LAW FOR ALL

Evidentiary value of Circumstantial Evidence - Extra Judicial Confession - Recovery of Wrist Watch of 1971 - with inscription of letters VPS - not possible - as inscription of letters was possible only from 1997 - fact of recovery failed to prove - Earlier statement , the co - accused not mentioned the name of appellant - in earlier statement co accused named one Rohtas took the Wrist watch - Prosecution failed to prove the chain - Trial court rightly acquitted the accused - where as High court wrongly convicted the accused on the basis of extra-judicial confession which was partly proved but not in toto -Total misreading of extra judicial confession - Apex court held that In case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain without giving any chance of surmise or conjecture and must also be consistent with the guilt of the accused. None of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the High Court can be said to be the probability of the appellants’ guilt or involvement in the commission of the crime. Therefore, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside; the appeals are allowed and the accused are acquitted forthwith. = Dhan Raj @ Dhand … Appellant versus State of Haryana ...Respondent = 2014(May. Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41532