2005 (2) TMI 906 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Credibility of circumstantial evidence.
2. Delayed examination of witnesses.
3. Non-inclusion of the accused's name in the FIR.
4. Applicability of the "last seen" theory.
5. Appropriateness of the death sentence under the "rarest of rare" doctrine.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Credibility of Circumstantial Evidence:
The Supreme Court reiterated that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can only be justified when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The Court cited various precedents, including Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Eradu v. State of Hyderabad, emphasizing that the circumstances must form a complete chain, negating the innocence of the accused and proving the offense beyond any reasonable doubt.

2. Delayed Examination of Witnesses:
The High Court had found the delayed examination of witnesses PWs 3 and 5 to be a significant factor undermining the prosecution's case. However, the Supreme Court noted that no questions were put to the Investigating Officer (PW-8) regarding the delay, and the defense did not raise this issue during the trial. The Court held that unless the Investigating Officer is categorically asked about the delay, the defense cannot gain any advantage from it. The Court cited several cases, including Ranbir and Ors. v. State of Punjab, to support this view.

3. Non-Inclusion of the Accused's Name in the FIR:
The High Court had drawn an adverse inference from the non-inclusion of the accused's name in the FIR. The Supreme Court found that the informant had provided a plausible explanation for this omission when recalled. The Court criticized the High Court for not indicating any reason for rejecting this explanation and held that the High Court's adverse inference was unwarranted.

4. Applicability of the "Last Seen" Theory:
The Supreme Court explained that the "last seen" theory applies when the time gap between the accused being last seen with the deceased and the deceased being found dead is so small that it excludes the possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator. The Court found positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by PWs 3 and 5, and this was not challenged during cross-examination. The Court held that the High Court erred in concluding that there was no credible evidence of the accused and deceased being seen together.

5. Appropriateness of the Death Sentence under the "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine:
The Supreme Court referred to the guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab for determining whether a case falls under the "rarest of rare" category warranting the death penalty. The Court considered factors such as the brutality of the crime, the age of the victim, and the manner of execution. It concluded that the case at hand fell within the "rarest of rare" category and upheld the death sentence awarded by the trial court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment to be untenable and unsustainable. It set aside the High Court's acquittal of the accused and restored the trial court's judgment, including the death sentence. The appeals were allowed, and the principles of proportionality and just desert were emphasized in the context of sentencing.