16 July 2009
Supreme Court
Download

PRAHLAD Vs STATE OF CHATTISGARH

Case number: Crl.A. No.-000511-000511 / 2005
Diary number: 26210 / 2003
Advocates: Vs DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINHA


1

              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

2

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.  

-2-

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

3

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.

4