Gauhati High Court
Naregbam Shyamkanhai Singh vs State Of Manipur on 1 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003CRILJ1435
Author: Ranjan Gogoi
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi
JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 6.8.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East, Imphal in Sessions Case No. 37/88/23/88/27/90 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.9.1982 at about 8,45 P.M. on receipt of information from a reliable source, P.U. 20 Chongtham Dwijamani Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police of Lamphel Police Station lodged an F.I.R. (Ext. P/9) stating that at about 7 P.M. of the said day, one Dinam Brojendro Singh was murdered by unknown parson/persons in Quarter No. 24, Type-11, Block-H, Lamphelpat. On the busts of the aforesaid report, Lamphel Police Station Case No. 300(9) 82 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. After registration of the aforesaid case, P.U. 20 visited the place of occurrence along with P.U. 1 and P.U. 2 (Constables on duty in the police station). It is the prosecution case that the place of occurrence namely. Quarter No. 24 Type-11 Block-A at Lamphelpat near Nurses Hostel was occupied by the wife of the accused Smt J. Pari Hmar. It is the further case of the prosecution that the police party headed by P.W. 20 entered the drawing room of the said quarter and found blood splattered on the floor and the sofa in the room. On opening of the back door of the room, the deadbody was found lying on the ground. Inside the room, one cushion, one armed chair, one -Shirt of grey colour, one bottle of 750 ml, two half bottles smelling of liquor, a pair of North Star Shoes, a piece of cloth, a small bucket of light green colour, one Identity Card and a sum of Rs. 81 was seized by the police vide Ext.-P/2 at about 10.45 P.M. on 11.9.1982 in the presence of the witnesses. All the aforesaid articles seized were found sprinkled with blood. The inquest was held over the deadbody in the presence of the withsses and a Sketch. Map was prepared by the Investigating Officer, Thereafter the deadbody was sent to the morgue and subsequently, for postmortem examination. On 12.5.62 at about 10.30 A.M., PW 20 seized some quantity of blood specimen of the deceased as well as the stomach contents of the deceased vide Ext. P/3. The aforesaid specimens were kept in two bottles.
It is the further case of the prosecution that on 17.9.1962, the accused surrendered at the police station whereafter he was arrested. The prosecution has also alleged that on 18.9.1982 at about 6 A.M., the accused while in lock up, tried to commit suicide by inflicting certain injuries on himself with a broken glass. In connection with the aforesaid incident, Lamphel Police Station Case No. 306(9) 82 under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The accused was hospitalised in the R. M. C. Hospital for about 15 days and he was discharged on 1.10.1982. It is the further case of the prosecution that after release from hospital on 2.10.1982, the accused made a statement (Ext. P/6) in the presence of PW 16 Pukhrambam Kumar Singh and PW 18 Yangoijam Indrajit Singh to the effect that he had thrown out the weapon of assault, the" knife, in a bush behind his house. In the aforesaid statement, the accused also stated that he had kept the trouser used by him at the time of occurrence at his paternal house and that he would be able to produce the same before him. According to the prosecution, on the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the accused and at his instance, a blood stained knife measuring 10 inches in length (Mat, Ext. 7) was recovered along with the trouser. Both the articles were seized vide Ext. P/7 and Ext. P/8. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the course of investigation, a large number of witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. On completion of the investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted and sent for trial.
3. In the Court of Sessions, a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of the trial of the case, as many as 23 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Two witnesses were examined by the defence. A large number of documents were exhibited. The articles seized at the place of occurrence vide Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/7 and Ext. P/8 were also produced in Court as Mat. Exts. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 6.8.92 convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid, Aggrieved, the accused has filed the instant appeal. A brief resume of the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as by the defence may be usefully set out at this stage. PW 1 Abdul Rashid Mia and PW 2 Nameirakpam Amuyaima Singh are the constables who had accompanied PW 20 to the place of occurrence in the evening of 11.9.1982. Both the witnesses have narrated that on reaching the place of occurrence, they found the deadbody and they had witnessed the holding of inquest over the same.
