State of Chhattisgarh v. Panchram Urf Mannu Gendre

Judgment

19/02/2025

#1. The Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2024 is the reference under Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 407(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) made by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the accused- Panchram @ Mannu Gendre, who has been convicted by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Case No. 180 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 363, 364 and 302 of IPC and sentenced for R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 2-2 months and death sentence (subject to confirmation by the High Court) with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 months.

#2. The Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2025 is filed by the appellant/ accused- Panchram @ Mannu Gendre under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against impugned 3 judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2024 passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Case No. 180 of 2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 363, 364 and 302 of IPC and sentenced for R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 2-2 months and death sentence (subject to confirmation by the High Court) with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 months.

#3. Both the Criminal Reference and Criminal Appeal are arising out of the same crime number, same sessions trial and a common judgment. Therefore, both are being heard and decided together.

#4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that, on 05.04.2022, at about 10:00 PM, the mother of the deceased Smt. Pushpa Chetan/PW-1 lodged a missing report that his neighbour Panchram Satnami @ Mannu had taken her two minor sons- Divyansh and Harsh Kumar Chetan, at about 10:00 AM to visit places and after some time, he left Divyansh to her house and again taken Harsh Kumar Chetan with him, but till that time he has not returned back to her house. Despite his search in nearby places, his whereabouts could not be traced out. She described her physic and wearing of her minor son to the police. The report of Smt. Pushpa Chetan/PW-1 was reduced in writing at Police Station Urla, District Raipur, in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 47, dated 05.04.2022, which is Exhibit P-33. FIR/Exhibit P-34 was also registered as Crime No. 140 of 2022 at Police 4 Station Urla, District Raipur, against the appellant/ accused- Panchram Satnami @ Mannu, for the offence under Section 363 of IPC.

#5. During the investigation, the mobile number of the appellant/ accused was collected and was kept under surveillance and after examining its tower location, ultimately, the appellant/accused was traced out and, on the basis of his mobile location, found at Nagpur, Maharashtra, and he was arrested on 07.04.2022 at Nagpur, and the police has taken him to Urla Police Station, Raipur. The appellant/accused was interrogated, and his memorandum statement/ Exhibit P-8 was recorded in the presence of the witnesses Ashish Yadav and Johan Dinkar on 08.04.2022 at 10:00 AM. In his memorandum statement, he disclosed the entire incident and also disclosed that he burnt the deceased near Nevnara and Akoli Khar, and he sold his motorcycle to Kiran Auto, Bhilai. He kept his shirt in his bag, and he was running the mobile SIM number of his mother. On the basis of his memorandum statement, the police proceeded towards the place where the appellant/accused alleged to have committed the murder of the deceased. The police have also called the Forensic Team at the place of the incident through the memo/Exhibit P-36. When the police reached on the spot on

08.04.2022 at about 10:30 AM along with the appellant/accused and witnesses on the pointing out of the appellant, the half-burnt dead body of the deceased was found, which has been seized vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-35. The father of the deceased, namely 5 Jayendra Chetan/PW-2, has identified the dead body of the deceased on the basis of his half-burnt clothes, face and hairs and identified it to be the dead body of his son Harsh Chetan and identification memo/Exhibit P-4 was prepared in the presence of the witnesses.

#6. Notice under Section 175 of CRPC was issued to the witnesses of the inquest, and the inquest/Exhibit P-3 of the dead body of the deceased Harsh Chetan, aged about 4 years, was prepared on

08.04.2022 in the presence of the witnesses and thereafter, the dead body was sent for its postmortem to Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur through the constable No. 102- Abhishek Singh. The postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. M. Nirala/PW-12, who, after its postmortem, gave report/ Exhibit P-5. While conducting the postmortem, the doctor noticed that skin was missing from the left side of the head, face, left side chest and left side abdomen. Dry burns are present on bilateral hands and bilateral foots. Maggots 1.5 cm on all over the body. Skin pilling present. Second to third-degree burns are present all over the body, and total burnt surface area is 100%. After conducting the postmortem, the doctor has opined that the cause of death is burn injuries, final opinion will be given after the viscera report and circumstantial evidence provided by police, duration of death within one week prior to postmortem examination. The viscera of the dead body of the deceased was seized by the police vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-16. 6

#7. The burnt grass along with soil, plain soil, plain grass, one burnt matchstick, one plastic container having the smell of petrol and its cap and a half-burnt piece of towel were seized from the spot on

