Whether Last seen evidence is admissible if it has not attained status of proof?

While motive is not necessarily of the essence in a case of direct evidence, it attains significance in a case of circumstantial evidence particularly when the other circumstances have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the ‘last seen’ evidence cannot be vouched for particularly because the two accused were not last seen with the deceased at the place where the dead body was ultimately found.

27. In Arvind @ Chhotu v. State ILR (2009) Supp. (1) Delhi 704, this Court observed as under:

“106. Thus, the circumstance relatable to the place, where the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused as also the circumstance of the place where the dead body was found does not rule out anything happening involving a third person. Thus, howsoever suspicious may be the evidence of last seen, the same has not attained the status of proof.”

28. In this case too, it may be observed that even though the evidence of ‘last seen’ may give rise to suspicion, it has not attained the status of proof.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before S. Muralidhar and I.S Mehta, JJ.)

Crl.A 360/2002

Chhatar Pal v. State 

Crl.A 360/2002 and Crl.A 721/2002

Decided on January 18, 2018

Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6678

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to prove motive of crime where accused is named on suspicion?

In view of the conclusions given by Forensic Science Laboratory on points (1), (2) and (3), quoted above, we are of the view that the prosecution story, as narrated by PW-4 Pappu and PW-5 Surender Singh, is highly doubtful. Apart from this, though the motive of crime is not necessarily required to be proved, but in the case like the present one where the appellants are named on suspicion by informant PW-6 Amit Kumar in the First Information Report (which does not contain names of PW-4 Pappu and PW-5 Surender Singh as witnesses who had seen the occurrence), the motive appears to be relevant fact.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Pawan @ Rajinder Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana

[Criminal Appeal No. 2194 of 2014]

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Dated:March 08, 2017.

Print Page

Wife suspecting that husband is having an extramarital affair whether amounts to cruelty?

The Bombay High Court has ruled that regularly coming home late without informing the wife amounts to cruelty.

“Such type of conduct on the part of the husband… amounts to cruelty to the wife,” observed a division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Majmudar and Justice R.V. More.

It is expected that the husband “at least inform the wife on telephone” so that she won’t wait for him, the high court added while delivering the judgment on Thursday.

Pune-based Deeplakshmi had filed a petition challenging the Pune family court’s May 29 order, which had dissolved her marriage acting on her husband Sachin Zingade’s petition. 

Zingade had accused his wife of picking up quarrels with him, suspecting him of having an extramarital affair and insulting his parents and friends whenever they visited his home.

The family court had accepted his contention on the point of suspicion and termed it as cruelty.

The high court, however, clarified that the spouses are entitled to point out their legitimate grievances against each
other.

“If the circumstances so warrant, the wife may have some suspicion about the act and behaviour of her husband,” observed the high court.

Print Page