1955 (11) TMI 42 - HC - Companies Law

High Court sets aside murder and robbery convictions, convicts for evidence tampering.

In Re: Madugula Jermiah

The High Court set aside the convictions under Sections 302 and 392 IPC due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Sections 302 and 392 IPC.2. Circumstantial evidence and its sufficiency.3. Admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in light of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.4. Presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.5. Conviction under a lesser offense (Section 201 IPC).Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Sections 302 and 392 IPC:The accused was initially convicted by the Sessions Judge under Sections 302 (murder) and 392 (robbery) IPC, sentenced to life transportation for the first count and seven years of rigorous imprisonment for the second count. The prosecution alleged that the accused murdered Vengamma and Bhagyamma and stole money and silver bangles. However, the High Court found inconsistencies and lack of direct evidence to support these charges.2. Circumstantial Evidence and Its Sufficiency:The prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence to establish the accused's guilt. The High Court noted the following:- No direct evidence of the accused entering or leaving the crime scene.- Witnesses (P.W. 8 and P.W. 9) saw the accused near the crime scene but not close enough to implicate him directly.- The accused's alleged absconding was not sufficiently proven as he was arrested in his village.- Discovery of a blood-stained knife and other materials was questionable due to inconsistencies in police testimonies.The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be verified with scrupulous accuracy, consistent only with the accused being the culprit, and not susceptible to any other rational explanation. The Court found the circumstantial evidence insufficient to convict the accused of murder and robbery.3. Admissibility of Evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in Light of Article 20(3) of the Constitution:The Court examined whether the information leading to the discovery of evidence was admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, considering Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, which extended the protection against self-incrimination to compelled testimony previously obtained from an accused. However, the Court found no evidence of compulsion in obtaining the information from the accused, thus holding the information as voluntarily given and admissible under Section 27.4. Presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act:The Court considered whether the presumption under Section 114 could be drawn against the accused for murder and robbery based on the discovered articles. The Court reviewed several precedents and concluded that:- Presumption of guilt for murder and robbery requires more than mere possession of stolen property.- There must be additional evidence connecting the accused to the crime scene or the act of murder.- In this case, the Court found the evidence too slender to draw such a presumption, especially since the accused was seen 1-1/2 miles away from the crime scene and there was no direct evidence linking him to the murder.5. Conviction under a Lesser Offense (Section 201 IPC):Despite setting aside the convictions under Sections 302 and 392 IPC, the Court found sufficient evidence to convict the accused under Section 201 IPC for causing the disappearance of evidence to screen the offender. The accused's actions in hiding the wristlets and the pot of money indicated his involvement in screening the real culprits. The Court cited precedent allowing for conviction under Section 201 IPC even without a specific charge if the facts justify it.Conclusion:The High Court set aside the convictions and sentences under Sections 302 and 392 IPC due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. However, the Court convicted the accused under Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment for his role in hiding evidence and screening the actual offenders.