08.04.2022 vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-10. Spot map/Exhibit P-46 was prepared by the police, and Exhibit P-49 was prepared by the Patwari. One motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04/DS-2363, its RC book, Aadhar card of the appellant- Panchram Satnami and the insurance certificate of the motorcycle have been seized from Kiran Sahu, to whom the motorcycle was sold by the appellant vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-7. From the DVR of CCTV installed in the shop of Kiran Sahu, the CCTV footage was extracted in a pen drive through Bhavesh Rao Wadekar and the said pen drive was seized on 19.04.2022 vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-11. Another CCTV footage was extracted in a pen drive from the DVR of CCTV installed in the house of Rajesh Yadav, Ward No.4, Urla and seized vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-12. In the said CCTV footage, it has reflected that the appellant is taking the deceased with him by his motorcycle. A certificate under Section 65-B has also been obtained from Techzone Infosystems, Pandri, Raipur, which is Exhibit P-12A. Bhavesh Rao Wadekar is the owner of the said Techzone Infosystems, Raipur, who extracted the CCTV footage in the pen drive.

#8. From Smt. Laxmi Koshley, one OPPO mobile phone having SIM card of Idea company bearing No. 7049257021, another Nokia mobile phone having SIM card of Idea company bearing No. 7 7440717348 was seized vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-13. Smt. Laxmi Koshley is the sister of the appellant- Panchram Gendre and both the aforesaid mobile phones were used by her and her son Khuman, in which on 05.04.2022 and 07.04.2022, the appellant called from his mobile phone (registered in the name of his mother) No. 8435934997. Another mobile phone having SIM No. 9753341814 has been seized from Raja Tandon vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-17.

#9. The blood samples of the mother and father of the deceased were collected for the DNA test report, and the same was sent to the State FSL, Raipur, DNA Unit, from where the DNA report/Exhibit P- 22 was received. According to the DNA report, the Jayendra Chetan and Smt. Pushpa Chetan was found to be the biological parents of the deceased Harsh Chetan. The viscera of the dead body, which was seized by the police vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-16 was also sent for its chemical examination to State FSL Raipur, from where the viscera report/Exhibit P-28 was received and no poisonous substance was found in the viscera of the deceased. After obtaining the viscera report, a query was made from the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the dead body, through the memo/Exhibit P-31, which was replied to by Dr. M. Nirala/PW-12 through the query report/Exhibit P-15 and replied that since no poisonous substance was found in the viscera of the deceased and his whole body was burnt. Therefore, the death of the deceased was due to burn injuries and since in the requisition memo, it has 8 been mentioned that on 05.04.2022, at about 10:00 AM, the appellant- Panchram Gendre @ Mannu took the minor Harsh Chetan to village Nevnara and Akoli Khar and committed his murder by pouring petrol and thus in the circumstances, the nature of death would be homicidal.

#10. Dehati Merg Intimation/Exhibit P-1 was recorded on 08.04.2022, at about 11:30 AM. The appellant was arrested on 08.04.2022, and his memorandum statement/Exhibit P-8 was recorded in the presence of the witnesses. On the basis of his memorandum statement, one full shirt having the smell of petrol, and one black colour mobile having two SIM cards Nos. 8435934997 and 7415486855 and cash amount of Rs. 10,150/- have been seized vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-9. The burnt grass and soil, plain grass and soil, burnt matchstick and plastic container, half-burnt piece of towel and one full-shirt seized from the appellant were sent for chemical examination to State FSL, Raipur from where report/Exhibit P-25 was received and in a plastic container and half-burnt towel (Article ‘D’ and ‘E’), the petrol remains were found, however in other articles no petrol remains were there. The call details report of mobile No. 8435934997, which was used by the appellant, has also been obtained by the police vide Exhibit P-50. The photograph of the deceased was also taken, which is Article ‘4’.

#11. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC have been recorded. The statement under Section 164 of CRPC of the brother of the deceased namely Divyansh (Exhibit P-51) was also recorded 9 and after completion of the usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, for the offence under Sections 363, 364 and 302 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Raipur and the same was transferred to the Learned Trial Court for its trial.

#12. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant/accused for the offence under Sections 363, 364 and 302 of IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

#13. In order to prove the charge against the appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses and relied upon 51 documents as Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-51. The statement of the appellant/accused under Section 313 of CRPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances that appeared against him, pleaded innocence and submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the offence. He further submitted that he had taken both the children to eat snacks and thereafter he left them to their house, but at that time, their house was found locked. Their mother had beaten them by danda and at that time, her brother-in- law and uncle were also there.

#14. After appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant/ accused for the alleged offences and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, hence this reference for 10

confirmation of the death sentence as well as appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence.

