Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Kidnapping and Murder Case: Munawwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: July 16, 2019

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Can the “last seen” theory alone be sufficient to convict an accused for murder and kidnapping? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, examined this principle in the context of a kidnapping and murder of a young boy. The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, emphasizing the direct evidence and the chain of events that followed the victim being last seen with the accused. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The case revolves around the kidnapping and murder of a seven-year-old boy, ‘X’, in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. On April 1, 1988, ‘X’ went to a local shop to buy dal and did not return. His father, Mohd. Khurshid (PW-1), searched for him and learned that ‘X’ was last seen with the appellant, Munawwar, and his brothers, Noor Mohammad and Tahir (since deceased), and one Shamim. The family received two ransom notes on April 3rd and 7th, demanding money for the safe return of ‘X’. Subsequently, the dead body of ‘X’ was discovered on April 18, 1988, based on a disclosure statement by Noor Mohammad.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted Munawwar, Noor Mohammad, and Shamim. Munawwar appealed to the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the conviction. Noor Mohammad and Shamim did not appeal, and Tahir had passed away. The present appeal is by Munawwar before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 365, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person.
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the principle of “last seen” was wrongly applied. Even if the witnesses’ testimonies were accepted, ‘X’ was last seen with the appellant and others on April 1, 1988, while the ransom notes were received on April 3 and 7, and the body was found on April 18. This gap, according to the appellant, weakens the prosecution’s case.
• The appellant cited Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab and State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran & Another to argue that the “last seen” theory should not be the sole basis for conviction.
• The appellant also highlighted the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was registered on April 7, 1988.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The prosecution argued that the evidence clearly established that ‘X’ was kidnapped on April 1, 1988, and was last seen in the company of the appellant and his brothers.
• The prosecution emphasized that the appellant and his brothers were known to ‘X’, who was their nephew, and they would often take him for walks.
• The prosecution argued that the recovery of ‘X’s dead body based on Noor Mohammad’s disclosure statement further implicated the accused.
• The prosecution contended that the delay in filing the FIR was due to the father’s attempt to arrange the ransom money and his fear for his son’s safety.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 365, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was justified based on the evidence and circumstances of the case?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished the case of Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab and State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran & Another, stating that, unlike those cases, the present case had direct evidence in the form of ocular testimonies which established that the present appellant and others had kidnapped and held ‘X’ in captivity. The Court emphasized that there was no time gap or interregnum between ‘X’s disappearance and kidnapping; they were simultaneous.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The consistent testimonies of witnesses who saw ‘X’ with the appellant and his brothers shortly before his disappearance.
• The recovery of ‘X’s dead body based on the disclosure statement of Noor Mohammad, which directly linked the accused to the crime.
• The conduct of Shamim in throwing the second ransom note, which further implicated the accused.
• The fact that ‘X’ was a young boy who was familiar with the accused, which made his abduction easier.
• The absence of any significant time gap between the kidnapping and the subsequent events.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual evidence presented, which strongly indicated the appellant’s involvement in the crime. The legal aspects, such as the “last seen” theory, were applied in the context of the established facts.

The Supreme Court stated, “The present case would not in a strict sense be a case of mere ‘last seen’.” The court emphasized that “there is direct evidence in the form of ocular testimonies, as discussed above, which establish that the present appellant and others had kidnapped and had held their captivity.” The court also noted that “there was no time gap or interregnum between ‘X’s disappearance and kidnapping; they were simultaneous.”

Key Takeaways

• The “last seen” principle can be a critical piece of evidence in cases where the victim was last seen with the accused, especially when supported by other evidence.
• The conduct of the accused after the crime, such as sending ransom notes or making disclosure statements, can strongly implicate them.
• Delay in filing an FIR can be excused if there are valid reasons, such as fear for the victim’s safety.
• Direct ocular testimony can be a strong basis for conviction.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the “last seen” principle can be a strong basis for conviction when supported by other direct and circumstantial evidence, especially when there is no significant time gap between the victim being last seen with the accused and the subsequent events that implicate the accused. The Court distinguished the previous cases of Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab and State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran & Another, emphasizing that the facts of the present case were different and the “last seen” principle was not the only evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Munawwar for the kidnapping and murder of ‘X’. The Court emphasized the direct evidence, the chain of events, and the conduct of the accused, which collectively established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces the importance of the “last seen” principle when supported by other incriminating evidence.