Judgment · Supreme Court

house of the accused is really no evidence in the eye of A law. So far as the blood stains are concerned medical examination revealed that the deceased ladies had 'B' blood group while deceased boys had '0' blood group. Merely because blood stains were found on the jersey of the accused from septic tank in the house of the accused 8 and burnt pant, that is inconsequential since his blood group is also 'B'. The trial court observed that the weapon used was stone whereas the weapon recovered from the septic tank is stated to be 'Kadbatodi'. No finger printing was done. Though the blood of the accused was collected the same was not sent for chemical analyzer. [Paras 15- C 16 and 17] [65-F; 66-C] . 2.1 Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found 0 to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. [Para 6] [62-A-B]

2.2 The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be E closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. [Para 6] [62-C-D]

2.3 ·Before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, the conditions which must be fully established, are: (1) the circumstances from which F the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they G should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5)there must be a chain of evidence so H 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R A 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. [Para 13] [64-G-H; 65-A-D] ' ' - Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063, B Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State of U. P v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224, Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M. P AIR 1989 SC 1890; Bhagat Ram v. State of C Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P 1996 (10) SCC 193: Pada/a Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79, State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Cr/.LJ 1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622; D State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. ?003 (11) SCC 261; Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of A.P 2008 (10) SCR 89; Manive/ and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2009 (9) JT 31 - relied on. "Wills Circumstantial Evidence' by Sir Alfred Wills E (Chapter VI) - referred to.

#3. In a case of gruesome murder, police protection should be given to witnesses so that they can depose freely. Unless that is done result would be that justice would not be done to the victim. The accused persons F with money and power can trample any witness who dares to depose against them. The victor will be injustice and it would be a slur on the criminal justice system if it so happens. [Para 18] [66-C-D] Case Law Refernece AIR 1977 SC 1063 Relied on. AIR 1956 SC 316 Relied on. AIR 1983 SC 446 Relied on. AIR 1985 SC 1224 Relied on. Para 6 Para 6 Para 6 Para 6 G H STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MANGILAL 53 AIR 1987 SC 350 Relied on. AIR 1989 SC 1890 Relied on.