SHARMA v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Arakshi Kendra City

Judgment

#1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.12.2022 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazaar, District Balodabazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 91/2019, whereby the appellants have been convicted and 2 sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 06 months.

#2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.09.2019, complainant Hari Kumar Yadav (PW-1), while proceeding on his motorcycle to deliver milk, noticed deceased Santosh Kumar Yadav lying dead on the roadside near his motorcycle, along with the milk container. He thereafter informed the police, pursuant to which merg intimation Ex.P/24 was recorded, and FIR Ex.P/1 was registered against unknown persons. During investigation, the prosecution alleged that the appellants Kartik Yadav and Shivram Yadav had a previous quarrel with the deceased and had threatened him with dire consequences, and that immediately before the occurrence they had chased the deceased when he left his house for selling milk. The prosecution further alleged that pursuant to the memorandum of appellant Kartik, a broken knife-handle was seized from him, which corresponded with the knife blade recovered from the place of occurrence, and that human blood was also found on the clothes seized from appellant Kartik. On the basis of these circumstances, the prosecution alleged that the appellants had caused the death of deceased Santosh Kumar Yadav by inflicting injuries with a sharp-edged knife.

The FIR for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the IPC was registered against the unknown accused persons on the basis of the report lodged by Hari Kumar Yadav (PW-1). The merg intimation 3 Ex.P/24 was recorded during the course of investigation, and thereafter the inquest proceedings were conducted. The dead body of the deceased Santosh Kumar Yadav was sent for post-mortem examination, wherein the doctor found multiple injuries on his body and opined that the cause of death was homicidal in nature. The blood- stained and plain soil were seized from the spot, and the spot map was also prepared. During investigation, the appellants were apprehended on 03.09.2019, and their memorandum statements were recorded. Pursuant to the memorandum of appellant Kartik Yadav, a broken knife-handle was seized from his possession, which, according to the prosecution, corresponded with the knife blade recovered from the place of occurrence. The clothes of appellant Kartik were also seized, and the FSL report revealed the presence of human blood thereon. The prosecution also relied upon the alleged previous quarrel and threats extended by the appellants to the deceased and their alleged conduct of following the deceased shortly before the occurrence.

#4. The accused persons were arrested on 03.09.2019, and their memorandum statements were recorded. Pursuant to the memorandum of appellant Kartik Yadav, a broken knife-handle was seized from his possession, whereas certain clothes and other articles were also seized during the course of investigation. The broken knife- handle so seized from appellant Kartik was subsequently examined in comparison with the knife blade recovered from the place of occurrence, and the prosecution relied upon the opinion that both parts corresponded with each other. The seized articles, including the clothes of appellant Kartik, the knife-handle and the knife blade, were sent for forensic examination. As per the prosecution case, human 4 blood was detected on the shirt and jeans of appellant Kartik. The prosecution further relied upon the fact that the broken knife-handle recovered from appellant Kartik matched with the knife blade recovered from the spot. However, the forensic evidence did not conclusively establish that the human blood found on the clothes of appellant Kartik was that of deceased Santosh Kumar Yadav.

#5. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded, and after completion of the usual investigation, the charge- sheet was filed against the appellants before the learned Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC.

#6. The case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Balodabazaar, from where the same was transferred for its trial to the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazaar. The learned Trial Court framed charges against appellant Kartik Yadav for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and against appellant Shivram Yadav for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the IPC. The appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial.

#7. In order to prove the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses. Statements of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the offence.

#8. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the 5 appellants for the offences under Sections 302 and 302/34 of the IPC, respectively, as has been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

#9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that there is no reliable eyewitness to the alleged occurrence, as Harichand Yadav (PW-7) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile, while Ramkumar Yadav (PW-5), though claiming in his examination-in-chief to have witnessed the occurrence, admitted in cross-examination that he had not seen the incident. He would further submit that the conviction rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence, but the alleged previous quarrel and threats, recovery of the broken knife-handle from appellant Kartik and the alleged presence of human blood on his clothes do not constitute a complete chain of circumstances connecting the appellants with the murder, particularly when the prosecution has failed to establish that the blood found on Kartik's clothes was that of the deceased. There is also no cogent and reliable evidence connecting appellant Shivram with the actual commission of the offence. Thus, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the appellants and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserve to be acquitted.

