LAWS(CHH)-2014-12-63

SANTOSH JAMES TOPPO Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On December 08, 2014
Santosh James Toppo Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant stands convicted under Section 302 IPC to rigorous life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.20,000/-. In the event of failure to pay the fine he was required to undergo five years further simple imprisonment as ordered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar in Sessions Trial. No. 162 of 1998 on 29.04.1999.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the remains of a human body were recovered from the forest on 6.5.1998. Dehati Nalishi, marked Exhibit P6 was recorded on the information given by the village Kotwar, PW9, Santudas to the Police officer, Shri M.S. Thakur, PW5. The remains were collected together were marked Exhibit P11 and the belongings of the deceased found near the remains was marked Exhibit P10. Merg was recorded on basis of the same by PW5 on 7.5.1998 marked Exhibit P8 and the First Information Report also registered the same day marked Exhibit P7. The Appellant has been convicted on basis of circumstantial evidence considering the deposition of PW5 and PW9.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no chain of circumstances much less with links of facts and circumstances compatible with the only hypothesis of guilt of the accused and completely incompatible with his innocence. It cannot be said with certainty that death may not have occurred in some other manner and the assailant may also have been some other. There is no evidence in support of invoking last seen theory against the Appellant. PW1, James Toppo, has not stated who was the person who had come in the morning on 28.3.1998 and with whom the Appellant is alleged to have left home. The human remains were discovered much later on 6.5.1998. It cannot be said with certainty that the Appellant was the person with whom the deceased was last seen. The long time period makes it possible that the Appellant and the deceased had parted company and death may have been caused by another in some other manner.