Whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence following features are required to be complied with. It would be beneficial to repeat the same salient features once again which are as under:- "(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely 'may be' fully established, (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of

Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008                1




                                                                REPORTABLE


                             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1327 OF 2008




     Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen                             ....Appellant



                                         Versus



     State of Rajasthan                                     ....Respondent



                      WITH



     Criminal Appeal No.1369/2008; and

     Criminal Appeal No.1370/2008





                                    J U D G M E N T



     Deepak Verma, J.


     


     1.    This   judgment   and   order   shall   govern   disposal   of



           Crl.   A.   No.   1369   of   2008  Nandu   Singh   @   Vikram



           Singh   Vs.   State   of   Rajasthan  and   Crl.   A.No.   1370



           of   2008  Arun   Joseph   Vs.   State   of   Rajasthan  as



           they   arise   out   of   the   common   judgment   and   order



           recorded   by   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of



           Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D.B.


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008                      2




         Criminal   Appeal   No.   125/2005,   210/2005   and



         1176/2005   decided   on   03.12.2007,   arising   out   of



         judgment   and   order   of   conviction   recorded   by



         Special Judge SC/ST (PA Cases) Jaipur in Sessions



         Case No. 02/2004 decided on 10.02.2005.




     2. The   trial   court   vide   its   judgment   and   order   held



         the   Appellants   guilty   for   commission   of   offence



         under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in



         short   'IPC')   and   awarded   life   imprisonment   with



         fine   of   Rs.   1000/-   and   in   default   of   payment   of



         fine further three months simple imprisonment and



         under   Section   4/25   of   the   Arms   Act   one   year   R.I.



         and   fine   of   Rs.   500/-   and   in   default   of   payment



         of fine to further suffer one month imprisonment.



         The sentences were directed to run concurrently.





     3. Feeling                  aggrieved         by         the         said         judgment,



         Appellants   had   preferred   three   appeals   as



         mentioned   hereinabove   before   the   Division   Bench



         of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008          3




         Jaipur   Bench.   The   High   Court,   after   considering



         the   matter   from   all   angles   also   came   to   the



         conclusion   that   no   interference   was   called   for



         against the said judgment of the trial Court and



         dismissed   the   appeals.   In   all,   there   were   five



         accused   out   of   which   one     Abrar   was   declared



         absconder   and   Abdul   Wahid   was   acquitted   by   the



         Trial   Court.   Thus   these   appeals   by   the   three



         convicted accused.





     4. We   have,   accordingly,   heard   learned   Counsel   Mr.



         R.K. Kapoor, Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Mrs. Mansi Dhiman



         for   the   Appellants   and   Mr.   Milind   Kumar,   Mr.



         Imtiaz Ahmeda and Ms. Archana Pathak Dave for the



         Respondent State and perused the record.





     5. Facts   giving   rise   to   the   prosecution   story,



         ultimately   resulting   in   conviction   of   the



         Appellants, are as under:-


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008                          4




             On   24.07.2003   at   5.45   p.m.   Diwakar   Chaturvedi



     SHO   Police   Station   Vidhan   Sabha,   Jaipur   received



     telephonic   information   about   murder   of   a   person   in



     Kathputli                   Colony.         After         recording         the         said



     information   in   Rojnamcha,   SHO   rushed   to   the   spot



     with police squad and found a person lying dead in



     a pool of blood.





     6. On   inquiries   being   made   P.W.3   -   Ashok   Kumar,



           present   at   the   place   of   occurrence   informed



           Diwakar that the name of the deceased was Ram Pal



           Yadav. He further informed that the murder of Ram



           Pal Yadav has been caused by Mustkeem, Nandu and



           one   other   person   by   inflicting   injuries   on   his



           person   with   sword   and   knife.     The   third   person



           was later identified as Arun Joseph. On receiving



           the   said   information   SHO   recorded   the   Parcha



           Bayan   of   P.W.3   -   Ashok   Kumar   and   registered   a



           case under Section 302/120B of the IPC. Thus the



           investigation machinery was set into motion. Dead


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008           5




         body   was   sent   for   autopsy,   necessary   memos   were



         drawn,   statements   of   witnesses   were   recorded,



         accused   were   arrested   and   on   completion   of



         investigation charge sheet was filed.