#10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable 6 doubt. He would submit that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, read as a whole, clearly establishes the circumstances connecting the appellants with the commission of the offence. The prosecution has proved the previous quarrel and threats extended by the appellants to the deceased and their conduct of following the deceased shortly before the occurrence. The broken knife-handle was recovered from appellant Kartik pursuant to his memorandum, which corresponded with the knife blade recovered from the place of occurrence, and human blood was also found on the clothes of appellant Kartik. The prosecution has further established that the deceased sustained multiple injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon and that his death was homicidal in nature. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, has rightly found that the circumstances form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the appellants. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality; therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be dismissed.

#11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court.

#12. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration would be as to the nature of death of the deceased. The learned Trial Court, while considering the nature of death of deceased Santosh Kumar Yadav, relied upon the medical evidence on record, according to which the deceased had sustained multiple injuries and his death was homicidal in nature. The prosecution witnesses, including Hari Kumar 7 Yadav (PW-1) and other witnesses, also deposed regarding the condition of the deceased when his dead body was found at the place of occurrence.

#13. PW-15 Dr. Kalyan Singh stated in his evidence that on 03.09.2019, he conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Santosh Kumar Yadav and found multiple injuries on his body. On external examination, he found two wounds each on the right and left side of the chest, two injuries on the left shoulder, injuries on the front and back of the left arm, and a penetrating injury on the left side of the neck below the ear. On internal examination, both lungs were congested and injured, and injuries were also found on the heart, which were penetrating in nature.

#14. The doctor opined that the cause of death was shock due to syncope and excessive haemorrhage and that the nature of death was homicidal. He further opined that the death had occurred approximately 6 to 18 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. His post-mortem report is Ex.P/19. In cross-examination, his evidence regarding the injuries found on the body of the deceased and the cause and nature of death could not be shaken. The learned Trial Court, therefore, rightly relied upon the evidence of the doctor, who is an expert witness, and held that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. In our considered opinion also, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court regarding the homicidal nature of the death does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, and we concur with the same.

#15. So far as the involvement of the appellants in the offence in question is 8 concerned, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the circumstantial evidence relating to the conduct of the appellants immediately prior to the occurrence, the previous quarrel and threats extended by them to the deceased, their following the deceased when he left for Balodabazaar for selling milk, and the subsequent recovery of the knife-handle and other articles. The prosecution has examined Hari Kumar Yadav (PW-1), Lokeshwari Yadav (PW-2), Munni Bai (PW-3), Rohit Devangan (PW-4), Ramkumar Yadav (PW-5), Harichand Yadav (PW-7), Digeshwari Yadav (PW-8), Roshan Sahu (PW-9) and Kesari Yadav (PW-10), amongst others, in support of its case.

#16. PW-1, Hari Kumar Yadav, who is the uncle of the appellant and brother of the deceased, stated in his evidence that on the date of the incident, when he came back from his duty, the persons of the vicinity called him and informed him that his brother had met with an accident. When he went to the spot, he saw, in the torchlight of his mobile phone, that the motorcycle of the deceased was parked there and, near the road, the dead body of his brother was lying. Injuries were also seen on his body. Thereafter, he lodged the report at Police Station Balodabazar, which is Ex.P/1. In cross-examination, he admitted that the persons of the vicinity had informed him that his brother Santosh had met with an accident. He admitted that, till the time of lodging the report, he was unaware of the nature of death of his brother.

