Supreme Court of India
PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARABversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 453
- Decided
- 29 June 2016
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Holding
The conviction for murder is upheld as the circumstantial evidence forms a complete, unbroken chain pointing to the accused’s guilt, and lack of motive does not invalidate the conviction.
Summary
The appellant, Praful Sudhakar Parab, a pay‑sheet clerk in the Maharashtra police, lured his colleague, Senior Clerk Prabhudas Narayan Raut, to the office on 7 December 1996 and the victim never returned. The victim’s wife and son testified that they saw the accused and the victim leave together after 9 p.m., and the accused later confessed to the murder and led police to the body hidden in a water pipe. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence – the ‘last seen together’ testimony, recovery of shirt buttons, a bag with treasury books, keys, a stone used to strike the victim, and a Panchanama documenting the scene – to establish a complete chain of events. The defence argued that there was no eye‑witness, no valid confession, and no proven motive, contending that the circumstantial case was insufficient. The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence satisfied the established tests, that motive is not essential, and therefore upheld the conviction and life sentence.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of circumstantial evidence, including the ‘last seen together’ doctrine, to sustain a conviction for murder.
- Whether the absence of a proven motive defeats the prosecution’s case.
- The admissibility and weight of the accused’s statements to police as a confession.
- The relevance of the recovered physical evidence in linking the accused to the crime.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 364
Subjects
murdercircumstantial evidencelast seen togethermotiveconfessionpanchanamapolice departmentIndian Penal Code
Judgment
(2016] 4 S.C.R. 95
PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARAB A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 261 of2008)
JUNE 29, 2016 B
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - Murder - On facts, victim and accused
working in the same department - 01i the fateful day accused went
to the residence of victim and persuaded him to accompany him to
c
office - Victims son and wife witness to the same - An hour later
accused again ca111e to the victim and persuaded him to accompany
him to office - Victim left for office with the bag brought from office _
and did not return - Thereafter, on interrogation, accused confessed
that he 111urdered the victim - On basis of circumstantial evidence,
conviction of accused for committing murder of the victim and mvard D
of life sentence - Order of trial court upheld by the High Court -
On appeal, held: Courts below considered the statement of the wife
of the victim, cross examination of the accused and rightly found
that it was accused who was last seen together with the victim -
There was no time gap between accused being last seen together
E
and discovery of dead body - Thus, the evidence of last seen together
became relevant - There were other evidence on record, recovery
of shirt button, bag containing treasury books and keys, and other
articles which complete the chain of events - Failure of prosecution
to establish motive would not effect the prosecution case - Instant
case is not of solitary evidence of last seen together but sufficient F
evidence were led to complete the chain of events and link accused
to the crime -Thus, .the order passed by the courts below upheld.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, no eye witness is produced.
The statements made before police by the accused wherein the G
accused is stated to have confessed murder cannot be said to ·be
a valid confession as has rightly been held by the Sessions Judge.
The prosecution based its case on circumstantial evidence. [Para
8] (102-F]
H
95
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A 1.2 The instant is a case where the evidence of last seen
together on 7.12.1996 has b~en relied by the courts below. PW-
8 clearly stated that she along with her husband went to telephone
booth near her house to call her brother and wheit she was talking
to her brother, accused again came and had talk with victim.
The.reafter, both. victim and accused came at th·e house. The victim
B
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 was also relied by the Sessions Judge, who had
made the same statement about leaving the home by victim along
with the accused. The High Court decided not to rely on child
c witness looking to his age at the time of incident. [Para 12) (105-
C-F)
1.3 Both the Courts below considered the statements of
PW-8, wife of victim, referred to the cross examination of the
accused and rightly found that it was accused who was last seen
D together with the victim on 7.12.1996. 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 loses
much of its importance. But instant is a case where there is no
E 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. In the early morning of 9.12.1996, the accused is stated
to have confessed his guilt and thereafter dead body and other
F 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.
G There were other evidence on record which complete the chain
of events. From the scene of occurrence, recovery of three shirt's
button; recovery of stone recovery of bag containing the treasury
books, recovery of keys and other articles which had been taken
by the victim at the time of departing for the office at 9 p.m, The
H High Court elaborately considered the Panchanama which was
PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARAB v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 97
prepared on the spot. The High Court rightly observed that A
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. Panchnama was witnessed by the
B
independent witnesses. 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 c
when he I~ft the house completes the chain of events and
unerringly points out that it was the accused who committed the
crime. [Para 15] [106-H; 107-A-F; 108-C-E)
1.4 Motive for committing a crime is something which is
hidden in ,.the mind of accused and it has been held that it is an D
impossible task for the prosecution to prove what precisely have
impelled the murderer to kill a particular person. The High Coqrt
while considering the motive made following observations that
"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 E
hands on the cash which could have been in possession of the
victim, as agafost 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. Motive is a mental state,
which is always IOcked in the inner compartment of the brain of F
the accused and inability of the prosecution to establish the motive
need not necessarily cause entire failnre of prosecution." The
said view taken by the High Court is endorsed. [Paras 16, 18]
[108-G; 109-G-H; 110-A]
1.6 The amicus curiae submitted that P was not examined G
as witness. The prosecution case was that accused told the victim
that he has been called by P in the office. When the evidence has
come on the record including the evidence of PW-1 who was the
Telephone Operator in the PTS, in the night of 7.12.1996 that
there was no message for victim, non-production of P by
prosecution is of no consequence. [Para 19] [110-B-C] H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 4 S.C.R.
A 1.7 It was submitted that the PW-S 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 observed that the portion
from post mortem notes, indicating the victim to be empty
stomach, therefore, is not weighty enough to demolish K
B
deposition, which claims knowledge of departure of victim with
the accused. Thus, it is held that K's evidence that the deceased
had departed with the accused, is acceptable and the prosecution
has established this circumstance with reliable evidence." The
findings of the High Court is endorsed. The present case is not
c 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 rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the
accused. [Paras 20, 21] [110-D-H]
D Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra 19S2 (2) SCC 351;
K. V. Chacko v. State of Kerala 2001 (9) SCC 277;
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State Of Maharashtra 2006
(10) SCC 6Sl : 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 156; State of U.P.
v. Satish 2005 (3) sec 114 : 2005 (2) SCR 1132;
Deepak Chandrakant Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2006
E (10) SCC 151; Ravinder Kumar and another v. State
Of Punjab 2001 (7) SCC 690 : 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR
463; Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2010 (10)
SCC 439 : 2010 (11) SCR 1064 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
F
19s2 (2) sec 351 referred to Paras
2001 (9) sec 211 referred to Paras
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 156 referred to Para 9 ~·
2005 (2) SC~ 1132 referred to Para 10
G 2006 (10) sec 151 referred to Para 14
2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 463 referred to Para 16
2010 (11) SCR 1064 referred to Para 17
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 261 of2008.
H
PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARAB v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 99
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2006 of the High Court A
of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 703 of200 I.
Dr. Sushi! Balwada, Srilok Nath R., Advs. for the Appellant.
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Colll1 was delivered by B
ASHOK BHUSHAN, .J. 1. 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 of200 I 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 c
Bombay dated 31.07.200 I in Sessions Case No. 459 of 1997 recorded
against the accused awarding him life sentence and fine of Rs. 5000/- .
2. Prosecution case in brief is that both, the victim Prabhudas
Narayan Raut and accused Praful Sudhakar Parah were working in the
police Department of the State of Maharashtra. The victim was working
D
as Senior Clerk in Police Training School Maro I whereas the accused
was working as Pay Sheet Clerk attached to LA-IV, Police Training
Centre, Maro I. 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 E
should accompany him to the office. The victim after making a phone
call to PTS Maro! 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
F
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 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 G
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, Maro! about her husband.
H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A She was informed that nobody had gone to the office of Police Training
School, Maro] on the preceding night. Kalpana along with a relative
visited the Police Training School, Maro] 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. K~ 'r ~n:i approached Sawant who was
B
maternal uncle of the victim. ~~--.·::!!lt took the Kalpana to his sister i.e.
mother of accused, accused was not present there. Ka lpana was handed
over photograph of accused by his mother from which photograph
Kalpana identified the accused as the person with whom her husbal}d
went last night. Subsequently on the same day, Sawant family informed
c 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
D
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 Dal vi and
E Waingankar at Panvel in one hotel. Police team took the accused to
Panvel who pointed out a Suman Motel. On 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
ofaccused in the morning of9. l 2. I 996, the accused c01ifessed the murder
of Prabhudas Raut and expressed his willingness to show the place he
F
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
G 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, ce1tain 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.
H
PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARAB v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA I 01
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
3. Accused further expressed his willingness to show the clothes A
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 ofa witness. Subsequently, accused further led the police party
to PTS, Marol where the bunch of keys he alleged to have taken out
B
from the pocket of the deceased were kept. The police party along with
Panch went to the PTS, Maro I 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 ex,amined 21 witnesses
and has filed various documentary evidence. The statement of accused c
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 statementsDfthe
accused can be treated to be a confession. Sessions Judge, however, D
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 E
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 F
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 dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction of
the accused. G
5. This appeal has been tiled 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. CircumstJntial links are H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A 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 accu<P,..: .,vent to the deceased twice to
B 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.
c
(v) Recovery of keys was to support that the accused was planning for
theft at police treasury where cash was kept but in whole prosecution
evi<;lence, 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
D
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.
E
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
F
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 several occasions has considered the law regarding basing
of conviction by the Court on a circumstantial evidence. It is useful to
G 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 Gambliir Vs. State of Maflaraslltra (supra), principles were again
reiterated by the Supreme Court in K. V. Chacko Vs. State of Kera/a,
H
PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARAB v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 103
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
2001 (9) sec 277, wherein following was laid down in paragraph 5: A
"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: {l) the circu111stances fro111 which an inference of guilt
is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established B
(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 circu111stantial evidence in order c
to sustain convic.fion 111ust be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis 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." D
9. Again in Trimukll Maroti Kirkan vs State Of Maharashtra,
2006 (10) sec 681, following was laid down in paragraph 12:
"12. In the case in hand there is no eye-wit11ess of the
occurrence a11d the case of the prosecution rests 011
circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based E
on circumsta11tial evidence is that the circu111stances 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 poi11ting towards
the guilt of the accused: that the circumstances take11 F
cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability
the cri11ie was committed by the accused and they should be
incapable of expla11atio11 on any hypothesis other than that
of the guilt of the accused a11d inconsistent with his
innocence. G
10. In State of U.P. Vs. Satislt, 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 oflaw
relating to circumstantial evidence. Following was laid down in paragraphs
H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A 14,15and 16:
"14. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on
circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the
touchstone of lmv relating to circumstantial evidence laid down
by this Court as far back in 1952.
B 15. Jn Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of MP., AIR
(1952) SC 343 it was observed thus;
"ft 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
c 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.
D Jn other words, the.re 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.
E 16. A reference may be made to a Jater 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 false defence or plea. The
F conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before
conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence must
be fully established. They are:
(}) The circumstances jiwn which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances
G 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 f{Uilty:
H
PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARAB v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 105
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.)
{3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature mid A
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 B
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 c
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 Di lip
Atmaram 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 D
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 E
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 F
PW-I I Anish was also relied by the learned Sessions Judge, who had
made the same statement about leaving the home by victim along 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 G
consideration time and again before this Cou11. 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
H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 4 S.C.R.
A between the pain/ 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 positivefy establish that the
deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long
B
gap and possibilily 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
c and the accused were seen together by witnesses PWs. 3 and
5, in addition _to the evidence of PW-2."
14. In Deepak Cluuulmktmt Patil v. State of Malwmslttra,
2006 (JO) SCC 151, the statements of the wife and son of the deceased
to the effect that deceased was last seen in the company of appellant
D 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 la!\t seen
together if considered with other evidence on record has found the guilt
proved. Following was laid down in paragraph 14:
E "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,
F the circumstance that the deceased was last see11 by PWs 15
& 13 in the co111pany 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
G proved by the eye witnesses examined in the case who turned
hostile. Since the eye witnesses turned hostile, the circu111stance
that the appellant had accompanied the deceased and was
last seen by hi111 was only treated as one of the circumstances
in the chain of circumstances to prove his guilt. "
H 15. Both the Courts below have considered the statements of PW-8
PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARAB v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 107
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, .I.]
Kalpana Raut, the wife of victim, referred to the cross examination made A
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
B
relied but it is well settled that only on the basis of last seen together
conviction cannot be recorded. Further, ifthere 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 c
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 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
D
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 of9. I 2.1996, 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 E
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 imp01tant 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
F
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 wtlre proved to be
button of 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 G
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, Maro I which the
H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A 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 Maro!. 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, Maro I and wanted the Pay Office of PTS Maro! to be opened
B
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 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
c 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
D
dead body and other articles, who was thoroughly cross examined by
the defence. The conduct of the accused which has come before the
Cou,rt 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
E 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 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
F 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
G Kumar all(/ another vs Stme Of Punjab, 2001 (7) SCC 690, has laid
down following in paragraph 18:
"18 ........ It is generally an i111possible task for the prosecution
to prove what pzecisely would have i111pelled the murderers to
kill a particular person. All that prosecution in many cases
H could point to is the possible mental element which could have
PRAFUL SUDHAKAR PARAB v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 109
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, .I.]
been the cause for the murder. Jn this connection we deem .it A
useful to refer to the observations of this Court in State of
Himachal Pradesh vs. Jeet Singh {1999 (.I) 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 B
prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the
accused to 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 c
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 o.ffended. ,.
17. Further in P"r"mjeet Sing ft Vs. St"te of Uttaraklumd, 20/P D
(JO) 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
E
covered by the judgment of this court in Sure sh 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 [wpra})" F
18. The High Court while considering the motive has made
following observations at page 46:
"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 G
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
H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 4 S.C.R.
A 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.
B 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-I Pradeep
· Mohit, who was the Telephone Operator in the PTS, Maro! in the night
c 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
D 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
E
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
F with the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold tht
Kalpana s evidence that the deceased had departed with the
accused, is acceptable and the prosecution has established
this circumstance with reliable evidence."
2 I. We endorse the above findings of the High Court. The present
G 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.
Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search