     7. Charges   under   Section   302/149   IPC   and   Section



         4/25   of   the   Arms   Act   were   framed   against   the



         accused.   They   denied   the   charges   and   prayed   for



         being   tried.   The   prosecution   in   support   of   its



         case examined 19 witnesses. The statements of the



         Appellants   under   Section   313   of   Cr.   P.C.   were



         recorded,   who   claimed   innocence   and   prayed   for



         their acquittal.





     8. As per the post mortem report Ex. P.34, deceased



         Ram   Pal   Yadav   had   received   38   ante   mortem



         injuries   and   from   the   evidence   of   P.W.13   -   Dr.



         Sumant Dutta, cause of death was stated to be due



         to   hemorrhagic   shock   as   a   result   of   injuries   to



         chest,   lungs   and   skull   and   on   account   of



         excessive   bleeding.   In   the   light   of   the   Post


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008                      6




         Mortem   Report   and   the   evidence   of   P.W.13   -   Dr.



         Sumant Dutta, it cannot be disputed nor has been



         disputed   before   us   that   deceased   had   met   with



         homicidal death.





     9. Now           the         question              that         arises         for         our



         consideration   in   this   and   the   connected   appeals



         is   as   to   who   were   the   perpetrators   of   the   crime



         and   whether   the   trial   Court   and   High   Court   were



         justified   in   holding   the   appellants   guilty   for



         commission of the said offences.





     10.Before   we   proceed   to   do   so   it   is   necessary   to



         point   out   that   the   solitary   star   witness   of   the



         prosecution   P.W.3   -   Ashok   Kumar   had   turned



         hostile and was declared as such.





     11.In   fact,   it   is   pertinent   to   mention   here   that



         the   main   material   witnesses   were   declared



         hostile. The Trial Court observed in this context



         that   P.W.1   Mohd.   Ayub   (recovery   witness),   P.W.3


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008           7




         Ashok   Kumar   and   P.W.2   Prakash   (both   eye-



         witnesses)   had   retracted   their   statements   made



         under   Section   161   Cr.P.C.   during   examination.



         Furthermore,   it   has   also   refused   to   attach   much



         credence   to   the   deposition   of   P.W.19   Yogesh



         Kumar,   owing   to   the   clear   contradictions   in   his



         statement   and   aforesaid   deposition   regarding   his



         presence   at   the   scene   of   crime.   Thus,   in   a



         nutshell,   Trial   Court   had   also   found   them



         unreliable   and   has   not   based   the   Appellants



         conviction   on   the   basis   of   their   statements.



         Similarly High Court has not taken their evidence



         into   consideration.   Thus,   it   is   neither   required



         nor   is   necessary   to   deal   with   their   evidence.



         Trial Court had recorded a finding that the case



         is   without   any   eye   witness   and   is   based   on



         circumstantial evidence.





     12.It   is   therefore   necessary   to   discuss   the



         evidence   of   P.W.8   -   Smt.   Supyar   Kanwar,   P.W.9   -


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008             8




         Lali  Devi  and  P.W.10  -  Chittar  so  as  to  find  out



         the   element   of   truth   in   the   same   and   to   discern



         any motive behind the commission of the offence.





     13.It   is   fully   established   that   the   prosecution



         case is based on circumstantial evidence. In this



         view   of   the   matter,   we   have   to   see   if   the   chain



         of   circumstances   was   so   complete   so   as   to



         unerringly   point   the   finger   only   at   the



         Appellants   as   perpetrators   of   crime.     Before



         delving   into   the   legal   analysis,   however,   we



         would like to examine the statements of P.W.8 and



         P.W.10 in brief.





     14.As   per   the   prosecution   story,   Appellants



         Mustkeem and Arun had met P.W.10 - Chittar a day



         before   the   occurrence,   in   whose   house   deceased



         Ram   Pal   Yadav,   was   residing   as   a   tenant,     for



         last 5 to 6 years and he deposed that Appellants



         Mustkeem   and   Arun   had   told   him   that,     that   day



         it     would   be   the   last   visit   of   Ram   Pal   and   he


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008             9




         will not come to his house again. Similar is the



         evidence   of   P.W.9   -   Lali   Devi,   wife   of   P.W.10.



         She   has   repeated   the   same   version   as   had   been



         deposed by P.W.10- Chittar.





