Legal Provisions Involved:Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India
Judge/Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Facts
The Appellant conspired to kidnap the deceased to extort ransom money from her husband. The deceased went missing on 25.07.2009, and her decomposed body was recovered from a well on 10.08.2009 at Appellant’s disclosure. Thereafter, the Appellant sold the deceased’s mobile phone, and the Scooty was also recovered at his instance.
Key Legal Provisions
Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Issues raised
- Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete to convict the Appellant.
- Whether recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was admissible.
Arguments of the case
The Appellant argued that there was inordinate delay in lodging the missing report, no call details were obtained to substantiate ransom calls and no DNA test was conducted for body identification. The Respondents on the other hand argued that the chain of circumstances was complete and conclusive. Moreover, recovery of body, mobile phone and Scooty at Appellant’s disclosure proves culpability.
Judgement
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. The Court held that all circumstances formed a complete chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