PW 3 V.S. Ramting at the relevant time was living in Quarter No. 21. near the quarter in question where the occurrence took place. According to this witness, at the relevant point of time, the wife of the accused was occupying Quarter No. 24. On the day of occurrence in the evening, the police personnel came to her house and requested her to accompany then to Quarter No. 24. This witness has stated that inside the waiting room, she could see blood splattered on the floor, on the chair, cushion etc. Thereafter, she along with the police party went to the western side of the quarter and found one deadbody lying on the ground. According to this witness, the police party searched the deadbody and took out an identity card from the chest pocket of the shirt worn by the deceased. She was a witness to the inquest held over the deadbody and confirms that apart from other injuries there were stab wounds in the stomach and the chest of the deceased. She was also a witness to the seizure effected by Seizure List, Ext. P/2.
PW 4 Lairanmayum Bhegujoy Singh was a witness to the taking of blood sample of the deceased as well as the sample of the stomach contents of the deceased vide Ext. P/3. PW 5 Oinam Momo Meitei is the younger brother of the deceased who confirms that the full shirt seized vide Ext. P/2 was taken by him early in the morning on the day of occurrence for ironing for being used by the deceased. PW 6 Kahetrimayum Ranjit Singh is a witness to the taking of blood samples as well as samples of stomach contents of the deceased vide Ext. P/3. PW 7 R.K. Kheda Singh was at the relevant time working as Section Officer of the building Project Division No. 1 of PWD. In his evidence, he has stated that on 11.9.1982 he along with PW 9 Laisram Kheda Singh, one Nabakanta Singh and Tyeb Ali and the deceased had gone to watch theatre. After the theatre was over, along with PW 9 and the deceased, he went to a hotel to have some drinks. This witness has stated that inside the hotel, he saw one Thangjam Shyamkanhai Singh (PW 8), R.K. Manisana Singh (PW 10) and the accused seated in a table and consuming drinks. Though this witness did not know the accused, he knew the other witnesses as they were contractors. This witness has stated that while in the hotel after exchange of some conversation both the groups were busy with themselves and both the parties started moving out from the hotel at almost the same time. According to this witness, while coming out from the hotel, the accused and the deceased were talking and were together. From the hotel, they went to a panshop at a short distance and were waiting fop about 10 minutes for the accused and the deceased to turn up. As they failed to turn up, this witness went home. On the following day at about 4 P.M. he heard that the deceased had been found dead.
PW 8 Thangjam Shyamkanhai Singh in his evidence has stated that on one particular day, 5/6 years back, the accused along with R.K. Mianisana Singh (PW 10) and some other persons went to Ukhrul on business. The other members of the party came back to Imphal on the same day. But, he along with PW. 10 and the accused stayed back at Ukhrui for about two days and thereafter, came back to Imphal. According to this witness, they reached Imphal at about 4 P.M. and thereafter, proceeded to have drinks, this witness has corroborated the evidence of PW 7 with regard to the events took place inside the hotel and also that both the groups had decided to leave hotel at about same time. This witness has also corroborated PW 7 that the rest of the party were waiting for the accused and the deceased at the panshop but they failed to turn up whereafter, they left for their respective residences.
PW 9 and PW 10 examined by the prosecution have given more or less similar version as PW 7 and PW 8 except that PW 10 in his evidence has stated that when he had left the panahop the accused and the deceased were present at the said shop. PW 11 Laisram Nandakumar Singh has been examined to prove the allotment of Quarter No. 24 in the name of the wife of the deceased. PW 12 Oinam Bora Singh is the father of the deceased and PW 13 Thounaojam Nabachandra Singh is a co-villager. Their evidence is not very material for the purpose of the present case. PW 14 Irungbam Chourajit Singh was at the relevant time Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East Division. This witness was sought to be examined by the prosecution to prove the statements made by the accused in the hospital after he had allegedly inflicted injuries on himself in the lock up on 18.9.1982. This witness however, was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution. PW 15 Ningombam Ibohal Singh was the Officer-in-Charge of Lamphel Police Station from December, 1984 to May, 1988. This witness has been examined by the prosecution with regard to the aforesaid alleged incident of suicide by the accused, PW 16 Tombi Singh who was an alleged witness to the statement (Ext. P/6) made by the accused leading to discovery of the knife and trouser seized by Ext. P/7 and Ext. P/8. This witness, however, was declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution, PW 17 Koijam Ibotombi alias Tombi Singh who is a relation to the deceased is not a very material witness for the purposes of the present case. PW 18 Yangoijam Indrajit Singh has been, examined by the prosecution to prove Ext. P/6,, i.e.,, the statement of the accused leading to discovery of knife as well as the facts and events leading to such discovery, According to this witness, on 2.10.1982, he was called by police along with PW 16 to the police station and there, in his presence, the police asked the accused