NDLI: Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Etc.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	364-A Approach of the CourtsReversal of acquittal by the appellate court 302 ss.120-B Case based on circumstantial evidence IPC 365 364 363
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – ss.120-B, 302, 363, 364, 364-A, 365 – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Approach of the Courts – Case of the prosecution that on 4th Feb. 2001, as per routine, the complainant-PW-1 left for work at 8:00 am and returned at 2:00 pm for lunch, when he noticed that his son aged about 9 years was missing – PW-1 pointed out that initially appellant-accused no.1 joined the search but thereafter suddenly vanished – Upon returning, allegedly, he made an extra-judicial confession confessing that he kidnapped PW-1’s son at the behest of accused no.5, who had animosity with PW-1 and that he made PW-1’s son sit on his bicycle and took him to the railway station, where he was handed over to appellant-accused nos.2 & 3 – Trial court acquitted the appellants – Set aside by the High Court – On appeal, held: There is no eye witness of the incident and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and theory of last seen together – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Courts ought to have conscientious approach and conviction ought to be recorded only in case all the links of the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused– In the present case, evidence of PW-28 and PW-29, residing near the residence of the PW-1, who were crucial to the case of prosecution to establish that deceased was last seen with appellant no.-1, is riddled with unexplained contradictions – Thus, the theory of last seen is rejected – Their evidence also becomes shaky as they knew that PW-1’s son was missing since 4thFeb.2001 but did not inform PW-1 or the police about the presence and conduct of the appellant no.1, despite being aware of the frantic search for PW-1’s son post his disappearance – High Court failed to take into account that there was huge time gap between the point when the accused and deceased were last seen together and the time of death – Further, PW-1 did not testify that he identified that the dead body found was that of his son – Doubt is also created by the post-mortem report which records that minimum age of the deceased was around 16 years while, PW-1’s son was 9 years of age –There are also noticeable contradictions about the circumstances in which the extra-judicial confession of the appellant no.1 was made –Evidence adduced against the appellants do not form the complete chain connecting them with the crime – Prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond doubt – Conviction and sentences of the appellants set aside –Arms Act – s.21(1)(a) – Indian Explosives Act – ss.3, 5. Criminal Law – Reversal of acquittal by the appellate court – Presumption of innocence in favour of the accused – Held: Where an appellate court is reversing trial court’s order of acquittal, it should give proper weight and consideration to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and to the principle that such a presumption stands “reinforced, reaffirmed, and strengthened by the trial court”.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1363
Petitioner	Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan And Others
Respondent	State Of Gujarat Etc.
SCR	[2019] 14 S.C.R. 270
Judgement Date	2019-12-13
Case Number	333

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Smt. Chintambaramma & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka

Krishnan @ Ramasamy & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Manoj Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Siju Kurian Vs. State of Karnataka

Shaikh Sattar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Indrajit Das Vs. The State of Tripura

Sanjay Rajak Vs. The State of Bihar

Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Etc.

Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Smt. Chintambaramma & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka

Krishnan @ Ramasamy & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Manoj Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Siju Kurian Vs. State of Karnataka

Shaikh Sattar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Indrajit Das Vs. The State of Tripura

Sanjay Rajak Vs. The State of Bihar

Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Etc.