Ranjyotsingh Gurudayalsingh v. The State of Maharashtra

PW 1, a Receptionist on duty at the Hotel. The First Information Report was lodged by PW 1 at 1330 hours on 15th February 2001. 6 The time of the occurrence was alleged to be between 9.30 p.m. on 14th February 2001 and 5.30 a.m. on 15th February 2001. The Appellant and the co-accused had allegedly used assumed names while checking in at the hotel; the names reflected in the Register were Ravi Malhotra and Bhupinder Singh with a fictitious addresses of a place at Sirsa in Haryana. The Appellant was arrested on 23rd March 2001. The co-accused was arrested on 5th April 2001. The accused were committed to trial. The defence was one of total denial.

6. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses. Chief amongst the witnesses were PW 1 Mohnish Patil, PW 2 John Nadar and PW 4 Pradeep Gupta, all of whom were working as receptionists at the hotel. PW 8 Dharamsingh was the father of the deceased, PW 9 Dr.Kalyankar conducted the post mortem. PW 11 Barun Biswas was a waiter at the hotel. PW 12 Vijay Dalvi was the Investigating Officer. By his judgment dated 4th October 2004, the Additional Sessions Judge, convicted both the accused of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment, in terms already noted above. 7

7. On behalf of the Appellant it has been submitted that: (i) In the present case, which is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstance that the Appellant was last seen together with the deceased at the international airport at Delhi on 12th February 2001, is not sufficient to bring home the charge of murder because over sixty hours had elapsed thereafter until the body was found at Mumbai on 15th February 2001. It has been urged that the prosecution has not been able to establish as to what transpired in the interregnum; (ii) The identification of the Appellant by the prosecution witnesses in the Court loses significance, regard being had to the circumstance that one photograph of the Appellant was picked up by the investigating team from his residence in Punjab and was shown to the prosecution witnesses. and (iii) The prosecution had not obtained the opinion of a handwriting expert in respect of the entries in the hotel register when the Appellant and the co-accused are alleged to have checked in on 13th February 2001. 8

8. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the State by the Learned APP that (i) PW 8 Dharamsingh who is the father of the deceased is a truthful witness and his testimony is worthy of credence. PW 8 had given an elaborate account of the events which had transpired between the first meeting of the Appellant and PW 8 where the Appellant had offered to arrange to send the deceased to the U.K., until 12th February 2001 when PW 8 last saw the deceased at the airport with the Appellant; (ii) There is nothing intrinsically unfair or improper about the investigating agency showing a photograph of the accused during the course of investigation. Such a course of action, the Supreme Court has held, is only for ensuring that the investigation is proceeding in the correct direction; would lend support to the identification in Court and take the place of an identification parade; (iii) Coupled with the circumstance that the Appellant was last seen together with the deceased at Delhi international airport on 12th February 2001 is the circumstance that the Appellant has totally failed to explain facts which were within his special knowledge within the 9 meaning of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The Appellant failed to explain when, if at all, he had parted company with the deceased. The defence of total denial in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is positively false and there is no reason to discredit the testimony of PW 8 who was the father of the deceased; (iv) The Appellant has been clearly identified by PW 1, PW 2, PW 4 and PW 11, all of whom were employees at the hotel. The evidence of all these witnesses is cogent and trustworthy.

9. The case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The five golden principles with reference to which the case of the prosecution must be assessed have been enunciated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra ,1 thus: “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. ... (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 1 (1984) 4 SCC (Cri) 116 10 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 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.”