#17. PW-2, Lokesharwari Yadav, is the sister of the appellant Shivram and the deceased Santosh. She stated in her evidence that on the date of the incident, there was a quarrel between the appellant, the deceased 9 and her sister-in-law. The accused Shivram alleged Tonahi against her sister-in-law, and a meeting was also called on the next day of the Pola festival. The persons who were present in the meeting tried to convince them not to quarrel, and on that day, her brother Shivram threatened the deceased Santosh that he would cut him into pieces. On the next day, her brother Shivram and nephew Kartik came there. Kartik was armed with a knife, and they threatened that if Hari Chand came outside the house, they would kill him. Hari Chand did not come out of the house, and her younger brother Santosh came out. He had gone to sell the milk by motorcycle and was chased by the appellants, saying that they would kill him. Thereafter, they killed her brother. In cross- examination, she denied that on the date of the incident, she had gone to the village. She voluntarily stated that on that day, she was at her parents' house. She expressed her ignorance as to whether her brother Hari Kumar had gone to the Police Station for lodging the report. She voluntarily stated that, till that time, she was unaware of the incident. She denied that her brother Santosh had died due to an accident. From the evidence of this witness, it clearly reveals that on the date of the incident, there was a quarrel between the appellants and the deceased, and they chased the deceased while armed with a knife, and immediately thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found in an injured condition.

#18. PW-3, Munni Bai, is also another sister of the appellant Shivram and the deceased Santosh. She too has stated that at the time of the Teeja Pola festival, she came to her parents' house to enjoy the festival. At that time, the appellants were abusing the deceased Santosh. When she came out of the house, she saw that appellant Kanti was holding a 10 knife in his hand, and both the appellants together threatened the deceased Santosh that they would kill him. The deceased Santosh had gone to sell the milk by his motorcycle and was being chased by the appellants on their motorcycle. On the next day, she came to know about the incident. In cross-examination, she denied that on the date of the incident, she was not at her parents' house, and she voluntarily stated that to celebrate the Teeja festival, she had come to her parents' house. She admitted that she had not heard the hurling of abuses by the accused persons.

#19. PW-4, Rohit Dewangan, has stated in his evidence that at the time of the Pola festival, at about 04:00 PM, the appellant Shivram was hurling abuses near the house of the deceased and raising an allegation against the wife of Hari Chand that she was playing Tonahi. On the next day, there was a meeting called by Hari Chand to convince the appellant not to raise the allegation of Tonahi, and the appellants were convinced by the persons who were present in the meeting. He too was present in the meeting and was acquainted with all the affairs. On the day of the Teeja festival, at about 06:30 PM, the appellants came to the house of the deceased on their motorcycle and exhorted Hari Chand and Santosh to come out from their house, saying that they would kill them, and they were having knives with them. The appellant Kartik was having a knife in his hand, which he had seen. At about 07:00 PM, Santosh came out from his house and went to distribute milk on his motorcycle. He was being chased by the appellants on their own motorcycle. After half an hour, the villagers informed that Santosh had met with an accident. When Hari Kumar and his nephew had gone to the place, they came to know that Santosh had been murdered. At 11 this stage, this witness was declared hostile, and thereafter, on being questioned by the prosecution, he admitted that he had disclosed in his police statement that he had raised suspicion that the appellants had committed the murder of the deceased because they had chased him. In cross-examination, he denied that at the time when the appellants were abusing the wife of Hari Chand and Santosh, he was not there. Whereas, he voluntarily stated that at that time, he was standing in front of his house. He denied that he was a tutored witness and had deposed at the instance of Hari Kumar. He further admitted that since he had seen the knife in the hand of appellant Kartik from some distance, he could not say as to whether the said knife was a vegetable-cutting knife or any other knife.

#20. PW-5, Ram Kumar Yadav, is the cousin brother of the appellant Kartik Yadav and nephew of the appellant Shivram Yadav. He stated in his evidence that his mother, Suniti Bai Yadav, had gone to her parents' house to celebrate the Teeja festival. On 02.09.2019, at about 06:00 PM, his maternal aunt had a talk with his mother through the mobile phone of Hari Chand. His mother informed him that his maternal uncles were quarrelling and that she was not feeling well, and asked him to take her back. Then, he reached at about 07:00 PM at village of Puraina Khadi. When he reached there, his maternal uncle Hari Chand asked him to accompany him to go to Balodabazar because Shiv Yadav and his son Kartik Yadav had threatened Santosh Yadav to kill him and chased him armed with a knife. They proceeded towards Balodabazar from Puraina Khadi and, on the way, they saw, in the headlight of the motorcycle, that Shiv Yadav had caught hold of the hand of Santosh Yadav and the appellant Kartik Yadav was assaulting 12 the deceased Santosh. After seeing the headlight of their motorcycle, Kartik and Shivram fled away on their motorcycle towards Balodabazar. When they parked their motorcycle and reached near Santosh, they saw that he had received 4-5 knife injuries on his body and had already died. Thereafter, they informed the other family members by phone and stayed there till the other persons came. They also informed the police, and thereafter, the police proceedings started. In cross-examination, he admitted that on the date of the incident, he had left his mother at village Purena Khapri to celebrate the Teeja festival. He came to know about the incident through his mother, who informed him through phone. He further admitted that he had not seen the incident. From the evidence of this witness, though the actual incident of assault has been shaken by the defence, the previous quarrel between the appellant and the deceased could not be rebutted in the cross-examination of this witness, which has been corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses.

#21. PW-6, Om Shankar Sahu, is a villager. He stated in his evidence that he was informed by Hari Chand that his brother had met with an accident between Purena Khapri and Balodabazar road. When he went to the spot, he saw a mob of persons. This witness was declared hostile, and thereafter, he stated that when he went to the spot, the deceased Santosh was lying dead. Since it was a dark night, he could not see the injuries on his body. In cross-examination also, he did not support the prosecution case.

#22. PW-7, Harichand Yadav, is the brother of the appellant Shivram and the deceased Santosh. He stated in his evidence that on the date of 13 the incident, his brother Santosh had gone to Balodabazar from Khapri on his motorcycle for selling milk. On the way, he met with an accident, which was informed to him by villagers Roshan and Jaggu. When he came to the spot, he saw that his brother’s head was lying in the water of the field. He could not see any injury on his body. At this stage, he too was declared hostile and, upon leading questions being asked by the prosecution, he admitted that on the day of the Pola festival, his elder brother Shivram Yadav had abused his wife on the allegation of being a Tonahi. He did not know that, at that time, Santosh had raised an objection and sent them back. He denied the subsequent conduct of the appellants and the deceased and also denied that any village meeting had been called. He further denied the threat allegedly given by the appellants to the deceased and that they had chased him while being armed with a knife.

#23. PW-8, Digeshwari Yadav, is the wife of the deceased Santosh. She stated in her evidence that on the date of the incident, her husband Santosh Yadav proceeded towards Balodabazar from their village on his motorcycle for selling milk. The appellants chased him on their own motorcycle. On the day of the Pola festival, the appellant Shivram had come to her house in a drunken state and abused her mother-in-law. At that time, her husband came there, stopped them, and requested them not to abuse her, as guests had come to their house for the festival. In the evening, he came there and threatened her husband, Santosh, that he would cut him into pieces and that he would face the consequences. In her cross-examination, she reaffirmed that the appellant had threatened her husband with dire consequences. She remained unshaken in her allegation that immediately before the 14 incident, the appellants had abused and threatened the deceased with dire consequences, that they chased him, and that immediately thereafter, her husband was murdered.

#24. PW-10, Keshari Yadav, is the niece of the deceased as well as the appellant Shivram. She too has stated in her evidence that at the time of the Teeja festival, she came to village Purena Khapri to celebrate Teeja and, at that time, the appellant Shivram and Kartikram came to her house and abused her uncle Santosh, hurling a knife and threatening that they would kill him. At about 07:00 PM, when the deceased Santosh proceeded towards Balodabazar on his motorcycle for selling milk, immediately thereafter, the villagers informed them that Santosh Yadav had met with an accident at the Balodabazar bypass road. Her family members immediately proceeded to the place of the incident and, on the next morning, she came to know that Santosh Yadav had died. Since the appellant had threatened Santosh, she raised suspicion that they had committed his murder. This witness too was declared hostile and thereafter stated that at about 06:30 PM on the date of the incident, the appellant was hurling abuses and threatening the deceased that they would cut him into pieces. They were having knives with them and, at the time when they were threatening the deceased, she, Lokeshwari and Munni Bai were present there, and they saw that the accused persons chased the deceased. In cross-examination, she denied that at the time of the incident, she was at her matrimonial house. She also denied that she had deposed at the instance of her family members. She further admitted that there was no partition of the family property and that the property of her father was recorded in the name of the appellant 15 Shivram.

#25. PW-11, Lalit Kumar, had also reached the spot when he heard about the incident. He saw that the dead body of the deceased Santosh was lying on the side of the road, with his face inside the mud of the field, and his motorcycle was lying on the side of the road. He could not see any injuries on the body of the deceased. There was a village meeting just before the incident with respect to the dispute between the deceased and the appellant. Nothing substantive was found in his further examination and cross-examination, and he was also declared hostile and did not duly support the prosecution case.

#26. Further, merely being closely related to the deceased or a relative of the deceased cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of an eyewitness. In the case of Dharnidhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 7 SCC 759, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “12.There is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In Jayabalan v. UT of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC 199, this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 213, paras 23-24) “23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence 16 given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.”

#13. Similar view was taken by this Court in Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P., (2010) 1 SCC 722, where the Court stated the dictum of law that a close relative of the deceased does not, per se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing the conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before the court only with that intention and not to further the cause of justice. The law relating to appreciation of evidence of an interested witness is well settled, according to which, the version of an interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same.”

#27. The main question which arises for consideration is as to whether the learned trial Court was justified in recording the finding of guilt against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 302/34 of the IPC, respectively. At the outset, the homicidal nature of the death of deceased Santosh Kumar Yadav stands firmly established from the evidence of PW-15 Dr. Kalyan Singh and the post-mortem report Ex.P/19. The doctor found multiple injuries on the body of the deceased, including injuries on both sides of the chest, shoulder, arm and neck, with corresponding internal injuries to the lungs and heart. The cause of death was opined to be shock due to syncope and excessive haemorrhage and the nature of death was homicidal. The medical evidence has remained unshaken in cross- examination and there is no material on record to suggest that the deceased died otherwise than as a result of the injuries sustained by him. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court regarding the homicidal nature of the death is fully supported by the medical evidence and calls for no interference.

#28. The more important question is with regard to the involvement of the 17 present appellants in the commission of the offence. The prosecution case is mainly based upon circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the circumstances proved by the prosecution are required to be considered cumulatively. In this regard, the evidence of PW-2 Lokeshwari Yadav, PW-3 Munni Bai, PW-4 Rohit Dewangan, PW-8 Digeshwari Yadav and PW-10 Keshari Yadav assumes significance. Their evidence establishes that immediately preceding the occurrence there was a dispute between the appellants and the deceased arising out of the allegation made by appellant Shivram against the family members of the deceased, pursuant to which a village meeting was convened. The witnesses have further stated that the appellants extended threats to the deceased, including threats to kill him, and that on the date of occurrence they came to the house of the deceased armed with knives. Thereafter, when the deceased proceeded towards Balodabazar on his motorcycle for selling milk, the appellants chased him on their motorcycle. These circumstances are not isolated allegations of a single witness; rather, they find substantial corroboration in the testimony of several witnesses. The evidence of PW-8 Digeshwari Yadav, wife of the deceased, is particularly relevant as she has consistently stated that appellant Shivram had threatened the deceased with dire consequences and that the appellants thereafter chased him. Her testimony on these material aspects has remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination.

