  present  is  a  case  where  the  evidence  of  last

seen together on 7.12.1996 has been relied by the Courts

below. The deceased attended his office and left at 6:30 p.m.

along  with  another  constable  PW-2  Dilip  Atmaram

Page 14

14 Waingankar,  who  was  also  on  duty  on  7.12.1996,  who

stated that he along with victim has left the office at 6:30

p.m. and he left the victim at 7:30 p.m. at Jogeshwari. PW-8

Kalpana  Raut  the  wife  of  deceased  has  stated  in  her

statements  that  the  accused  came  at  8:00  p.m.  on

7.12.1996 and asked the victim to accompany him to office

since he was being called by Patil Sahib. The victim  made a

phone call  to PTS, Marol  and was informed by telephone

operator who has also appeared in the evidence that there

was no message for him. PW-8 Kalpana Raut has clearly

stated that she along with her husband went to telephone

booth near her house to call her brother and when she was

talking to her brother,  accused again came and had talk

with victim. Thereafter both victim and accused came at the

house. The victim took up his bag which he brought from

the office and left for office along with accused at about 9:15

p.m. on the same day. The child witness PW-11 Anish was

also relied by the learned Sessions Judge, who had made

the same statement about leaving the home by victim along

Page 15

15 with the accused.  The High Court decided not to rely on

child witness looking to his age at the time of incident.  

13. What is the relevance of last seen theory has come

for consideration time and again before this Court. In State

of U.P. Vs. Satish (supra), there was positive evidence that

the  deceased  and  accused  were  seen  together  by  the

witnesses.  Following  was  laid  down  by  this  Court  in

paragraph 22:

“The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap  between  the  point  of  time  when  the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that  possibility  of  any  person  other  than  the accused being the  author  of  the  crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively  establish that  the  deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and  possibility  of  other  persons  coming  in between  exists.  In  the  absence  of  any  other positive  evidence  to  conclude  that  the  accused and  the  deceased  were  last  seen  together,  it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen  together  by  witnesses  PWs.  3  and  5,  in addition to the evidence of PW-2.”

14. In  Deepak  Chandrakant  Patil  v.  State  of

Maharashtra, 2006 (10) SCC 151, the statements of the

Page 16

16 wife and son of the deceased to the effect that deceased was

last  seen  in  the  company  of  appellant  was  sought  to

challenge on the ground that there was no direct evidence

led by the prosecution to prove assault  on the deceased.

Rejecting the said submission,  it  was held by this  Court

that circumstance of last seen together if considered with

other  evidence  on  record  has  found  the  guilt  proved.

Following was laid down in paragraph 14:

“Learned  Counsel  for  the  appellant  also submitted before us that the evidence of PWs 15 & 13 to the effect that the appellant was last seen in the company of the appellant became irrelevant in view of the fact that the prosecution had led direct  evidence  to  prove  the  assault  on  the deceased. In our view, the submission does not help the appellant. In this case, the circumstance that the deceased was last seen by PWs 15 & 13 in  the  company  of  the  appellant,  is  a circumstance  which  considered  with  other evidence on record has been found to prove the guilt of the accused. It is not as if the prosecution has tried to set up a case other than what was sought  to  be  proved  by  the  eye  witnesses examined in the case who turned hostile.  Since the  eye  witnesses  turned  hostile,  the circumstance that the appellant had accompanied the deceased and was last seen by him was only treated as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove his guilt.”

Page 17

17 15. Both  the  Courts  below  have  considered  the

statements  of  PW-8  Kalpana  Raut,  the  wife  of  victim,

referred  to  the  cross  examination  made  by  the  learned

counsel for the accused and has rightly found that it was

accused  who  was  last  seen  together  with  the  victim  on

7.12.1996 and it was the accused, who came to the house

of  the victim and took the victim along with him on the

pretext  that  victim  is  being  called  at  the  office  by  his

superior. Last seen theory is a circumstance, which can be

relied but it is well settled that only on the basis of last seen

together conviction cannot be recorded. Further, if there is

long time gap  between last seen together and the date of

incident, the evidence of last seen together losses much of

its importance. But present is a case where there is no long

time  gap.  The  victim  went  along  with  the  accused  on

7.12.1996  after  9  p.m.  and  next  day  morning  the  wife

carried rigorous search, met the accused and took him to

the  police  station.  From  the  morning  of  8.12.1996  the

search was conducted by the wife making statements that it

was accused who came to the house of the victim and took

Page 18

18 away the victim on the pretext that he was being called by

his  superior  in  the  office.  On  8.12.1996,  evening  PW-8

Kalapana Raut along with the help of  her relatives could

take  the  accused  to  the  police  station  and  accused

remained at the police station and investigation was carried

out  by  the  police  authorities.  In  the  early  morning  of

9.12.1996, the accused is stated to have confessed his guilt

and thereafter dead body and other articles were recovered

from the spot. Thus, there is no time gap between accused

being last seen together and discovery of  dead body. The

prosecution case is that murder took place on 9.12.1996

itself. Thus, the present is a case of absolutely no time gap

hence, evidence of last seen together becomes very relevant

and important and has rightly  been relied by the Courts

below.  There are other evidence on record which complete

the chain of events. From the scene of occurrence, recovery

of  three  shirt's  button;  recovery  of  bag  containing  the

treasury books and other articles which had been taken by

the victim at the time of departing for the office at 9 p.m.

Recovery of three buttons which were proved to be button of

Page 19

19 the shirts of the accused which he was wearing at the time

of occurrence.  Recovery of  stone which was used by the

accused for smashing the head of the victims and the post

mortem report has found the wound as incised like wound

which proves the manner of causing death as was stated by

the accused. The recovery of clothes worn by the accused

from the parents house indicated that his shirt did not have

three buttons which were found at the scene of occurrence

completes the chain of events. Further keys of the office of

PTS,  Marol  which  the  victim  took  along  with  him  while

departing  along  with  the  accused  on  7.12.1996  were

recovered  at  the  instance  of  the  accused  from  the

guardroom of  PTS  Marol.  The  keys  which  were  with  the

accused  were  found  in  the  custody  of  accused  clearly

completes the chain of events. There is evidence on record

to indicate that accused on 8.12.1996 went to PTS, Marol

and wanted the Pay Office of PTS Marol to be opened on the

pretext that he has left his keys on previous day. The office

was not allowed to be opened and the witnesses who had

seen him on 8.12.1996 morning have deposed before the

Page 20

20 Court. The High Court has elaborately considered the Exh.

P-24, the Panchanama which was prepared on the spot. The

High  Court  has  rightly  observed  that  Panchanama  is  a

composite  document,  which  contains  certain  details

pertaining to narration by the accused, and it also contains

details  which can be  termed as panchanama of  scene of

occurrence,  and  it  also  contains  the  details  of  the  dead

body, which can be termed as inquest.  Exh. P-24 has been

witnessed  by  the  independent  witnesses  Arvind  Veerkar

PW-9 was independent witness of scene of occurrence and

recovery  of  dead  body  and  other  articles,  who  was

thoroughly cross examined by the defence. The conduct of

the accused which has come before the Court by evidence,

recovery of clothes which was worn by him at the time of

occurrence  and  recovery  of  keys  which  were  with  the

deceased  when he left  the  house  completes  the  chain  of

events and unerringly points out that it  was the accused

who committed the crime.  

16. One of the submissions which has been raised by

the learned amicus curiae is that the prosecution failed to

Page 21

21 prove any motive. It is contended that the evidence which

was  led  including  the  recovery  of  bunch  of  keys  from

guardroom was with a view to point out that he wanted to

commit theft of the cash laying in the office but no evidence

was led by the prosecution to prove that how much cash

were there in the pay office. Motive for committing a crime

is something which is hidden in the mind of accused and it

has been held by this Court that it is an impossible task for

the prosecution to prove what precisely have impelled the

murderer  to  kill  a  particular  person.  This  Court  in

Ravinder Kumar and another vs State Of Punjab, 2001

(7) SCC 690, has laid down following in paragraph 18:

“18........It is generally an impossible task for the prosecution to prove what precisely would have impelled  the  murderers  to  kill  a  particular person. All that prosecution in many cases could point  to  is  the  possible  mental  element  which could have been the cause for the murder. In this connection  we  deem  it  useful  to  refer  to  the observations of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jeet Singh {1999 (4) SCC 370}:  

"No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary  is  not  that  no  criminal  offence  would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to  prove  the  precise  motive  of  the  accused  to

Page 22

22 commit  it.  When  the  prosecution  succeeded  in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree  as  to  impel  him  to  commit  the  offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of  the prosecution.  It  is  almost  an impossibility  for  the prosecution  to  unravel  the  full  dimension  of  the mental  disposition  of  an  offender  towards  the person whom he offended."  

17. Further  in  Paramjeet  Singh  Vs.  State  of

Uttarakhand, 2010 (10) SCC 439,  this Court held  that if

motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of

circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a

ground to reject the prosecution case. Following was stated

in paragraph 54:

“So far as the issue of motive is concerned, the case is squarely covered by the judgment of this court  in  Suresh  Chandra  Bahri  (supra). Therefore,  it  does  not  require  any  further elaborate discussion. More so, if motive is proved that  would  supply  a  link  in  the  chain  of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot  be  a  ground  to  reject  the  prosecution case.  (Vide:  State  of  Gujarat  v.  Anirudhsing [supra])”

18. The High Court  while  considering  the  motive  has

made following observations at page 46:

Page 23

23 “Although prosecution  is  not  very  certain  about

the  motive,  upon  taking  into  consideration  the

evidence of PW-4 and PW-6, a faint probability is

created, regarding intentions of the accused to lay

hands  on  the  cash  which  could  have  been  in

possession  of  the  victim,  as  against  the  initial

story that the accused was enraged against the

victim, because the victim used to tease him on

the point  of  his  marriage with a bar girl  Helen

Fernandes.  Motive  is  a  mental  state,  which  is

always locked in  the  inner  compartment  of  the

brain  of  the  accused  and  inability  of  the

prosecution  to  establish  the  motive  need  not

necessarily cause entire failure of prosecution.”  

We fully endorse the above view taken by the High

Court and do not find any substance in the above ground.  

19. The amicus curiae submits that the Patil Sahib was

not  examined as  witness.  The prosecution case  was that

accused told  the  victim that  he  has  been called  by  Patil

Sahib  in  the  office.  When the  evidence has  come on the

record including the evidence of PW-1 Pradeep Mohit, who

was the Telephone Operator in the PTS, Marol in the night

Page 24

24 of  7.12.1996  that  there  was  no  message  for  victim,  non

production of  Patil by prosecution is of no consequence.  

20. The next submission of  amicus curiae is  that the

PW-8 Kalpana Raut  has  stated in  her  statement  that  on

7.12.1996 victim left the house after 9:00 p.m. after taking

dinner  but  no  food  was  found  in  the  stomach  and  the

medical report bellies that case. The High Court has dealt

with  the  above  submissions  and  made  following

observations at page 33:

“Evidence  of  Kalpana,  duly  supported  by PW-15

Shantaram is  strong  enough  to  draw conclusion

that Kalpana was certainly aware of her husband

having  departed  with  nephew  of  PW-15

Shantaram,  irrespective  of  the  fact  whether  she

had seen that nephew or not and also irrespective

of  the  fact,  whether  the  victim departed  without

dinner.   The  portion  from  post  mortem  notes,

indicating  the  victim  to  be  empty  stomach,

therefore,  is  not  weighty  enough  to  demolish

Kalpana's deposition,  which claims knowledge of

departure  of  victim  with  the  accused.  We  are,

therefore,  inclined to hold tht  Kalpana's evidence

that the deceased had departed with the accused,

Page 25

25 is acceptable and the prosecution has established

this circumstance with reliable evidence.”

21 . We endorse the above findings of  the High Court.

The present is not a case of solitary evidence of last seen

together  but  sufficient  evidence  was  led  to  complete  the

chain of events and link the accused to the crime. The High

Court  after  elaborately  considering  all  the  evidence  on

record  has  rightly  dismissed  the  appeal  filed  by  the

accused.  We  do  not  find  any  merit  in  this  appeal.  The

appeal is dismissed.  

………………………………….J. ( ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE )

………………………………….J.                                                ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

NEW DELHI, JUNE  29, 2016.