whether he would be able to produce articles used by him in the offence. According to this witness, the accused replied in the affirmative and the police recorded the statement of the accused in his presence and he signed the said statement, Ext. P/6 as a witness. According to this witness, he along with the police party, the accused and PW 16 went to the quarter of the accused at Lamphelpat. The accused pointed out the knife (Thang) which was lying at the northern side of the said quarter. The police picked up the said knife and seized the same vide Ext. P/7 in which exhibit he put his signature. Thereafter, according to this witness, the party proceeded to the house of the accused at Lalambungmakhong and recovered a pair of trouser which was seized vide Seizure Memo Ext. P/8. PW 19 Huidrom Bhubon Singh was the Officer-in-Charge of Lamphel Police Station on the date of occurrence. He has corroborated the evidence of PW 20 (to be discussed subsequently) on the point of filing of F.I.R. and the registration of Police Case No. 300 (9) 82 against the accused. This witness has also deposed that in the month of September, 1982 when he was engaged in the Morning Roll Call, he was reported by one Police Constable that the accused who was in the lock up of the police station had locked himself in the latrine. This witness has stated that the door of the latrine was forced opened and the accused was found with, some injury marks caused by a sharp weapon in the region of the neck. A piece of glass was found at the place and thereafter Lamphel Police Station Case No. 306 (9) 82 under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. This witness has further stated that the accused was in the locked up in connection with Lamphel Police Station Case No. 300 (9 )82. In cross examination, PW 19 has stated that it was not within his knowledge whether the charge sheet was submitted in Lamphel Police Station Case No. 306(9) 82. He also stated that at the relevant time, there was no other accused in the lock up. PW 20 Chongthem Duijamani Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. This witness has deposed that at about 8.45 P.M. on 11.9.1982, he on receipt of an information from a reliable source lodged a F.I.R. Ext. P/9. After Lamphel Police Station Case No. 300 (9) 82 was registered, he visited the Quarter No. 24. Type-II, Block-A near Nurses Hostel and on entering the drawing room, he found blood splattered on the floor as well as on the cushion. Only the wife of the accused was present in the house at that time. This witness, has also deposed that on opening of the back door of the room he found the deadbody on the ground. This witness has stated that vide Ext. P/2 he seized one blood stained cushion, one armed chair stained with blood, one shirt of grey colour stained with blood, one bottle of 750 ml stained with blood, two half bottles smelling of alcohol, a pair of shoes, a piece of cloth, small bucket, the identity card of the deceased and a sum of 81 rupees in different denominations stained with blood. The aforesaid articles which were exhibited in Court as Mat Obj. were were duly identified by this witness. The knife seized vide Ext. P/7 was also identified as M. O. No. 7 by this witness. This witness has also deposed as to the injuries found on the deadbody of the deceased at the time of inquest and that after the inquest was over, a Sketch Map was prepared and the body was sent to the morgue for postmortem examination. This witness has also taken some quantity of blood sample as well as the stomach contents of the deceased in two small bottles vide Ext. P/3, PW 20 examined by the prosecution has also narrated the circumstances in which Ext. P/6 was recorded and the discovery of the knife and a pair of trouser on the basis of the statements of the accused recorded in Ext. P/6 and at his instance, PW 20 has also proved the relevant portion of the statements of the witnesses including PW 16 who had turned hostile, as recorded in the course of investigation. PW 21 Dr. Khundrakpam Narendra Singh was at the relevant time the District Medical Officer, Central Imphal. He has proved the handwriting of late Dr. Moirangthem Saratchandra Singh who performed the postmortem examination on the deadbody. He has also proved his counter signature on the said postmortem report. This witness has stated that the incised and per formed asked wounds as described in the postmortem report as well as other penetrating wounds as described in the postmortem report could be caused by the sharp weapon,, i.e., the knife exhibited as Mat. Obj. No. 7. This witness has also stated that the injuries described in the postmortem report were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. In cross examination, this witness stated that the result of the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report would be instantaneous death and that the injured would not be able to walk after receiving the said injuries. PW 22 R.K. Khomdon Singh was examined with regard to the attempt to commit suicide by the accused while in lock-up, PW 23 Sangjenbam Chaoba Singh examined in the case was the Investigating Officer of Lamphel Police Station Case No. 300 (9) 82 after PW 20. This witness has deposed that the articles seized vide Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/7 were sent for examination to the Directorate of Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Calcutta and the opinion of the Expert was received which has been exhibited as Ext. P/21. In cross examination, this witness has stated that at the relevant time, in Quarter No. 24, the younger brother of the accused Narengbam Aken Singh was also living.
