1978 (8) TMI 230 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Sufficiency of evidence to convict the appellant.
2. Voluntariness and validity of the confessional statement.
3. Circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime.
4. Identification of the deceased.
5. Contradictory statements by the appellant.
6. Recovery of the murder weapon.
7. Medical evidence supporting the cause of death.
8. Motive for the crime.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Sufficiency of Evidence to Convict the Appellant:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302, IPC, for intentionally causing the death of his son. The prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there was no direct evidence of the crime. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction.

2. Voluntariness and Validity of the Confessional Statement:
The appellant's confessional statement under Section 164, CrPC, was scrutinized for its voluntariness and freedom from police influence. The Court noted several infirmities: absence of a contemporaneous record showing the appellant's jail custody, lack of questioning by the Magistrate on the reason for the confession, and no assurance given that the appellant would not be remanded to police custody if he did not confess. Hence, the confessional statement was deemed unreliable.

3. Circumstantial Evidence Linking the Appellant to the Crime:
The Court identified several pieces of circumstantial evidence forming a complete chain leading to the appellant's guilt:
- Last Seen Together: Testimonies of P.W. Dinesh and P.W. Bharat Lal established that the appellant and the deceased left Gorakhpur together on the evening of September 1, 1974.
- Arrival Without the Deceased: P.W. Kapoora testified that the appellant arrived home alone at night, drenched, and provided inconsistent explanations for his condition and the deceased's absence.

4. Identification of the Deceased:
The deceased's identity was confirmed through the clothes found on the dead body. Testimonies from P.W. Dinesh and P.W. Bharat Lal confirmed that the deceased was wearing specific garments (Pyjama, Langot, and Underwear) when he left for the village. These garments were found on the body recovered on September 3, 1974.

5. Contradictory Statements by the Appellant:
The appellant made inconsistent statements about the deceased's whereabouts, telling Kapoora that the deceased had a stomach ache and telling others that he stayed behind in the village. These contradictions raised suspicion.

6. Recovery of the Murder Weapon:
The murder weapon, a Banki, was recovered from a box in the appellant's room, with the key provided by the appellant. This recovery was corroborated by the testimonies of S.I. Anand Prakash and P.W. Shyam Lal.

7. Medical Evidence Supporting the Cause of Death:
Dr. Anand Khanna's post-mortem report indicated that the deceased died from shock and hemorrhage due to incised injuries caused by a Banki. The injuries were consistent with the weapon recovered.

8. Motive for the Crime:
The appellant, a widower, had been making indecent overtures towards Kapoora, the deceased's wife. His attempts to seduce her and his frustration over her resistance provided a motive for the crime. The statements of Kapoora and corroborating documents (Exhs. Ka-2 and Ka-3) supported this motive.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the circumstantial evidence presented was complete and led to the inevitable conclusion of the appellant's guilt. The appellant's actions were driven by his sinister designs towards Kapoora. The Court upheld the conviction and the death sentence, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' conclusions. The appeal was dismissed.