CAUSE TITLE:
Ram Gopal S/O Mansharam Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh
DATE OF ORDER:
17-02-2023
JUDGE(S):
Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi
PARTIES:
Petitioner:Ram Gopal S/O Mansharam
Respondent:State Of Madhya Pradesh
BRIEF FACTS
- Former Sarpanch of the hamlet of Har Gangoli, Ramgopal alias Gopal was the petitioner-accused. On December 20, 1995, around 09:30 AM, the complainant Upendra Singh (PW-1) reported to the Police Station Baghchini that his uncle (Tau) Pratap Singh Sikarwar was taken by the Sarpanch Ram Gopal from Arhela on December 19, 1995, at around 5 PM, and that his uncle's dead body was lying on the road next to Bharosibaba's house in the village of Chachiha.
- In the lawsuit, he also claimed that his uncle's head and ear had been injured and that blood was dripping from those areas. On December 20, 1995, the aforementioned complaint was filed at Police Station Baghchini as FIR No. 132/95. After conducting the inquiry, the investigating officer filed a chargesheet against Ramgopal, the petitioner, as well as the other three defendants, Suresh Singh, Chhotalli | Chhotey Singh, and Mintoo @ Karan Singh.
- The Sessions Court charged the defendant with violating Section 302 or Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The Sessions Court found Ramgopal, the petitioner, guilty of the charged offense under Section 302 IPC after considering the facts in the case, but gave the other three accused the benefit of the doubt and found them not guilty. As a result of this, the petitioner filed an appeal with the High Court, which was ultimately dismissed by the contested order.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The petitioner's representative, the distinguished Senior Counsel Mr. Salman Khurshid, argued that although the prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, it had utterly failed to establish the full series of events that would have proved the petitioner-guilt. accused's
- He claims that the lower courts erred in condemning the petitioner solely based on "last seen together," as there was a significant amount of time that passed between the petitioner's last sighting of the deceased and the discovery of the deceased's body.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The learned Advocate, who was representing the respondent-State, argued that as the petitioner had already been found guilty by the courts below, this Court should not intervene.
- He further argued that the petitioner, even though it is undeniable that he was with the deceased on the night before his death, failed to explain when and how he parted ways with the deceased in his further statement under Section 313; as a result, both of the courts below correctly viewed the said circumstance as being adverse to the petitioner.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
Considering the aforementioned legal position, it is clear that even though the prosecution's last seen theory in a case based on circumstantial evidence may be a weak type of evidence by itself to base conviction solely on such theory when the said theory is proved in combination with other circumstances like the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity to time, the accused does owe a duty of care to the community.
The conviction could be founded on such evidence if the accused does not explain, provides a false explanation, flees, a motivation is established, and additional corroborating evidence, such as the recovery of a weapon, etc., constituting a chain of circumstances, is established.
According to the facts of the case, homicide was properly proven to be the cause of the deceased's death. The fact that the petitioner had taken the deceased with him the day before on the previous evening was not in dispute. Later, he was also seen with the deceased by witness Vijay Singh (PW-4), and the very next morning, the deceased's body was discovered in a field in the village of Chachiha.
Given the proximity of the time between when the dead was last seen with the accused and when the body was found, and the petitioner's lack of explanation regarding the reasons for and timing of his departure from the company of the deceased, The deceased was a key element in the case against him.
The animosity between the dead and the petitioner had also emerged, based on the oral testimony of the witnesses. The supporting information regarding the seizure of the axe believed to have been used in a crime from The petitioner supported the prosecution's case as well.
The Sessions Court and the High Court both found the petitioner guilty of the alleged offense after carefully weighing all of the oral and documentary evidence, thus this Court does not need to do so again in the petition brought under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.
It suffices to say that the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Khurshid has failed to identify any perversity or illegality in the contested orders issued by the courts below that would trouble this Court's conscience enough to justify interfering with the contested judgments during his arguments.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