4. Two witnesses were examined by the defence. DW 1 Narengbam Aken Singh is the younger brother of the accused. In his evidence, DW 1 has stated that on 11.9.1982 at about 8.30P.M. while he was alone in the drawing room reading a magazine all on a sudden a male person rushed inside the drawing room with some injuries on his body. The said person remained in the drawing room for some time. Thereafter he went to backside of the drawing room throught the back door and thereafter he fell down on the ground. The matter was immediately reported to the sister-in-law who was in the bed room. Thereafter the said sister-in-law went to the police station and reported the matter. According to this witness, at about 9 or 9.30 P.M., the police had arrived at the place.
DW 2 Dr. L. Fimate was at the relevant time working as Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, R.M.C. Imphal. This witness has been examined by the defence to point out the alleged inconsistencies in the postmortem report. However, according to this witness also, the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report would be sufficient to cause death. However, according to this witness, the said injuries could not have resulted in instantaneous death but the injured may have survived for half or one hour after receiving the said injuries.
5. From the evidence of the witnesses in the case recited above, it would be apparent that there was no eye-witness to the alleged incident. The culpability of the accused, therefore, will have to be decided on the basis of the circumstancial evidence as unfolded by the prosecution witnesses examined in the case. The circumstances which would appear against the accused apparent from the materials on record may be set out briefly as hereunder :-
(1) The deceased was last seen together in the company of the accused in the evening of the day of occurrence namely, on 11.9.1982.
(2) The deceased was found dead in the Quarter No. 24 late in the evening of the same day and the accused lived with his wife in the said quarter which was allotted to his wife.
(3) The accused made himself untraceable until 17.9.1982.
(4) The statements made by the accused vide Ext. P/6 leading to discovery or material Object No. 7 namely, the knife.
(5) The evidence of PW 21 to the effect that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by M.O. -7, the knife.
(6) The alleged attempt to commit suicide by the accused in the police lock-up on 18.9.1982,, i.e., date after his arrest.
6. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is no longer res Integra. The principles on which the culpability of the accused are to be judged by circumstantial evidence have been well settled by numerous Judicial pronouncements on the question. The core of all such principles laid down basically stipulate a two-fold necessity. The circumstances against the accused must be fully proved by cogent, reliable and legal evidence and such circumstances must unerringly point to -only one conclusion excluding all others namely, that the offence could not have been committed by anybody except the accused himself. Only if the aforesaid preconditions are satisfied judicial conscience will permit the charge against the accused to be held to be proved on the basis of circumstantial evidence of a case.
7. Having set out the principles on the basis of which culpability of the accused will have to be judged in the instant case, we may now proceed to examine as to whether the circumstances enumerated hereinabove have been proved by the evidence and materials on record.
8. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has argued that the evidence of PWs 7, 8, 9 and in examined in the case do not conclusively establish that the accused." -'and the deceased were last seen together in the evening of 11.9.1982. Learned counsel has argued that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses would so to show that after departing from the hotel where both the groups namely, of the accused and the deceased, had been drinking, after the others had reached the panshop and were waiting for the accused and the deceased to come to the said place, as the accused and the deceased had failed to turn up the witnesses in question had gone to their respective houses. Learned counsel on the aforesaid basis has contended that the possibility of the deceased going to some other place with somebody else cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel has also pointed out to the evidence of PW 10 to the effect that he had seen the accused and the deceased on the panshop together at about 6.30 P.M. which is contrary to the evidence of PW 7, 8 and 9. We have, duly considered the contentions advanced on behalf of the accused-appellant. However, we remained unimpressed with the arguments put forward inasmuch as the evidence of PWs 7 to 10 taken together would go to show that as the members of two groups were coming out of the hotel after consuming , drinks, the accused and thy deceased were seen coming out together and engrossed in some conversation. Even if the evidence of PW 10 is to be believed that he had seen the accused and the deceased together at the panshop, in our considered view, the totality of the evidence on record would go to show that till about 6.30 P.M., the accused and the deceased were together. The death took place within a short time thereafter. The first circumstance namely, that the accused and the deceased were last seen together may, therefore, be taken to have been proved and established by the materials on record.
