Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
When Abduction Is Followed BY Murder, Court Can Presume That Abductor Is The Murderer : Supreme Court.
The three Judge Bench Of the Supreme Court has upheld the convictions for the abduction and murder of Tamil Nadu politician, MK Balan in 2001. The case was referred to a three judge bench after hearing a split verdict by a Divisional Bench. In the year 2016 , the divisional bench which comprised of Justice V Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra by delievrig a split verdict which stated about the acquitting of the accused and latter convicting him. Then the matter was heard by the three judge bench comprising, RF Nariman, KM Joseph and V Ramasubramanium. In some situations, the abduction accompanied by murder may cause a court to conclude that the abductor is the killer. Now, the idea is that after the abduction, the abductor should be in a position to justify what happened to his victim, and if he fails to do so, it is only reasonable and rational that an obvious conclusion can be drawn that he has killed the hapless victim. According to the judgment of Justice K M Joseph, Section 106 of the Evidence Act would come to the assistance of the prosecution. Where abduction is accompanied by unlawful detention and even later by death, the conclusion becomes clear that the victim died in the possession of those who abducted / confined him, added the bench. In the Sucha Singh the Judgment stated that, If more people than one have kidnapped the victim who is later murdered, it is within the legal jurisdiction of the court to justifiably draw a inference that all the kidnappers are responsible for the murder, depending on the factual situation. Section 34 IPC could be invoked for the aid for that purpose, unless any particular abductor satisfies the court with his explanation as to what else he subsequently did with the victim, i.e. whether he left his associates on the way or dissuaded others from doing the extreme act, etc. In these cases, the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act was applied to maintain that proving otherwise in such cases was the burden on the accused.
86540
103860
630
114
59824