#15. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2025 would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in the capital offence. There is no eyewitness to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of circumstances is not completed. The CCTV footage obtained by the prosecution itself is doubtful as it shows that the appellant has taken both the children with him and left them in their house after some time and there is no footage that the appellant again took the deceased alone with him. It is only surmises and conjunctures and hypothetical allegations that the appellant has taken the deceased. The last-seen theory could not be proved by the prosecution. Further, the prosecution has also not been able to prove the motive to commit the murder of the deceased against the appellant. The dead body is found in an open place. No remains of petrol have been found on the shirt of the appellant. He would also submit that the mobile call details are not sufficient to conclude the guilt of the appellant in the offence of murder of the deceased. The memorandum statement as well as the alleged seizure made from the appellant has also not been proved as the witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution 11 case. The conduct of the appellant was also not abnormal as he went to Nagpur in search of his job and the police arrested him from Nagpur on suspicion, therefore, there are various missing links from the chain of circumstances and the appellant is entitled to acquittal. He would also submit that the prosecution was under bounden duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, when the prosecution failed to prove its case, it cannot take advantage of the fact that the accused has not been able to probabilise his defence. It is settled law that the prosecution must stand on its own. He would rely upon the judgment of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC

#715. He would further submit that in case it is found that the appellant has committed the murder of the deceased, the offence does not come under the purview of the rarest of the rare and capital punishment of the death sentence cannot be awarded to him.

#16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions and contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is fully reliable, which is sufficient to hold guilty of the appellant in the offence in question. The complete chain of circumstances have been proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and clinching evidence and there is no whisper of doubt that the appellant is not the perpetrator of the crime. On the date of the incident, the 12 appellant had taken the deceased alone with him on his motorcycle but has not returned back. The appellant, after committing the murder of the deceased near village Nevnara and Akoli Khar, sold his motorcycle to one Kiran Sahu and went to Nagpur. He was using the mobile number of his mother by purchasing a new mobile phone and he could be arrested from Nagpur. The dead body was recovered on his instance from the village Nevnara and Akoli Khar. The motive has also been proved by the prosecution that the appellant had an evil eye upon the mother of the deceased, but she was not interested in him, which gives cause to commit the offence of murder of her son. From the postmortem report, the burn injuries were antemortem, which itself shows the brutality of the offence which the appellant has committed, for which the death penalty is only the appropriate punishment for the appellant, which the learned trial Court has rightly considered in its judgment of conviction and sentence. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and gravity of the offence, which needs no interference.

#17. He would further submit that the manner in which the appellant has committed the murder of a minor boy by causing antemortem burn injuries, can be said to be a rarest of rare case, and there is no chance of reformation of the appellant and he is burdened to the society, therefore, imprisonment for life or other sentence is completely inadequate, only the death sentence would be 13 appropriate punishment, which has rightly been awarded to him. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2019) 7 SCC 781.

#18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also gone through the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspections.

#19. The dead body of the deceased was found in burnt condition between Nevnara and Akoli Khar in the field, though the death of the deceased is prima facie appears unnatural, it is necessary to deal with the evidence which proves that the deceased died due to antemortem burn injuries. To determine the nature of the death of the deceased, the most important witness is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. PW- 12/Dr. M. Nirala, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body, stated in his evidence that on 08.04.2022, the dead body of the deceased was brought before him for its postmortem and the dead body was identified by Jayendra Chetan, Devendra Chetan and constable Abhishek Singh. On being external examination, he found that the dead body of a male child covered with a black polythene and white cloth, a foul smell was present on over body, blackish discoloured due to burn and decomposition on over body, skin missing from left side head, face, left side chest and left side abdomen, dry burn present on bilateral hands and bilateral foots, maggots 1.5 cm on all over body, skin pilling present, second to 14 third-degree burn present on all over body and total burn surface area 100%. On being internal examination, the skull bone and meninges intact. The diaphragm, ribs and trachea were intact, shoot particles were present in the trachea and both lobes of the lungs were intact. Since shoot particles are present in the trachea, the burn injuries are antemortem. The viscera was preserved for its chemical examination and opined that (i) the cause of death is burn injuries, (ii) final opinion will be given after the viscera report and circumstantial evidence provided by police, (iii) the duration of death within one week prior to postmortem examination.

#20. When the viscera report/Exhibit P-21 was received by the police, they made a query to the doctor with respect to the nature of death, and the doctor has opined vide its query report/Exhibit P-15 that in the viscera of the deceased, no poisonous substance was found and the whole body of the deceased was burnt and thus the death of the deceased was due to burn injuries and the circumstances suggests that his death was homicidal in nature. In his cross- examination, though he stated that he could not explain the basis on which he stated that the burn area on the body of the deceased is 100%, that itself does not affect his credibility and the post- mortem report that the death of the deceased was not homicidal but for some other reason.