9. The second circumstance namely, the deceased was found dead in Quarter No. 24 which was allotted to the wife of the accused has gone virtually unchallenged. The third circumstance namely, that the accused had made himself untraceable till 17.9.1982 on which date he surrendered before the police has been proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined in the case particularly, PW 20, the Investigating Officer. The defence version as unfolded by DW 1 would go to suggest that the accused had left for Ukhrul on the next day and it is only after somedays that he was informed about the incident whereupon he came back to Iniphal. The said story does not inspire confidence in us. Apparently, the accused and the deceased were friendly with each other. They were together in the evening of 11.9.1982 whereafter, the deceased was found dead in the Quarter allotted to the wife of the accused. It would be unnatural on the part of the family of the accused not to inform him about incident, even we accept that the accused left for Ukhrul on the day following the incident. We, therefore, have no hesitation in accepting that the third circumstance as set out to be fully proved.
10. In so Far as the statements made by the accused vide Ext. P/6 leading to discovery of Mat. Obj. -7,, i.e., the knife is concerned, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that PW 16 who is supposed to be a witness to the aforesaid statement and consequential recovery has not supported the prosecution case. PW 18, the other witness on this aspect of the case, it is argued, has stated that he had reached the police station at about 10 A.M. of 2.10.1982 whereas according to PW 20 (the Investigating Officer], the recovery had already been made at about 8.30 A.M. in the morning. On the basis of the aforesaid discrepancy, it is argued by learned counsel, that the statements vide Ext. P/6 was recorded subsequent to the recovery and the said statement is not admissible in evidence and further that this Court should not take note of the alleged recovery of MO No. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced. Human memory with regard to time is often deceptive. Regard must also be had to the fact that PW 18 was deposing in Court almost about 8 years after the incident. Furthermore it will not be correct to expect mathematical precision and consistency in the; evidence of the witnesses examined after a long lapse of time. Considering above, we are not inclined to give any more importance to the aforesaid discrepancy in the evidence of PW 18 than what is necessary. Consequently, we are of the view that the circumstance No. 4 as set out also stands fully proved against the accused. Learned counsel far the accused-appellant has argued that Ext. P/6 was recorded on 2.10.1982 whereas the evidence on record would go to show that the accused was arrested on 17.9.1982 and was interrogated while in custody. The aforesaid delay, it is argued, makes Ext. P/6 highly unreliable and unsafe. The prosecution, in the instant case, has explained the reasons for the aforesaid delay. It is on record that about 6 A.M. on 18.9.1982 while the accused--appellant was in the police lock up, he attempted to commit suicide and had to b e hospitalised on the said date itself namely, on 18.9.1982. The accused was released from hospital on 1.10.1982 whereafter he made a statement which uas recorded vide Ext. P/6. In view of the aforesaid materials' on record, we do not find any force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.
11. The fifth circumstance namely, the medical evidence to the effect that the injuries found on the body of the deceased during postmortem examination could have been caused by MO No. 7 had hardly been challenged in cross examination by the defence. In fact, the medical experts examined by both aides (PW 21 and DW 2) are unanimous that the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report are capable of causing death in the ordinary course. In so far as the sixth circumstance as narrated in the earlier part of the judgment is concerned as the prosecution had not succeeded in establishing that the accused was charge-sheeted in connection with Lamphel police Station Case No. 306 (9) 82 under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, we are not inclined to hold the aforesaid circumstances to have been proved by the materials on record.
12. The next question that has to engage our attention is what conclusion can reasonably be drawn, from the aforesaid circumstances keeping in mind the principles of law relating to circumstantial evidence as already enumerated hereinabove. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused appellant places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1674 in support of the proposition that the lat circumstance against the accused appellant namely, he was last seen together in the company of the deceased would not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and have noticed that in the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has laid down that the circumstances that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused by itself (Emphasis is ours) may not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. In the instant case, the aforesaid circumstance is only one out of thy five circumstances which in, our considered view, have been established against the accused appellant. The aforesaid judgment, therefore, does not assist the case of the appellant in any manner, Learned counsel also places reliance on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 156 in this regard. The particular passage of the said judgment relied upon by the learned counsel contains an enumeration of the law relating to circumstantial evidence which we have already dealt with hereinabove. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mujeeb and Anr. v. State of Kerala, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 315 relied upon on behalf of the appellant is to the same effect. In fact, it is the correct application of principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, which is now receiving our attention. The third case on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the aforesaid aspect of the matter is reported in (2000) 1 SCC 225 (C.K. Raueendran v. State of Kerala). We have perused the said judgment and have noticed that the finding of the Apex Court on which reliance has been placed has been reached on the facts of the case which are highly dissimilar to those of the present case. The aforesaid judgment, therefore, does not assist the appellant.
13. In so far as the circumstances relating to the statements made by the accused vide Ext. P/6 leading to the discovery of MO 7 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that MO 7 was sent for examination by the Directorate of Central Forensic Science Laboratory and the report submitted vide Ext. P/21 would go to show that the blood stains on MO 7 were found to have been disintegrated as a result of which the origin of such blood could not be determined. Learned counsel relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 1990 Cri LJ 2289 and also in the case of Chandran alias Surendran and Anr. v. State of Kerala, reported in 1990 Cri. 1.3 2296 has sought to contend that on the basis of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid two cases, it will be unsafe for this Court to rely upon the aforesaid circumstance found against the accused-appellant in order to determine the culpability of the said accused appellant. We have considered the submissions advanced. The observation of the Apex Court made in the said judgments must be understood in the context of the facts of the said cases. Ext. p/21 has confirmed that the blood stains on some of the articles sent for chemical analysis was of human blood. The failure of the prosecution to identify the blood stains on MO No. 7 and the particular blood group, in our considered view would not cause any fatal effect on the prosecution case.
14. It is vehemently argued by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel that in the, instant case, the motive behind the alleged incident has not been proved and, therefore, this Court ought not to record a conviction against the accused appellant. In support, reliance has been placed by learned counsel on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tarseam Kumar v. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2585. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has emphasized that motive is very strong circumstance for the crime alleged but at the same time, has also laid down that "if each of the circumstances proved on behalf of the prosecution is accepted by the Court for the purpose of recording a finding that it was the accused who committed the crime in question, even in absence of proof of motive for a commission of such a crime, the accused can be convicted." The position, therefore, would be that motive may be a clinching circumstance but in the absence of proof of motive a conviction can still be maintained provided that other circumstances proved are such that all other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused stands ruled out. In this regard, Mrs. Bidyamani, learned public Prosecutor has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex. Court in the case of Mulakhraj v. Satish Kumar, reported in (1992) 3 SCC 43 as well as in the case of Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 690. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the rival parties. Though we are conscious of the fuel that the prosecution in the instant case has not established a motive for the crime, yet, we do not consider the said failure of the prosecution to be fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case.
15. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused appellant has relied on several judgments of the Apex Court in support of the contention, that the defence evidence in the case deserves equal consideration as that of the prosecution. We are in complete agreement with the learned counsel on this aspect of the matter. However, for reasons already recorded hereinabove, we do not consider it appropriate to accept the defence version of the case as unfolded by DW 1. Furthermore, to accept the defence version as unfolded by DW 1 would require us to disbelieve the entire of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses for which we do not find any Justifiable reason. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the evidence of DW 1 stands sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of DW 2 inasmuch as DW 2 who is a medical expert, has opined that the death in the instant case on account of the injuries sustained may not be instantaneous. This evidence, according to learned counsel, corroborates the evidence of DW 1 that the deceased in an injured condition entered in the drawing room of Quarter No. 24 and was moving hither and thither for some time. Even if the said part of the evidence of the defence witness is accepted, the core of the prosecution case remains unaffected. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has also argued that the circumstances appearing against the accused appellant are at best suspicious circumstances and suspicion can never take the place of proof. In support, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dhananjaya Heddy v. State of Karnatake, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1512. Suspicion giving rise to a doubt capable of being conferred to the benefit of the accused must be that of a reasonable mind. In the facts of the instant case, we are left unimpressed with the argument that what the prosecution had succeeded in establishing are, merely suspicions circumstances. We have no doubt in our mind that the chain of circumstances proved and established by the prosecution unerringly points Out to only one conclusion excluding all others, namely, the guilt of the accused.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same shall stand dismissed. The ball granted to the accused shall stand cancelled. He will surrender before the learned trial Court forthwith, and in any case within 10 (ten) days from today failing which Non-baileble Warrant of Arrest will be issued by the learned trial Court against the accused. The-conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court is affirmed.