#29. The evidence of PW-4 Rohit Dewangan and PW-10 Keshari Yadav also lends corroboration to the aforesaid circumstances. Though both witnesses were declared hostile, it is well settled that the testimony of a 18 hostile witness is not liable to be rejected in its entirety and the portion which is found trustworthy and corroborated by other evidence can be relied upon. PW-4 has admitted the presence of the appellants near the house of the deceased, the threats extended by them, the fact that appellant Kartik was carrying a knife and that the appellants chased the deceased after he proceeded towards Balodabazar. Likewise, PW- 10 has supported the material circumstance that the appellants threatened the deceased while carrying knives and thereafter chased him. PW-2 and PW-3 have also spoken about the earlier dispute, the threats and the conduct of the appellants. PW-11 Lalit Kumar has further stated regarding the village meeting which had taken place in connection with the dispute between the deceased and the appellants. Thus, even after excluding those portions of the evidence which are either inconsistent or affected by hostility, the core circumstances regarding the prior dispute, threats, possession of knives and following of the deceased remain established.

#30. The aforesaid oral evidence is further corroborated by the subsequent recovery of the broken knife-handle at the instance of appellant Kartik pursuant to his memorandum statement. The prosecution has established that the broken knife-handle so recovered corresponded with the knife blade recovered from the place of occurrence. The medical evidence also establishes that the injuries sustained by the deceased were penetrating injuries consistent with the use of a sharp- edged weapon. Further, human blood was detected on the shirt and jeans of appellant Kartik. We are conscious that the FSL report does not conclusively establish that the blood detected on the clothes of appellant Kartik was that of deceased Santosh Kumar Yadav and, 19 therefore, this circumstance by itself cannot be treated as conclusive proof of guilt. However, it is a relevant circumstance which has to be considered along with the other circumstances proved by the prosecution. The recovery of the corresponding knife-handle assumes greater significance in the backdrop of the evidence that appellant Kartik was carrying a knife immediately before the deceased left his house and that the appellants chased the deceased shortly before his homicidal death.

#31. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has failed to produce any reliable eyewitness to the actual assault also does not, in the facts of the present case, persuade us to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants. It is true that PW-5 Ram Kumar Yadav, after initially stating that he had seen appellant Shivram holding the deceased and appellant Kartik assaulting him, admitted in cross-examination that he had not actually witnessed the incident. Therefore, his testimony cannot safely be treated as direct eyewitness evidence of the assault. Similarly, PW-7 Harichand Yadav and PW-6 Om Shankar Sahu did not support the prosecution case in its entirety and were declared hostile. However, the prosecution case is not founded solely upon the testimony of these witnesses. The evidence of the other witnesses regarding the circumstances immediately preceding the occurrence, the medical evidence, the recovery of the weapon-related article and the subsequent homicidal death of the deceased has to be considered as a whole. The discrepancies and omissions relied upon by the defence do not, in our opinion, destroy the material circumstances proved by the prosecution.

#32. It is also significant that the circumstances relied upon by the 20 prosecution are closely connected in point of time and place. The appellants had a dispute with the deceased; they threatened him with death, they came armed with knives, they followed the deceased when he left his house on his motorcycle, and shortly thereafter the deceased was found dead on the roadside with several penetrating injuries. The broken knife-handle recovered from appellant Kartik was subsequently found to correspond with the knife blade recovered from the place of occurrence. These circumstances, when viewed together, cannot be characterised as mere suspicion arising from previous enmity. They constitute a series of facts having a direct bearing upon the occurrence and upon the conduct of the appellants immediately before and after the same. The proximity between the threats, the following of the deceased and his subsequent homicidal death is particularly relevant while assessing the complete chain of circumstances.

