Case: Deepak Chandrakant Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra

either unreasonable or perverse and in any event did not call for any interference in the appeal against acquittal. So far as appellant is concerned, his conviction has been upheld by the High Court. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant urged before us that in view of the acquittal of the remaining accused there was in fact no reliable material on record on the basis of which the appellant could be convicted. It is not possible to sustain this submission because the evidence as against the appellant herein is different from the evidence as against other accused. There is no direct evidence as to who assaulted the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses who turned hostile was of no help to the prosecution. The identification of A-2 to A-5 who were said to be travelling in the auto rickshaw which followed the appellant and the deceased, was not found to be reliable, and the evidence as regards recoveries was also found to be not reliable. 12. So far as the appellant herein is concerned, it had been found as a fact that he had gone to the house of the deceased at about 10 PM on 29.12.1998 and he had persuaded him to accompany him to the house of A-1. The deceased was last seen by his wife and son at about 10.30 P.M. on that day when he accompanied the appellant on his own motorcycle to meet A-1. This circumstance is an incriminating circumstance and when considered with the other circumstances appearing against the appellant conclusively proves his guilt. Apart from being last seen with the deceased, there is evidence to the effect that he pointed out the place where the body of the deceased was lying which was in the garden behind the house of A-1. The motorcycle of the deceased was also recovered from the same spot. The evidence is thus conclusive that the appellant and the deceased travelled from the house of the deceased to the point where he was assaulted and killed. The objective findings also prove that the appellant had brought the deceased towards the house of A-1 and that in fact he had told the deceased that he was required by A-1. Learned counsel submitted that the statement made by the appellant that he had a fight with the deceased and that he could show the place where his body was lying, is not admissible as it was made in the presence of a Police Constable. Assuming that the inculpatory part of the statement may not be admissible in evidence, the statement so far as it relates to other parts disclosed leading to recovery, is admissible. It is also not as if with the aid of section 106 of the Code the appellant has been convicted because he was unable to give an explanation regarding facts within his exclusive knowledge. In this case, the appellant had brought the deceased from his house and later on pointed out the place where his dead body was found. The evidence on record suggested that he may be acting at the behest of A-1 but even if that is not proved, the evidence as against the appellant is abundant and conclusive enough to prove that he was responsible for the death of the deceased. 13. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no direct evidence to prove the participation of the appellant in the commission of the offence in view of the rejection of the evidence of the eye witnesses. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, there may be no direct evidence to prove the manner of assault or the actual participation of an accused in the assault on the deceased resulting in his death, but if the circumstantial evidence is conclusive in nature, a conviction on the basis of such circumstantial evidence may be recorded. It must be shown that the circumstances established on record are incriminating in nature, and the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution is so complete as not top be consistent with any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted before us that the evidence of PWs 15 & 13 to the effect that the appellant was last seen in the company of the appellant became irrelevant in view of the fact that the prosecution had led direct evidence to prove the assault on the deceased. In our view, the submission does not help the appellant. In this case, the circumstance that the deceased was last seen by PWs 15 & 13 in the company of the appellant, is a circumstance which considered with other evidence on record has been found to prove the guilt of the accused. It is not as if the prosecution has tried to set up a case other than what was sought to be proved by the eye witnesses examined in the case who turned hostile. Since the eye witnesses turned hostile, the circumstance that the appellant had accompanied the deceased and was last seen by him was only treated as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove his guilt. 15. In the instant case, we are satisfied that the Trial Court and the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record and the circumstances proved against the appellant conclusively prove his guilt. Mere fact that there is no evidence to show that he actually assaulted the deceased may not be of any consequence in the facts and circumstances of this case. We may only observe that in the face of the reliable evidence on record that the deceased had accompanied him at 10.30 P.M. on 29.12.1998, the accused-appellant did not offer any explanation as to whether they parted company thereafter. The fact that he knew about the dead body of the deceased lying in the garden behind the house of A-1 is almost clinching in nature and leaves nothing to doubt.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It is not possible to sustain this submission because the evidence as against the appellant herein is different from the evidence as against other accused. There is no direct evidence as to who assaulted the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses who turned hostile was of no help to the prosecution. The identification of2 to5 who were said to be travelling in the auto rickshaw which followed the appellant and the deceased, was not found to be reliable, and the evidence as regards recoveries was also found to be not reliableIn this case, the circumstance that the deceased was last seen by PWs 1513 in the company of the appellant, is a circumstance which considered with other evidence on record has been found to prove the guilt of the accused. It is not as if the prosecution has tried to set up a case other than what was sought to be proved by the eye witnesses examined in the case who turned hostile. Since the eye witnesses turned hostile, the circumstance that the appellant had accompanied the deceased and was last seen by him was only treated as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove his guilt15. In the instant case, we are satisfied that the Trial Court and the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record and the circumstances proved against the appellant conclusively prove his guilt. Mere fact that there is no evidence to show that he actually assaulted the deceased may not be of any consequence in the facts and circumstances of this case. We may only observe that in the face of the reliable evidence on record that the deceased had accompanied him at 10.30 P.M. on 29.12.1998, thet did not offer any explanation as to whether they parted company thereafter. The fact that he knew about the dead body of the deceased lying in the garden behind the house ofA1is almost clinching in nature and leaves nothing to doubt.