IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2005
PRAHLAD
.. APPELLANT(S)
vs.
STATE OF CHHATISGARH .. RESPONDENT(S)
O R
D E R
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, the
circumstances being the extra judicial confession made by the accused
primarily before PW.1 – Sanjay and PW.2 Manohar Lal Sahu, who has
been declared hostile; the medical evidence which indicates the presence
of ligature marks on the neck of the deceased which shows that death was
asphyxia due to strangulation which seemed to be homicidal; the fact that
the defence taken by the accused that it was a case of suicide was not
corroborated by the medical evidence and that in addition to the accused
the only two other persons present in the house were his father and his
wife (the deceased) and finally that the accused did not report the death to
the police for almost 36 hours.
The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, submitted
that the chain of circumstances envisaged for recording a conviction in a
case of circumstantial evidence had not been spelt out, and that an extra
judicial confession was weak evidence. We find no merit in the
submissions. In the light of the broad findings referred to above more
particularly that the death was due to strangulation and not by hanging as
suggested by the defence and as there was nobody in the house except
the accused and his father at the time the incident happened, some valid
explanation for the death of the deceased had to be provided. Admittedly
that is not the case.
In this view of the matter we find the chain of circumstances
which have been found against the accused, proves the case of the
prosecution. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
.................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
.................J.
(J.M. PANCHAL)
New Delhi,
July 16, 2009.