     15. P.W.8 - Smt. Supyar deposed that Mustkeem, Arun



         and   Nandu   used   to   visit   Ram   Pal   Yadav   regularly



         as   all   of   them   were   dealing   in   illicit   liquor



         trade.   On   coming   to   know   from   Lali   Devi   that



         Arun,   Mustkeem   and   Nandu   were   keen   to   eliminate



         Ram   Pal   Yadav,   she   had   telephonically   asked   him



         to   meet   her   at   the   earliest.   When   deceased   Ram



         Pal Yadav met Smt. Supyar, she informed him about



         the intentions of the accused. She also told him



         that   Arun   and   Mustkeem   both   had   said   that   it



         would   be   the   last   visit   of   Ram   Pal   Yadav   to   her



         house as they were planning to eliminate him.





     16.Thus,   from   an   appraisal   of   the   evidence   of



         P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10, the Trial Court and the



         Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   ruled   that


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008           10




         prosecution   has   been   able   to   establish   that



         deceased   Ram   Pal   Yadav   and   Appellants   were   all



         involved   in   illegal   trade   of   liquor   and   a   day



         prior to the date of incident, Arun and Mustkeem



         had   expressed   their   intentions   to   eliminate   Ram



         Pal to P.W.9 and P.W.10.





     17.High   Court   while   considering   the   Appellants'



         appeal   found   this   factor   as   one   of   the



         incriminating   circumstances   to   eventually   hold



         the Appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence.





     18. The       other   circumstance   found   against   the



         Appellants   by   High   Court   was   that,   on   the   basis



         of   the   disclosure   statements   of   the   Appellants,



         weapons   alleged   to   be   used   in   the   commission   of



         offence   and   clothes   stained   with   human   blood



         were   recovered.   In   its   Judgment,   the   High   Court



         has   discussed  in  extenso  the   effect   of   Section



         27 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter shall


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008          11




         be   referred   to   as   'Act')   and   subsequent



         discovery of the material objects thereafter.





     19.On the basis of the report of the serologist, it



         has come on record that traces of AB blood group



         were   found   on   the   pants   and   baniyan   of   the



         deceased.   The   prosecution   has   also   averred   that



         Sword   and  clothes   stained  with   human  blood   group



         AB   were   also   recovered   at   the   instance   of



         Appellants,   from   the   places   shown   by   them   and



         known only to them and none others. On account of



         aforesaid   circumstances,   the   High   Court   was   of



         the   opinion   that   the   chain   of   circumstances   was



         complete and the completed chain of circumstances



         pointed   the   finger   for   commission   of   the   said



         offence only by the Appellants.





     20.  As   regards   the   motive   (if   any)   behind   the



         homicide,   on   review   of   the   relevant   deposition



         of the witnesses, we are of the opinion that one



         of   the   circumstances   found   against   the   present


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008                      12




         Appellants,             that         deceased                and         Appellants



         indulged   in   illegal   trade   of   liquor   and   thus



         were having enmity with each other, is not based



         on any cogent and reliable evidence much less on



         the   evidence   of   P.W.8,   P.W.9   and   P.W.10.   This



         could   not   have   been   the   motive   of   killing   Ram



         Pal.





     21.In fact, the omissions on the part of all three



         witnesses   namely,   P.W.8,   P.W.9   and   P.W.   10   to



         state   certain   material   facts   in   the   course   of



         making   their   statements   before   the   police,   which



         they   have   categorically   admitted   in   their



         depositions             may          even         be              considered         as



         "contradictions"   as   per   the   Explanation   to



         Section 162 of the Cr.P.C.





     22.     Their evidence, that they had intimated P.W.8 a



     day prior to the date of incident, that they would



     eliminate   Ram   Pal   is   also   not   trustworthy.   On



     account of several discrepancies appearing in their


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008           13




     evidence,   P.W.8   is   absolutely   an   hearsay   witness



     which   is   borne   out   from   their   evidence.   Similarly



     the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 does not establish



     the intention on the part of the accused to murder



     Ram Prasad. Since no enmity could be established on



     record   between   them   there   was   nothing   which



     warranted to eliminate Ram Pal.





     23.     The   AB   blood   group   which   was   found   on   the



     clothes   of   the   deceased   does   not   by   itself



     establish   the   guilt   of   the   Appellant   unless   the



     same   was   connected   with   the   murder   of   deceased   by



     the   Appellants.   None   of   the   witnesses   examined   by



     the   prosecution   could   establish   that   fact.   The



     blood  found  on  the  sword  recovered  at  the  instance



     of the Mustkeem was not sufficient for test as the



     same had already disintegrated.   At any rate,   due



     to   the   reasons   elaborated   in   the   following



     paragraphs, the fact that the traces of blood found



     on   the   deceased   matched   those   found   on   the


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008          14




     recovered   weapons   cannot  ipso   facto  enable   us   to



     arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  latter  were  used



     for the murder.





