Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the kidnapping and murder of an 8-year-old boy, Yug, son of Dr. Mukesh Chandak, a dentist in Nagpur. On 1st September 2014, Yug was abducted from outside his apartment by a person wearing a red T-shirt (similar to the uniform of Dr. Chandak's clinic employees) on a purple scooty. The watchman, Arun Meshram (PW-31), saw Yug leaving with the accused. The father lodged a missing complaint, and later a ransom demand was made. The dead body was recovered from a lake area, and post-mortem revealed death due to smothering with multiple injuries. The trial court convicted the appellants Arvind Singh (A-2) and Rajesh Daware (A-1) under Sections 120-B, 364A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to death. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court examined the evidence under heads: last seen, discovery of facts, demand of ransom, motive and conspiracy, and corroborative evidence. The court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, including identification in TIP, recovery of body, and DNA evidence. The appeals were dismissed, and the death sentence was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping for Ransom - Section 364A IPC - Last Seen Evidence - The prosecution established that the victim was last seen in the company of the accused at 16:15 hrs. on 1st September 2014, and the dead body was recovered within 36-48 hours of death - The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent only with the guilt of the accused (Paras 8-10, 12-14). B) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence - The cause of death was smothering, and 26 injuries were found on the body, including perimortem injuries - The court held that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution case of murder (Paras 6, 12-14). C) Evidence Act - Test Identification Parade - Identification of Accused - The witnesses identified the accused in TIP conducted within a reasonable time - The court held that the TIP evidence was reliable and corroborated the ocular evidence (Paras 9-11). D) Criminal Law - Conspiracy - Section 120-B IPC - Demand of Ransom - The prosecution proved that the accused demanded ransom from the father of the victim - The court held that the demand of ransom was a strong incriminating circumstance (Paras 15-16). E) Criminal Law - Recovery of Dead Body - Section 27 Evidence Act - The dead body and incriminating articles were recovered at the instance of the accused - The court held that the recovery was admissible and corroborated the prosecution case (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and death sentence of the appellants under Sections 364A, 302, 120-B, 201 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable on the basis of circumstantial evidence including last seen, recovery of dead body, demand of ransom, and corroborative evidence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and death sentence of the appellants under Sections 364A, 302, 120-B, 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
Law Points
- Last seen theory
- Circumstantial evidence
- Test Identification Parade
- DNA evidence
- Section 364A IPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 120-B IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Section 27 Evidence Act
- Section 8 Evidence Act
