Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 560
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 818/2019
MANHARAN RAJWADE APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
FACTS
2. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the
IPC”), and he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
According to the prosecution’s case, the appellant murdered his
wife, Geeta. Her body was found in the house of the appellant at
about 5:00 p.m. on the date of the incident. The case of the
prosecution is that the appellant strangulated her.
3. The prosecution's case is based on the theory of last seen
together. Consequently, the prosecution contends that the
appellant had not discharged the burden on him under Section 106 of
Signature Not Verified
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Evidence Act”). The
Digitally signed by
ASHISH KONDLE
Date: 2024.07.31
09:52:24 IST
Reason:
prosecution examined two witnesses, Sonawati (PW-1) and Hirmaniabai
(PW-2).
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 818/2019 1
SUBMISSIONS
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
this is a case of no evidence as the theory of last seen together
has not been established, and no evidence has been adduced to prove
the motive.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State
submitted that the presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence
Act would apply. As the appellant has not discharged the burden on
him, the order of conviction deserves to be confirmed. He also
relied upon the answer to question no.27 given by the appellant in
his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.PC”). He pointed out that the
appellant admitted that he came back around 4:00-5:00 p.m.; and
therefore, the presence of the appellant is established.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
6. We have carefully perused the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1
did not support the prosecution. She stated that in the evening,
at around 5:00 p.m. on the date of the incident, her Jethani
Harmania had gone to the house of the deceased to bring a
stabilizer. She saw that the deceased was sleeping on a bed. She
tried to wake her up, but there was no response. After that, a
doctor was called who declared that the deceased had died. The
witness stated that on that day, the appellant had gone to crush
the stones, and he returned home at 7:00 p.m. PW-1 was declared
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 818/2019 2
hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.
Unfortunately, the Public Prosecutor did not confront PW-1 with the
relevant part of her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.PC.
PW-2 has not deposed anything about the presence of the appellant
in the house close to the time at which the dead body of the
deceased was found. Even PW-2 was declared hostile.
7. For invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution
ought to have discharged the burden on it by adducing cogent
evidence to prove the appellant’s presence at the relevant time in
his house. In this case, going by the evidence of PW-1, the
deceased had already died before 5:00 p.m., and the said witness
stated that the appellant came back home at 7:00 p.m. There is no
evidence to prove the theory of the last seen together. Therefore,
the prosecution has not discharged the burden on it to prove that
the appellant was last seen together with the deceased wife. Thus,
Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to shift the
burden on the appellant.
8. Even the appellant's answer given to question no.27, if taken
in its entirety, does not support the prosecution. The appellant
vaguely stated that he came back around 4:00-5:00 p.m. when PW-1
and PW-2 were in the house and told him that the deceased was not
talking and moving. Thus, he reached home after the death of his
wife. The allegation was that the death was caused due to
strangulation by the appellant.
9. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 818/2019 3
only circumstance it relied upon, namely, that the appellant and
the deceased were last seen together. Therefore, the prosecution
has failed to bring home the charge of the offence of murder
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
10. Hence, the impugned judgments and orders are set aside, and
the appellant is acquitted of the offence alleged against him. The
appellant shall be forthwith set at liberty unless his detention is
required in any other case.
11. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
..........................J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
..........................J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
..........................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 25, 2024.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 818/2019 4