Raghuvendra Versus State of Madhya Pradesh

INTRODUCTION

FACTS (including procedural history)

The deceased, Bhagwan Singh was known to the appellant Raghuvendra and his
uncle. They were together involved in thefts and had disputes in sharing the proceeds. The
appellant and his uncle would often visit Bhagwan Singh and consume liquor at his residence
in Vidhisha.

The appellant and his uncle visited Bhagwan Singh on the 9 th of February 1998. In the
morning of 10th February, 1998, the appellant and his uncle along with Bhagwan Singh left
for Bilaspur. On the same day, a dead body was found in the fields of the informant Gulab
Ahirwar. A few articles lying around the body were recovered and a First Information Report
(FIR) was recorded. Eventually, the body was identified with the help of Guddi Bai, the
widow of the deceased and Sadhana, the daughter of the deceased. Certain articles belonging
to the deceased were found in the custody of the appellant.

This is an appeal by the appellant Raghuvendra in the Supreme Court of India against
the judgement passed in the High court of Madhya Pradesh. The judgement given by the
learned additional sessions judge of Sagar held that the appellant and his uncle were guilty of
the murder of Bhagwan Singh based on two principles, the medical evidence and the
statements made by the widow and daughter of the deceased.

The disgruntled appellant made an appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The
High Court examined the records and took into account the two principles mentioned. The
court also applied the last seen theory to the facts and hence convicted the appellant.
ISSUE

The issue here is the conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, given the facts of the case.
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code states that the punishment for murder is death. Section
32 of the Indian Penal Code states that words referring to acts done also include illegal
omissions.

ARGUMENTS

In the course of investigation, Raghuvendra was apprehended and he confessed to

killing Bhagwan Singh during his interrogation on 16th March, 1998. After a charge sheet was
filed against the appellant and his uncle, they pleaded not guilty.

Further, a few articles that belonged to the deceased was found to be under the
possession of the appellant and his uncle in Bhopal. The appellant and his uncle accompanied
Bhagwan Singh to Bilaspur. The following morning, the dead body of Bhagwan Singh was
found. As facts suggest, the deceased was last seen with the appellant and his uncle. On
account of close proximity of place and time between the events of the appellant having been
last seen with the deceased, the last seen theory strengthens the argument.

JUDGEMENT

The appellant independent of his uncle is the sole challenger of his conviction in the
Supreme Court of India. The appellant knew the deceased well since they were involved in
several thefts together. The wife and daughter of Bhagwan Singh also knew Raghuvendra
quite well as he visited the residence of the deceased often. Thus the court feels that the
identification of Raghuvendra is clearly not an issue.

The statements given by Guddi Bai, the widow of the deceased and by Sadhana, the
daughter of the deceased were determining factors of the judgement. The court found no
reason to not believe the statements made by them.
 Some of the articles that belonged to the deceased were found to be under the
possession of the appellant and his uncle. The articles that were recovered from them
included a purse that belonged to the deceased and a few other personal effects of the
deceased including clothing. The medical evidences strongly formed grounds for their
conviction.

The last seen theory also played a role in the conviction. It leaves no room for doubt
that the three of them, namely the appellant, his uncle and the deceased were travelling
together. No substantial questions of law has arisen in this case. No other inferences were
suggested or could ever be made possible.

Based on the facts found by the learned additional sessions judge and by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme court found no reason to interfere with the
judgement formulated by the two courts to convict Raghuvendra and his uncle. Thus the
appellant and his uncle were found guilty of an offence under Section 302 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code and were convicted on the 7 th of January, 2015. Thus the appeal
was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

I am able to infer from the data recorded that none of the facts favour the appellant
and his uncle. The body of the deceased was identified only after the appellant confessed to
killing Bhagwan Singh. He however, pleaded not guilty in later stages. The facts also suggest
that Raghuvendra and his uncle had issues with the deceased. They had disputed over the
proceeds from the thefts they had committed together.

They were seen with the deceased, Bhagwan Singh a while before Gulab Ahirwar
informed the police of the dead body lying on his fields. The appellant and his uncle do not
seem to have a good alibi. The statements made by Guddi Bai and Sadhana leave space for no
contradictory arguments. Even if Guddi Bai and Sadhana could not be reliable sources, the
medical evidence draws all doubts to an end.
 The Sessions Court of Sagar, the High court of Madhya Pradesh and the Supreme
court of India have carefully analysed the obvious facts and have rightly decided to convict
the appellant and his uncle.