Chandrabhan Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Conviction u/s,Sentence,Default clause

376 of IPC,"0 7 years’ R.I. with fine of

Rs.1,000/-",R.I. for one year

302 of IPC,R.I .for life with fine of Rs.1500/-,R.I. for one year

201 of IPC,07 years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-,R.I. for six months

,All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.,

Basantibai (PW-2), who is sister of the deceased, had also seen the deceased going with the appellant at around 9’ O Clock. Similarly Raju",,

Yadav (PW-4) had also seen the deceased along with the present appellant at the same time i.e. 9:30 in the morning. He has also admitted that in the,,

present case, along with Padmu Yadav and Ram Prasad, he was also detained by the police for a while. Padmu Yadav (PW-16) is also yet another",,

witness who had seen the appellant and the deceased together at around 9 am in the same morning.,,

Dr. J.M.Garg (PW-10) had examined the appellant Chandrabhan on 07.03.2007 at around 12.30 pm vide Ex.P/15 in which he had found that he,,

had light bruise marks on both his knees caused within 96 hours of the examination which comes to around 12 am of 03.03.2007 and had no smegma,,

under his foreskin suggesting commission of sexual intercourse in the immediate past. Although he has admitted that the injuries on the knees can be,,

caused due to fall.,,

Patiram (PW-3), father of the deceased Sugari Bai, who has lodged the Marg Intimation Ex.P/3 has deposed that on 03.03.2007 when he came",,

back from work, he was informed by his wife that the deceased Sugari Bai has not returned after she left in the morning with appellant Chandrabhan",,

and on 04.03.2007 he was informed by Daduram that Sugari Bai is lying under a mango tree in his field. Daduram (PW-5) is the person who had seen,,

the deceased lying under a Mango tree and informed her father, although he had not seen the appellant along with the deceased.",,

Mangal Singh (PW/13) who is also the paternal uncle of the appellant Chandrabhan, has stated that on the day of incident appellant Chandraban",,

asked him to accompany to Sugari Bai's home and when they reached there, Charndrabhan asked a girl there that whether Sugari Bai had come, to",,

which she had denied but in his cross-examination, this witness has not even been suggested that appellant Chandraban had not gone there at the",,

house of Sugari Bai.,,

Thus, from the aforesaid discussion the factum of appellant Chandrabhan leaving the house of the deceased Sugari Bai’s with her on",,

03.03.2007 is established. Thereafter, both of them were also seen by Raju Yadav (PW-4) and Padmu Yadav (PW-16). It is true that according to the",,

P.M. report (Ex.P/11) which was conducted on 05.03.2007 at around 9 am the time of death had occurred between 24 to 36 hours from the time the,,

postmortem was conducted, thus, the possible time of her death would be 9 pm of 03.03.2007 whereas she was last seen with the appellant at around",,

9 am in the morning. Apparently, there is a huge and unexplained time gap of around 12 hours between her death and the time she was last seen alive",,

with the appellant.,,

So far as the proximity of time between the evidence of last seen together and the recovery of dead body is concerned, reference may be had to",,

the decision rendered by the Apex court in the case of Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 509 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 626,",,

para 19 of the same reads as under:-,,

“19. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the,,

deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. The conduct of the accused and the fact of",,

last seen together plus other circumstances have to be looked into. Normally, last seen theory comes into play when the time gap, between the point of",,

time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that the possibility of any person other",,

than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. I t will be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was,,

last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. However, if the prosecution, on the",,

basis of reliable evidence, establishes that the missing person was seen in the company of the accused and was never seen thereafter, it is obligatory",,

on the part of the accused to explain the circumstances in which the missing person and the accused parted company. Reference may be made to the,,

judgment of this Court in Sahadevan v. State . In such a situation, the proximity of time between the event of last seen together and the recovery of",,

the dead body or the skeleton, as the case may be, may not be of much consequence. PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10 have all deposed that the accused was",,

last seen with Diana. But, as already indicated, to record a conviction, that itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain",,

of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.,,

(emphasis supplied),,

Applying the aforesaid dictum to the facts of the present case, before the benefit of time gap between the point of time when the accused and the",,

deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, can be extended to the appellant, he is also required to explain as to why in the",,

night of 03.03.2007 at around 10’ O Clock he went to the house of Sugari Bai when in the morning Sugari Bai had left her home with him as has,,

been stated by his own uncle Mangal Singh (PW-13) that appellant Chandrabhan Singh had gone to the house of the deceased in the night but in his,,

statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. no explanation has been given by the appellant, nor has he explained the injuries suffered by him on his knees, the time of",,

which is proximate to the time when the appellant was last seen with the deceased. It was also incumbent upon him to explain as to what happened to,,

Sugari Bai after he left his house with her, but the appellant has remained totally silent about all the aforesaid incriminating circumstances. It is often",,

seen that real culprits visit the scene of crime in order to obviate any doubt in the minds of any person that he may also be involved in the case, and in",,

the absence of any explanation in this behalf, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the presumption of guilt against the appellant stands unrebutted",,

and he is liable to be convicted.,,

So far as FSL report Ex.P/33 is concerned, the clothes of the deceased had the semen marks which would also substantiate the charge of rape",,

against the appellant. The appellant has also not explained the recovery of his jerkin vide Ex.P/29 which was torn from collar which has also been duly,,

proved by Padmu Yadav (PW-16).,,

So far as the conviction of the appellant u/s.201 of IPC is concerned, no conclusive proof of the same is present on record. Spot maps Ex.P/6, P/8",,

& P/9 do not prove that the body was removed from one place to another and the conviction of the appellant under Section 201 of IPC is hereby set,,

aside. Thus, the appeal stands partly allowed to the extent as above but her conviction under Sections 376 and 302 of IPC is hereby maintained. The",,

appellant to suffer the remaining part of his jail sentence as ordered by the Trial Court.,,