     24.     In   fact,   the   recovery   of   the   weapons   on



     disclosure   of   the   Appellants   itself   becomes



     doubtful.   The   witness   of   Recovery   Memo   P.W.1   -



     Mohd.   Ayub   Khan   was   declared   hostile   and   another



     witness   P.W.10   -   Chittar   admitted   that   signatures



     were   obtained   on   the   memos   and   annexures   at   the



     Police   Station   itself.   It   is   also   pertinent   to



     mention   here   that   P.W.1   -   Mohd.   Ayub   Khan   was



     residing 4 Kms. away from the place of recovery and



     P.W.10 - Chittar was residing 8 Kms. away from the



     place   of   recovery   and   were   also   declared   hostile.



     Prosecution   failed   to   establish   as   to   why   none   of



     the  local  persons  were  called  to  be  the  witnesses.



     The   conduct   of   the   prosecution   appears   to   be



     extremely   doubtful   and   renders   the   case   as



     concocted,   to   falsely   implicate   the   Appellants.


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008                          15




     Recovery   Memos   also   reflect   that   there   were



     overwriting   on   the   same   which   has   not   been



     explained                   by          P.W.16          -         Diwakar              Chaturvedi



     (Investigating Officer). He admitted that memos and



     annexures   were   prepared   in   his   own   handwriting   but



     also   admitted   in   his   cross   examination   that   the



     same   were   in   a   different   handwriting.   This   lacuna



     should   have   been   explained   by   the   prosecution   more



     so         when             the         whole           case           rested          only         on



     circumstantial evidence. Thus looking to the matter



     from   all   angles   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion



     that   it   would   not   be   safe   and   proper   to   hold   the



     Appellants guilty for commission of offence.





     25.     It is too well settled in law that where the



     case   rests   squarely   on   circumstantial   evidence   the



     inference   of guilt can be justified only when all



     the incriminating facts and circumstances are found



     to   be   incompatible   with   the   innocence   of   the



     accused or the guilt of any other person. No doubt,


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008               16




     it   is   true   that   conviction   can   be   based   solely   on



     circumstantial evidence but it should be decided on



     the   touchstone   of   law   relating   to   circumstantial



     evidence,   which   has   been   well   settled   by   law   by



     this Court.





     26.     In   a   most   celebrated   case   of   this   Court



     reported   in   1984   (4)   SCC   116  Sharad   Birdhichand



     Sarda  Vs.  State   of   Maharashtra  in   para   153,   some



     cardinal   principles   regarding   the   appreciation   of



     circumstantial   evidence   have   been   postulated.



     Whenever   the   case   is   based   on   circumstantial



     evidence   following   features   are   required   to   be



     complied with. It would be beneficial to repeat the



     same   salient   features   once   again   which   are   as



     under:-





                  "(i) The   circumstances   from   which   the

                  conclusion   of   guilt   is   to   be   drawn   must

                  or   should   be   and   not   merely   'may   be'

                  fully established,


                  (ii) The   facts   so   established   should   be

                  consistent   only   with   the   hypothesis   of


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008                17




                  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)         The circumstances should be of a

                  conclusive nature and tendency,


                  (iv)   They should exclude every possible

                  hypothesis   except   the   one   to   be   proved,

                  and


                  (v)       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".





     27.     With   regard   to   Section   27   of   the   Act,   what   is



     important   is   discovery   of   the   material   object   at



     the   disclosure   of   the   accused   but   such   disclosure



     alone   would   not   automatically   lead   to   the



     conclusion   that   the   offence   was   also   committed   by



     the   accused.   In   fact,   thereafter,   burden   lies   on



     the   prosecution   to   establish   a   close   link   between



     discovery   of   the   material   objects   and   its   use   in



     the   commission   of   the   offence.   What   is   admissible


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008                       18




     under   Section   27   of   the   Act   is   the   information



     leading  to  discovery  and  not  any  opinion  formed  on



     it by the prosecution.





     28.     If   the   recovery   memos   were   prepared   at   the



     Police  Station  itself  then  the  same  would  lose  its



     sanctity   as   held   by   this   Court   in  Varun   Chaudhary



     Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2011 SCC 72.





