0

Conduct and modus operandi on the part of the appellant is fully admissible and is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of committing the offense under section 8 of Evidence Act : Madhya pradesh High Court

In the case of Amresh Singh vs State Of M.P. (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1043 OF 2011) the Madhya pradesh High Court upheld that conduct and modus operandi on the part of the appellant is fully admissible and is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of committing the offense under section 8 of Evidence Act.

Facts of the case : On 02/06/2009 at about 8.00 pm appellant along with his wife Urmila and two daughters were going in a maruti van. When they reached near Shri Ramsiya Sarkar Ashram, four miscreants reached there, stopped them and started looting the ornaments from Smt. Urmila. When the wife of the appellant opposed it, they opened fire on her which resulted in her death. On account of that, FIR was registered for offense punishable under Section 302 of IPC. During investigation, it was found that the alleged offense was committed by the appellant. Appellant was made an accused in the case on the basis of a memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 

One 315 bore Katta was recovered at the behest of the accused. One live cartridge along with 315 bore gun was seized on the basis of memorandum under Section 27 of Evidence Act vide Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The appellant has been wrongly convicted and sentenced on the basis of suspicion although the appellant has not committed any offense. The prosecution has utterly failed to establish the appellant guilty of said offence. 

Judgment : There is sufficient evidence of ”last seen together”. The appellant failed to explain the aforesaid situation. Furthermore, despite being the husband of the deceased wife, the appellant had remained absent while preparing lash punchnama and was also not present in the hospital while his wife was brought there for postmortem. Even after conducting a postmortem, he had not received the dead body of his wife deceased, rather other persons were made available there to whom the dead body of the deceased was handed over. The appellant had also not participated in the cremation of his wife deceased.

Conduct and modus operandi on the part of the appellant is fully admissible as per provisions of Section 8 of Evidence Act; and is sufficient to hold the appellant-accused guilty of committing the offense. Despite above evidence, the firearm was seized as per his memorandum under Section 27 of Evidence Act from the place as per his disclosure. The FSL report fully established the implication of appellant- accused as the said report says that the cartridge was used by the same firearm seized at the behest of appellant. This connecting circumstantial evidence is enough to hold the appellant guilty of alleged offense.

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY : SHUBHANGI CHAUDHARY

Click here to view the judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat