Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Satyanarayan vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 21 May, 2019
Author: Goverdhan Bardhar
Bench: Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 489/2014
Satyanarayan S/o Ramji Lal, by-caste Jangid Brahmin, R/o
Village Lisana, P.S. Sadar Rewadi (Haryana) at present R/o
Shahajanpur, P.S. Shahajanpur, District Alwar
(At present in District Jail, Alwar)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain with Mr. Monu Kumar Mr. Abhayrat Singh and Mr. Bhaskar Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, learned PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment 21/05/2019 (Per: Hon'ble Goverdhan Bardhar, J) The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accused appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.03.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.02, Behror, District Alwar ('the learned trial court' for short), in Session Case No. 23/2012, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10000/-, in default thereof to further undergo additional six months imprisonment.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM)
(2 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014]
As per the prosecution story, on 16.02.2012
complainant Ghanshyam Das Gupta s/o Kailash Chand Gupta, r/o Shahajahanpur, Behror, Alwar (Rajasthan) (PW1) submitted a written report (Ex.P1) to the S.H.O., Police Station Shahjanpur. The said written report when translated into English reads as under:-
"To, The S.H.O., Police Station Shahajahanpur I, Ghanshyam Das Gupta son of Shri Kailash Chand Gupta, resident of Shahajahanpur state that Mahesh Chand Gupta son of my brother Parmanand Gupta son of Ganeshilal today on 15.02.2012, in the night has been murdered by someone. His condition is precarious. His age is about 35 years. It is requested that the accused who committed murder of son of my brother be arrested immediately and strict action be taken and they be severally punished.
Applicant Ghanshyam Das Gupta s/o Kailash Chand Gupta, Shahajahanpur, Behror, Alwar, Rajasthan"
On the basis of aforesaid written report (Ex.P1), an FIR (Ex.P2) was registered at Police Station Shahajahanpur, Alwar for the offence under section 302 IPC. After completion of investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC before the learned court below from where the case was committed to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Behror. Thereafter, the case was entrusted to the learned trial court.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM)
(3 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] After hearing the arguments, charges were framed against the accused appellant for the offences under section 302 IPC.
During the course of the trial, prosecution examined as many as nineteen witnesses and in support of its case got exhibited fifty four documents from Exhibits D1 to D10.
Thereafter, the statement of accused appellant was recorded u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and pleaded innocence. In defence the accused appellant appeared as witness and his statement was recorded as DW1 and also got exhibited ten documents from Exhibits D1 to D10.
After hearing the parties, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offence as indicated here-in-above.
Learned counsel for the accused appellant argued that there is no eye witness of the offence and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, which does not link the appellant with the alleged offence as the chain of circumstances is incomplete. The last seen has not been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution witnesses. As per the witnesses of last seen, the appellant was seen standing in front of the shop of the deceased. Admittedly, the appellant lives on the upper floor of the house over that shop, hence (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (4 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] the appellant was seen standing in front of his residence on the road. Learned counsel argued that Laxmikant (PW2), Jaipal (PW4), Raghuwardayal (PW5) and Vishnu Gupta (PW6) deposed that on 15.02.2012 they saw the appellant and deceased both going together towards the Bus Stand. The place of incident is Government School ground situated in the middle of the town. There is possibility that someone else may may have accompanied the deceased. But in the present case there are ample opportunities and possibilities of intervention by third person because of much time gap and secondly; they were neither seen going towards wine shop nor towards the place of incident. Hence, the circumstance of last seen is not proved beyond doubt. The recovery of weapon (Ex.P17) was made from the open place in the fields. Hence, the recovery is also not proved beyond doubt, whereas in cases of circumstantial evidence, for recording conviction, chain of circumstances should be so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence and that in all human probabilities it must point towards the guilt of the accused only and none else. The evidence for mens rea is only hearsay evidence and is based on suspicion only. All the witnesses deposed that they had not seen the wife of the accused behaving indecently with the deceased and they only came to know it from the public discussion. The Investigating Agency had not cared to find out as to who brought the wine bottle and from which (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (5 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] shop. No wine shopkeeper was interrogated, which create a doubt in the prosecution story. The Investigating Agency did not pick up the finger prints from the articles recovered from the site i.e. glass bottle pieces (Ex.P6), 100 Rupees note, the paper slip (Ex.P4) on which a mobile number was written. As per the FSL report (Ex.P54), four packets marked as 1,2, 8 and 9 were received unsealed. The whole prosecution story creates doubt and the FSL report cannot be read in evidence.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, perused the impugned Judgment, gone through the averments made in the memo of appeal and scanned the entire material made available to the Court including the record of the case.
Shiv Narain (PW15) in the Court deposed that on 16.02.2012, he was posted as SHO, Police Station Shahajahanpur. On that day Narsi Ram, In-charge of Police Station registered the written report (Ex.P1). Upon receipt of written report, same was sent to the Police Station for registration of formal FIR. On the basis of written report (Ex.P1), formal FIR (Ex.P2) No.30/2012 was registered at Police Station Shahajahanpur for offence under section 302 (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (6 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] IPC.
Shiv Narain (PW15) deposed that during the course of investigation site plan (Ex.P3) was prepared. The accused was arrested vide Farad (Ex.P35). On the basis of information given by the accused under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.P37), the site plan of the incident was prepared which is Ex.P12. Pieces of cement-mortar on which there was a blood were taken into possession for sample. The Farad recovery articles and 'jabti' (seizure) is Ex.P13. On the information given by the accused under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, recovery of 'Tanchiya' was made vide Ex.P16.
Narsiram (PW16) deposed that on 16.01.2012 he was posted as ASI in the Police Station Shahajahanpur. On the fateful day Ghanshyam Das Gupta submitted a written report (Ex.P1). He [Narsiram (PW16) ] further deposed that Ghanshyam (complainant) alone came with the written report (Ex.P1).
Complainant Ghanshyam Das (PW1) reiterated the averments made in the written report (Ex.P1). Ghanshyam Das (PW1) admitted that Mahesh Gupta and Satyanarain were having no enmity. The deceased was his nephew. Ghanshyam Das (PW1) admitted that at the time of submitting the report he had no knowledge as to who committed the murder of Mahesh. Ghanshyam Das (PW1) has (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (7 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] admitted that Mahesh Gupta used to take drinks with Satyanarain.
Laxmikant Gupta (PW2) is uncle of the deceased. Laxmikant Gupta (PW2) deposed that prior to the death of Mahesh he came to know that Mahesh (deceased) was having illicit relations with the wife of Dr. Satyanarain. His house was near to the shop of Mahesh, so he heard all these things. One day before the alleged incident on 15.02.2012, Mahesh and Dr. Satyanarain were seen going together towards Bus Stand. Dr. Satyanarain used to quarrel with his wife and also used to give beating to her. Laxmikant Gupta (PW2) is witness of Ex.P.13, Ex.P14, Ex.P15, Ex.P16 and Ex.P17. Laxmikant Gupta (PW2) admitted that he did not see Satyanarain killing Mahesh Chand but he can say so on the basis of suspicion. Accused Satyanarain made disclosure statement about recovery of the weapon in front of him and the recovery was effected from an open and accessible place which is 'Johad'. The aforesaid weapon was some type of 'barchi'.
Jaipal @ Citi (PW4) deposed that he had heard that Mahesh Chand was having illicit relations with the wife of Dr. Satyanarain, who is his second wife. Jaipal @ Citi (PW4) has admitted that he did not see Satyanarain killing Mahesh Chand.
Raghuvar Dayal (PW5) deposed that deceased Mahesh was son of his brother. He had a shop at (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (8 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] Shahajahanpur. Raghuvar Dayal (PW5) deposed that he heard that Mahesh Chand was having illicit relations with the wife of Dr. Satyanarain, for this reason Dr. Satyanarain has committed murder of Mahesh Chand. Raghuvar Dayal (PW5) admitted that one day prior to incident of murder of Mahesh Chand, he saw that Satyanarain and Mahesh were going together.
Vishnu Gupta (PW6) deposed that Mahesh Chand and Satyanarain both used to drink and eat meat together. Vishnu Gupta (PW6) deposed that the people were saying that Mahesh was having illicit relations with the wife of Satyanarain but he cannot tell the name of the persons.
Sunil Kumar (PW7) deposed that he do job work of photography. On 16.02.2012 and 22.02.2012 he took photographs, which are from Ex.P18 to Ex.P27, from Ex.P29 to Ex.P33.
Naresh Kumar (PW8) deposed that Satyanarain remained tenant in his premises for 4-5 years and during this period his conduct was good.
Ramesh (PW9) admitted that he had not seen Dr. Satyanarain and Mahesh Gupta going together. He [Ramesh (PW9)] admitted that at that time shops were about to close.
Dr. Amit Awasthi (PW10) deposed that on 16.02.2012 he was posted as Medical Officer at Community (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (9 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] Health Centre, Shahajanpur. He being one of the Member of Medical Board conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mahesh Chand. He proved post mortem report as Ex.P34. The cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to injuries to multiple vital organs. All injuries were anti mortem in nature. Duration of death was within 12-24 hours.
Ashok Gupta (PW11) is witness of Panchnama (Ex.P8). Ashok Gupta (PW11) deposed that as to how inquest of Mahesh Chand was attested, PW 11 admits that nobody was eye-witness of the incident.
On the basis of material available on record it is established that the death of Mahesh Chand was homicidal in nature.
Pramod Kumar (PW12) deposed that on 27.02.2012 he was posted as Constable in Police Station Shahajahanpur . On that day, the site-plan in connection with recovery of 'Tanchiya' was made which is Ex.P16 and the recovery memo of 'Tanchiya' is Ex.P17. The arrest memo is Ex.P35. Pramod Kumar (PW12) the investigating officer admitted that the recovery of 'Tanchiya was made from an open place Ganeshi Lal (PW14) did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile.
Prem Singh (PW18) deposed that on 16.02.2012 he was posted as Head Constable and was In-charge of (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (10 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] Malkhana of Police Station Shahajahanpur. Prem Singh (PW18) is a witness to exhibits P41, Ex.P42, Ex.P43, Ex.P51 and Ex.P52.
Kailash Chand (PW19) deposed that on 02.03.2012 he was posted as Constable in Police Station Shahajahanpur. He deposited the samples in FSL Laboratory. He proved the receipt of deposit of articles as Ex.P39.
In defence accused Satyanarain appeared as DW1 and deposed that his daughter was studying in Class IX in Government Secondary Girls School, Shahajahanpur. One Dhirendra Gupta s/o Pooran Chand Gupta, resident of Shahajahanpur, used to tease his daughter and Dhirendra Gupta by profession was a Reporter. When they objected to the conduct of Dhirendra Gupta, he gave threats. He filed a case at Police Station Shahajahanpur to this effect, which is Ex.D7. Chalk FIR is Ex.D8, charge-sheet is Ex.D9, site-plan is Ex.D10, order-sheet of Court is Ex.D6. Satyanarain (DW1) deposed that against Dhirendra case for the offences under sections 354, 384, 506 and 509 IPC is pending in the Court of learned MJM, Behror. Satyanarain (DW1) further deposed that Dhirendra gave threats to pressurise him for entering into compromise Dhirendra and Mahesh Chand are relatives. Thus, accused pleaded false implication in this case. Neither he gave beating to the deceased nor he committed the murder.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM)
(11 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] There is no eye witness of the incident. The prosecution in order to prove its case mainly relied on the following circumstances:-
(i) The death of Mahesh Chand was homicidal in nature;
(ii) Mahesh was last seen with accused Satyanarain, when both of them were seen going towards Bus-stand on the night of the occurrence;
(iii) 'Tanchiya' was recovered from Satyanarain and same contained human blood.
(iv) Satyanarain objected to the illicit relations of deceased Mahesh Chand with his wife, thus same was motive to commit crime LAST SEEN:
Ex.P3A site plan reveals that the dead body of deceased Mahesh Chand was found in the play ground situated in the Southern side of Senior Secondary School Compound and in front of the School at "mark-X", house of Bishambhar Saini at "mark-3", house of Jagdish Jat is at "Mark-4", house of J.P. Yadav is situated at mark "5". Ghanshyam Das (PW1) and Laxmikant (PW2) admit that the school is situated in the middle of the town Shahajahanpur and there is regular flow of traffic and movement of passer- byes.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM)
(12 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014]
Laxmikant (PW2) admits that in the night
watchman used to remain on duty in the School.
Jaipal @ Citi (PW4) deposed that on 15.02.2012 at 7:30 P.M. he saw Ramesh Panch, Satyanarain and Mahesh. All the three persons were standing in front of the shop of Mahesh and in the morning he heard about the murder of Mahesh.
Ramesh (PW9) deposed that on 15.02.2012, Doctor Sahab was standing in front of the shop of Somdutt Lakhera and Mahesh Gupta, was pulling shutter down for closing his shop. In cross-examination Ramesh (PW9) admits that he had not seen both Dr. Satyanarain and Mahesh Gupta going together. It is an admitted case that Dr. Satyanarain was residing on the first floor and the shop of the deceased was on the ground floor in the same house.
In State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran and Anr.[(2007) 3 SCC 755], wherein their Lordships in paras 31, 32, 33 & 34 of the said judgment held, as under:-
"31. . . . . It is a settled rule of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however grave, cannot be substituted for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. This Court has applied the above-mentioned general principle with reference to the principle of last seen together in Bodhraj v. State of J & as under : (SCC p.63, para 31) (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (13 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] "31. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. .."
[See also : State of U.P. v. Satish(SCC para
22) and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. (SCC para 27) ].
32. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy, this Court further opined that even in the cases where time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead is too small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible, the courts should look for some corroboration.
33. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab , it was observed that (SCC p.441, para 5) "5. . . . . . In the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, it is not possible to convict the appellant solely on the basis of the 'last seen' evidence, even if the version of PW 14 in this regard is believed. .."
34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last-seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (14 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (15 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case".
Relying on case law reproduced above, we are firmly of the view that evidence of last seen relied by the prosecution is not cogent. It is too far fetched and same is liable to be ignored.
RECOVERY:-
Shri Shivnarain (PW15) admits that the site map (Ex.P3) was prepared before site-map (Ex.P11 and Ex.P12) and the place of occurrence was open and accessible place.
Laxmikant (PW2) admits that the weapon 'Tanchiya' was recovered from an open place. Site plan of recovery place (Ex.P15) reveals that on 25.02.2012 the clothes of accused were recovered. The accused was arrested on 20.02.2012.
The incident took place on 16.02.2012, after nine days blood stained clothes were recovered. Thus, on the basis of disclosure statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act made by the accused pertaining to aforesaid recovery, the accused cannot be convicted qua the crime alleged.
FSL reports (Ex.P53) reveals that that the result of examination of blood stained articles of the deceased remained inconclusive.(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM)
(16 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] So far as recoveries are concerned, they in no way advance case of the prosecution, even though human blood was found, but blood group has not been ascertained and same was found inconclusive. Recovery itself in the present case is doubtful.
MOTIVE:
Ghanshyam Das (PW1) admits that there were cordial relations between the accused and the deceased. Jaipal @ Citi (PW4) admits in cross-examination that he had only heard about illicit relations between Mahesh Chand and the wife of the accused. Thus prosecution only rely upon hearsay evidence.
None of the prosecution witness deposed that the wife of accused and deceased Mahesh Chand both were seen together and the witnesses admit that it was only "talk of the town" and they were having no personal knowledge and they were also having no source of information. In such circumstances it is doubtful as to whether there were any illicit relations between them as alleged. Thus, motive is not established.
A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J., was a member, in the case of Manveer & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, DB Cr. Appeal No.823/2006, decided on 13.5.2015, held as under:-
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM)
(17 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] "18.We are thus of the considered opinion that the present case rests on circumstantial evidence and it is the settled proposition of law that in case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish "a cogent and reliable evidence" to lead a hypothesis accepting guilt of the accused. In other words, the circumstances must be incriminating in character and all circumstances must provide a complete chain and no link of which should be missing. A critical and holistic analysis of the evidence thus clearly reveals that the prosecution has failed to travel the distance between "may be true" and "must be true".
Although the prosecution has produced certain evidence, but there are too many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, which are conspicuously missing. The evidence is neither cogent nor convincing for upholding the conviction of the appellants for the alleged crime. Our view has been fortified by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishanagiri: (2012) 4 SCC 124, wherein the Apex Court has held that motive alone in the absence of any other circumstantial evidence would not be sufficient to convict the appellant. On the materials on record, there may be some suspicion against the accused but as is often said, suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of proof.
19. The circumstances, which have been brought against the appellants, cannot lead to a conclusion of guilt and even circumstances have not been fully established in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Our view has been fortified by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P.: AIR 1952 SC 343 and further by another judgment recently passed by Hon'ble the Supreme (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (18 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] Court in the case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare vs. State of Maharashtra : (2015) 1 SCC 253, wherein Their Lordships have reiterated the principles governing the appreciation of evidence in a case based on circumstantial evidence and held, as under:-
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
On analysis of the evidence of the prosecution, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period. None of the witness deposed that accused and deceased were seen together near the place of occurrence.
The law on question of circumstantial evidence is well settled that an accused can be convicted in a case of circumstantial evidence only if the chain of circumstances (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (19 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] against him is so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. Standard of proof in a criminal matters is always beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution in every such case is required to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any scope of reasonable doubt, benefit of such doubt has to be extended to the accused. The rival submissions have to be therefore tested on that yardstick to find out whether alleged offences against the accused appellant have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court in Ashish Batham v. State of M.P., (2002) 7 SCC 317, in Para 8 of the judgment, held as under:--
"Realities or Truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (20 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between 'conjectures' and 'sure conclusions' to be arrived at on the touch stone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record."
In Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 13 SCC 621, the Supreme Court held that each of the circumstances has to be assessed on its own merits. Quality rather than quantity of evidence is crucial factor in a case of circumstantial evidence. The court has to be cautious against imaginary inferences or its prejudices, which may unwittingly creep in. Its verdict must be based on clear and irrefutable logic. Responsibility of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence is more as compared to the case where ocular testimony or the direct evidence is available.
In Kulvinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana - (2011) 5 SCC 258, also it was held by the Supreme Court that in exceptional cases, conviction of accused can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but in that case the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot derive any strength from weakness of defence put up by accused. Circumstances from which guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should be of a conclusive (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (21 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] nature and exclude all possible hypotheses except the one to be proved. Facts so established must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused and chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by accused and none else.
In Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David, 2011 (5) SCC 509, also the Supreme Court sounded a word of caution that the court must be cautious against conjectures and surmises taking place of proof. Circumstances so proved must form a chain of events pointing to guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt without there being possibility of any other hypothesis. Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form chain of proof from which natural and irresistible conclusion could be drawn as to the guilt of accused and no other hypothesis against guilt is possible. It was further observed by their Lordships that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjectures and surmises may take place a legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such complete chain of events must be such as to (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (22 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. There is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. It was further observed that when important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped. This is what has happened in the present case because of failure of the prosecution to conclusively connect the accused with the crime.
It is thus trite that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of evidence, which should lead to conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed offence and none else. Each of circumstances that is proved against the accused should form a chain so complete so as to rule out every other hypothesis, which may be compatible with innocence of the accused. Analysis of the evidence that we have made above, makes it evident that there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances, which cannot be accepted to be so complete as to point to the guilt of the accused and none else and when every single possibility of accused being innocent is ruled out.
The Supreme Court in a judgment reported in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra (2015) (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (23 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] 1 SCC 253, held that the five golden principles, which have been stated to constitute the "panchsheel" of the proof of the case based on circumstantial evidence, are (i) that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely "may be" fully established; (ii) that the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and, (v) that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that there is no reliable or acceptable evidence that the offence has been committed by the appellant. Niether any direct nor circumstantial evidence had been brought on record to establish the guilt on part of the appellant herein. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to uphold conviction of the accused-appellant, which is entirely based on circumstantial evidence for the reason that chain of circumstances sought to be proved against him has several (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) (24 of 24) [CRLA-489/2014] missing links, which cannot be said to exclude every reasonable possible hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal appeal filed by the accused appellant is allowed. The Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.03.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.02, Behror, District Alwar ('the learned trial court' for short), in Session Case No. 23/2012 is set aside and the accused appellant is acquitted of the charge leveled against him. The accused appellant is in jail. The Superintendent, District Jail, Alwar is directed to release the accused appellant, if not required in any other case.
Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J Sharma NK/199 (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 11:25:29 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)