     29.     The   scope   and   ambit   of   Section   27   were   also



     illuminatingly   stated   in   AIR   1947   PC   67  Pulukuri



     Kotayya                &         Ors.     Vs.     Emperor     reproduced



     hereinbelow:-





                      "...it   is   fallacious   to   treat   the   'fact

             discovered' within the section as equivalent

             to   the   object   produced;   the   fact   discovered

             embraces   the   place   from   which   the   object   is

             produced and the knowledge of the accused as

             to   this,   and   the   information   given   must

             relate   distinctly   to   this   fact.   Information

             as to past user, or the past history, of the

             object   produced   is   not   related   to   its

             discovery   in   the   setting   in   which   it   is

             discovered. Information supplied by a person

             in   custody   that   'I   will   produce   a   knife

             concealed  in  the  roof  of  my  house'  does  not

             lead   to   the   discovery   of   a   knife;   knives


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008                19




             were   discovered   many   years   ago.   It   leads   to

             the   discovery   of   the   fact   that   a   knife   is

             concealed   in   the   house   of   the   informant   to

             his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to

             have   been   used   in   the   commission   of   the

             offence,   the   fact   discovered   is   very

             relevant.   But   if   to   the   statement   the   words

             be   added   'with   which   I   stabbed   A'   these

             words   are   inadmissible   since   they   do   not

             relate  to  the  discovery  of  the  knife  in  the

             house of the informant."





                            The   same   were   thereafter   restated   in



     another   judgment   of   this   Court   reported   in   2004



     (10) SCC 657 Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan.





     30.       The   doctrine   of   circumstantial   evidence   was



     once again discussed and summarised in 2008 (3) SCC



     210 Sattatiya @Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of



     Maharashtra in the following terms:                        





                 "10.   ..It   is   settled   law   that   an   offence

                 can be proved not only by direct evidence

                 but also by circumstantial evidence where

                 there   is   no   direct   evidence.   The   court

                 can   draw   an   inference   of   guilt   when   all

                 the   incriminating   facts   and   circumstances

                 are found to be totally incompatible with

                 the   innocence   of   the   accused.   Of   course,

                 the   circumstance   from   which   an   inference

                 as   to   the   guilt   is   drawn   have   to   be


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008                           20




                 proved   beyond   reasonable   doubt   and   have

                 to   be   shown   to   be   closely   connected   with

                 the   principal   fact   sought   to   be   inferred

                 from those circumstances".





    31.          As   regards   scope   of   interference   against



    concurrent   findings   of   fact,   powers   under   Article



    136   of   the   Constitution   can   be   exercised,   in   the



    manner   described   in     para   14   of   the   aforesaid



    judgment reproduced hereinbelow:-  





                 "14.     At   this   stage,   we   also   deem   it

                 proper   to   observe   that   in   exercise   of

                 power           under            Article                136                  of          the

                 Constitution,                    this             Court                     will          be

                 extremely loath to upset the judgment of

                 conviction which is confirmed in appeal.

                 However,   if   it   is   found   that   the

                 appreciation   of   evidence   in   a   case,

                 which            is              entirely                    based                        on

                 circumstantial   evidence,   is   vitiated   by

                 serious   errors   and   on   that   account

                 miscarriage                 of          justice                   has                    been

                 occasioned,                 then             the             Court                       will

                 certainly              interfere                  even                 with              the

                 concurrent   findings   recorded   by   the

                 trial   court   and   the   High   Court.   [Bharat

                 Vs. State of M.P. 2003 (3) SCC 106]


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008           21




    32.     After   having   discussed   the   entire   evidence,   we



    have no doubt in our mind that the same is vitiated



    by   serious   errors   and   if   Appellant's   conviction   is



    upheld   then   it   would   amount   to   miscarriage   of



    justice.





    33.     In   the   light   of   the   aforesaid   well   settled



    principles   of   law   by   several   authorities   of   this



    Court,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the   judgment   and



    order   of   conviction   as   recorded   by   Trial   Court   and



    confirmed   by   High   Court   in   Appellants   appeals



    cannot   be   sustained   in   law.   The   same   are,



    therefore,   hereby   set   aside   and   quashed.   Appeals



    are   allowed.   Appellants   are   acquitted   of   the



    charges   levelled   against   them.   The   Appellants   be



    set   at   liberty,   if   not   required   in   any   other



    criminal cases.





                                         .....................J.

                                             [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY]

     


Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2008         22




                                          ....................J.

                                            [DEEPAK VERMA]

     New Delhi

     July 13, 2011