#21. The dead body was duly identified by Jayendra Chetan/PW-2, who is the father of the deceased and he identified the dead body by his face, clothes, and hairs and proved the identification memo/Exhibit 15 P-4. From the DNA report/Exhibit P-22, the complainant Pushpa Chetan/PW-1 and Jayendra Chetan/PW-2 were proved to be the biological parents of the deceased Harsh Chetan, whose dead body was found on the spot and whose death was proved to be homicidal in nature. It is also not specifically denied by the appellant/accused that the dead body found on the spot is not the dead body of Harsh Chetan and belongs to someone else.

#22. Further, from the Dehati Merg Intimation/Exhibit P-1, inquest/Exhibit P-3, dead body identification panchnama/Exhibit P-4, it is duly proved by the prosecution that the deceased Harsh Chetan was missing since 05.04.2022 and whose dead body was found on

08.04.2022 from Nevnara and Akoli Khar in half-burnt condition and whose death was found to be homicidal. The learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and holds the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, on which we also impress our concurrence.

#23. The prosecution’s case based on circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances are; (i) Last seen together, (ii) Conduct of the appellant, (iii) Recovery of the dead body on the instance of the accused person, (iv) Call details of the mobile phone numbers, (v) Motive, (vi) CCTV footage, and (vii) Non-explanation of the incriminating circumstances appears against him in 313 CRPC statement. 16

#24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Vs. State of Kerala, 2012 (2) SCC 399 has held in paragraph 5 that: “5. The care and caution with which circumstantial evidence has to be evaluated stands recognized by judicial precedent. Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination that the inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion. In the absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt.”

#25. In the matter of Digambar Vaishnav and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 (4) SCC 522, the Hon’ble supreme Court has held:- “14. One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that the burden of proof squarely rests on the prosecution and that the general burden never shifts. There can be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it may be. Strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. The onus of the prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion 17 and existence of highly suspicious factors to inculpate the accused nor falsity of defence could take the place of proof which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed, though a false plea by the defence at best, be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances unfailingly point to the guilt.

#15. This Court in Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, (1991) 3 SCC 27, has held that even if the offence is a shocking one, the gravity of offence cannot by itself overweigh as far as legal proof is concerned. In cases depending highly upon the circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court has to be watchful and ensure that the conjecture and suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused.

#16. In order to sustain the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the following three conditions must be satisfied: i.) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 18 ii.) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and iii.) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.

#17. In Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 745, this Court has held that suspicion is not the substitute for proof. There is a long distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

#18. In Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406, this Court, while examining the distinction between 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' and 'suspicion' has held as under: "13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that “may be” proved, and something that “will be proved”. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for 19 the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense". 20

#26. In the matter of Nagendra Sah Vs. State of Bihar, 2021 (10) SCC 725 in paragraphs 17 and 18 replying upon the golden principles enumerated in the case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “17. As the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, we may make a useful reference to a leading decision of this Court on the subject. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra2, in paragraph 153, this Court has laid down five golden principles (Panchsheel) which govern a case based only on circumstantial evidence. Paragraph 153 reads thus : - “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved” 21 as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where following observations were made: 19…..Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they 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, (5) 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.” (emphasis added). 22

#18. Paragraphs 158 to 160 of the said decision are also relevant which read thus : “158. It may be necessary here to notice a very forceful argument submitted by the Additional Solicitor-General relying on a decision of this Court in Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, to supplement his argument that if the defence case is false it would constitute an additional link so as to fortify the prosecution case. With due respect to the learned Additional Solicitor- General we are unable to agree with the interpretation given by him of the aforesaid case, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus: 9…….But in a case like this where the various links as started above have been satisfactorily made out circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, . . . such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain."

#159. It will be seen that this Court while taking into account the absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to 23 complete the chain but these observations must be read in the light of what this Court said earlier, viz., before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied : (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (2) the said circumstance points to the guilt the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation.

#160. If these conditions are fulfilled only then a court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the court and not otherwise. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, this does not appear to be such a case. This aspect of the matter was examined in Shankarlal case where this Court observed thus: 30……..Besides, falsity of defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea can at best be considered as an additional circumstance, if 24 other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused." (emphasis added)”

#27. In the matter of para Surendra Kumar and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 (20) SCC 430, the Hon’ble supreme Court has held in 11 and 12 that:- “11. As the case against the appellants is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to determine whether the available evidence lead only to the conclusion of guilt and exclude all contrary hypothesis. The enunciation on the law of circumstantial evidence stood the test of time since Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1 where Mahajan J., has written as under:- “10…………It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a 25 conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act have been done by accused……………”

#12. The nature, character and essential proof required in criminal cases was discussed in detail by Fazal Ali J in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra2 and the proposition of law culled out on circumstantial evidence was approved in many subsequent judgments and was recently reiterated by Krishna Murari J., writing the opinion for a three Judges Bench in