#33. So far as the conduct and involvement of the appellants in the commission of the offence are concerned, it is well settled that the previous or subsequent conduct of an accused, having nexus with the fact in issue or relevant fact, is a relevant circumstance under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. In Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, (2023) 13 SCC 563, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the conduct of the accused is not only relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act but may also constitute one of the circumstances for arriving at a conclusion regarding his guilt. “83. In the case in hand, the conduct of the accused is not only relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act but is also one of 21 the major circumstances to arrive at a conclusion about his guilt. Section 8 of the Evidence Act is being reproduced hereinafter: "8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct. Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto." * * *

#85. In a very interesting case of Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay 1959 SCC Online SC 21, this Court, while holding the accused of that case guilty of murder, has touched on the aspects of relevancy of conduct of the accused subsequent to the incident in question, and its inference by the court to decide the guilt and innocence of the accused. Relevant extracts from the aforesaid judgment are quoted hereinbelow: (AIR pp. 505, 510 & 526, paras 15, 31 & 76)

15.... A criminal trial, of course, is not an enquiry into the conduct of an accused for any purpose other than to determine whether he is guilty of the offence charged. In this connection, that piece of conduct can be held to be incriminatory which has no reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis that he is guilty. Conduct which destroys the presumption of innocence can alone be considered as material.…

31.... What inference can be drawn from his conduct after the death of Laxmibai is a matter to be considered by us. And in this connection, we can only say at this stage that if some prior conduct is connected intrinsically, with conduct after death, then motive of the appellant would be very clear indeed. * * *

#76. These arguments, however, are of no avail, in view of the appellant's entire conduct now laid bare, which conduct has been proved to our satisfaction to have begun not after the death of Laxmibai but much earlier. This conduct is so knit together as to make a network of circumstances pointing only to his guilt."

#34. So far as appellant Shivram is concerned, the evidence establishes his 22 active presence and participation along with appellant Kartik immediately prior to the occurrence. The witnesses have consistently attributed to him the previous dispute and the threats extended to the deceased, and have stated that he accompanied appellant Kartik when the deceased was chased. The circumstances therefore cannot be viewed separately merely because the knife-handle was recovered from appellant Kartik. The prosecution has alleged and established the participation of both appellants in the events immediately preceding the occurrence, and the circumstances proved on record indicate their concerted conduct. The learned Trial Court, after considering the entire evidence, has rightly appreciated the role attributed to each appellant and has recorded the respective findings of conviction.

#35. We are also conscious of the settled principle that where a conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be firmly established and all the circumstances, taken cumulatively, must form a complete chain so as to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, we find that the prosecution has established the relevant circumstances through consistent and corroborative evidence. The existence of the dispute, the threats extended by the appellants, their being armed with knives, their following the deceased immediately before the occurrence, the subsequent homicidal death of the deceased, the recovery of the broken knife-handle corresponding with the blade recovered from the spot and the detection of human blood on the clothes of appellant Kartik constitute circumstances which, when considered together, point towards the guilt of the 23 appellants. The chain cannot be broken merely because one or more witnesses did not fully support the prosecution case.

#36. On an overall appreciation of the evidence, we find that the learned Trial Court has undertaken a proper and careful examination of the oral, medical, documentary and forensic evidence. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based upon evidence available on record and cannot be said to be perverse, unreasonable or contrary to the settled principles governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence. The defence has not been able to offer any plausible explanation for the proved circumstances appearing against the appellants. The cumulative effect of the evidence leaves no reasonable alternative hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the appellants. Consequently, we find no justifiable ground to take a view different from that taken by the learned trial Court.

#37. The appeal filed by the appellants is devoid of merit, liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

#38. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They shall undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court.

#39. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme 24 Court Legal Services Committee.

#40. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok