ARUN SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sessions Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide the judgment dtd. 13/3/1995. He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The decision of the Sessions Court has been confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dtd. 5/12/2017. The case is based on circumstantial evidence.

(2.) The case of the prosecution will have to be briefly stated. The appellant and deceased (Sushildhar Dubey) were related and were residents of village Amgoan. They used to go together to drink liquor. On 29/9/1993, 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 30/9/1993 on the road leading to Village Bijholidhar Amgoan. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances are:

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the notes of evidence of material prosecution witnesses and other documents on record of the Trial Court. His submission is 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. He submitted that if the oral evidence of PW-7 (Virendradhar Dwivedi) and PW-15 (Dr. Mahendra Kumar Ahirwal) is considered together, the theory that the death occurred due to an accident of motorcycle cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the appellant. He submitted that every circumstance constituting a chain of circumstances has not been established.