10. While assessing the merits of the rival contentions, it would be necessary at the outset to consider the evidence of Dharamsingh Sandhu (PW 8) who was the father of the deceased. Dharamsingh was 55 years of age and resided at post Jama in the taluka of Dasuga in the district of Hoshiarpur in Punjab. Kuljinder, the deceased, was his only son. PW 8 deposed that about fifteen to twenty days prior to the incident, the Appellant had visited his residence together with Harpal Singh with an offer that he would arrange to send Kuljinder to the U.K. PW 8 stated that the Appellant had represented to him that he was an agent who made arrangements to send Indian citizens 11 abroad. Several meetings took place during which the Appellant assured PW 8 that the work of obtaining a passport for Kuljinder was in progress. According to PW 8, on 11th February 2001, the Appellant came to his residence when an amount of Rs. 3.42 lakhs was paid over to the Appellant. The Appellant stated that the balance should be paid after PW 8 received a phone call from Kuljinder that he had reached the U.K. On 12th February 2001, the Appellant and the co- accused visited the residence of PW 8 and enquired whether Kuljinder was ready to depart. Though an attempt was made to dissuade PW 8 from accompanying him, the Appellant, Kuljinder, PW 8 and the co-accused departed for Delhi by bus and arrived at 5 p.m. They then proceeded to the international airport where they arrived at 7 p.m. The Appellant informed PW 8 that his partner had already gone to Mumbai since the other persons would depart from Mumbai. The Appellant informed PW 8 that Kuljinder would leave Mumbai by a flight departing at 4 a.m. on 15th February 2001. PW 8 deposed that he returned back to his village in Punjab where his wife and daughter resided; the Appellant having informed him that he would be informed 12 of the departure of Kuljinder from Mumbai. On 13th February 2001 after PW 8 reached his village, there was a call from Kuljinder between 8 and 8.30 p.m. informing him that he would be departing from Mumbai on 15th February 2001. On 17th February 2001, PW 8 received a call from a person claiming to be Kuljinder speaking from the U.K. and purporting to inform the father that he had reached his destination. Shortly thereafter, there was a phone from the Appellant to PW 8 informing him that Kuljinder had reached England; asking PW 8 to request his relatives in the U.K. to find him a suitable job and informing him that Kuljinder had spoken on the telephone from a Gurudwara in Birmingham. Two days thereafter, the Appellant made a phone call to PW 8. PW 8 informed the Appellant that the person who had spoken to him on the telephone was not Kuljinder to which the Appellant responded by stating that his voice had changed 'due to a change in the climate in the U.K.' On 23rd February 2001, PW 8 was visited by the Appellant with a demand for money when he was informed that no money would be paid unless a confirmation was received from Kuljinder of his having reached the U.K. Later on the 13 same day, the Police from the Crime Branch of Mumbai came to the residence of PW 8 with a photograph of a dead body which PW 8 identified as the body of his son, Kuljinder.

11. PW 8 was cross-examined at length. PW 8 is a witness of truth. A large part of the cross-examination of PW 8 has been devoted to confronting him with alleged omissions from his statement under Section 164, of the details that were deposed to by him in the course of his evidence. Chief amongst the omissions upon which reliance has been placed is the omission in the statement under Section 164 of a reference to the payment of an amount of Rs. 3.42 lakhs to the Appellant. The clear answer to the submission of the defence is that an FIR is not expected to be an all encompassing compendium of all the details of the crime. The FIR is not an encyclopaedia of details, as the Supreme Court has observed. In the present case, the FIR was lodged by a distraught fifty five year old father from a distant village whose only son was found murdered in a hotel in Mumbai. The Court must not lose sight of the probable 14 mental and physical condition of a bereaved father. Bereaved parents cannot in such situations be expected to discharge the unrealistic expectations of an astute criminal lawyer in a prosecution for the offence at a future date. In the recent judgment in Animireddy Venkata Ramana vs. Public Prosecutor , High Court of Andhra Pradesh,2 the Supreme Court observed thus: “In the first information report all the accused persons were named and overt acts on their part were also stated at some length. Each and every detail of the incident was not necessary to be stated. a first information report is not meant to be encyclopaedic. While considering the effect of some omissions in the first information report on the part of the informant, a court cannot fail to take into consideration the probable physical and mental condition of the first informant. One of the important factors which may weigh with the court is as to whether there was a possibility of false implication of the appellants. Only with a view to test the veracity of the correctness of the contents of the report, the court applies certain well-known principles of caution.” PW 8 deposed that the Investigating Officer had accompanied him to the house of the Appellant and during the course of the search, the Police took a photograph of the Appellant. This aspect of the matter 2 (2008) 5 SCC 368 15 would be considered in greater detail when the question as to the identity of the accused is addressed during the course of this judgment. At this stage, it merits emphasis that the testimony of PW 8 who was the father of the deceased, contains an account of the prior dealings of the Appellant with PW 8 upon a representation that he would arrange for sending Kuljinder abroad. The evidence of PW 8 contains an elaboration of the events which took place culminating in the evening of 12th February 2001 when the Appellant informed PW 8 that Kuljinder would be departing for the U.K. from Mumbai at 4 a.m. on 15th February 2001. PW 8 returned home to his village in Punjab thereafter. There can be no manner of doubt that PW 8 is a witness of truth. There is no reason for PW 8 to depose falsely. The omissions to which a reference has been made by Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant do not discredit the testimony of PW 8. PW 8 identified the Appellant as the person who had visited him repeatedly with an offer to send Kuljinder abroad and with whom the Appellant was last seen together on or about 7 p.m. on 12th February 2001 at Delhi international airport by PW 8. The Appellant had 16 represented to PW 8 that the deceased was being taken by him to Mumbai and that the deceased would be departing from Mumbai at 4 a.m. on 15th February 2001.

12. The next link in the case of the prosecution relates to the circumstances which transpired between 12th February 2001 until the body of the deceased was recovered from the room in hotel Yatree on 15th February 2001. The FIR was lodged by PW 1 Mohnish Patil. PW 1 stated that on 13th February 2001, three guests had checked into Room 303 at the hotel and their names were mentioned in the register maintained at the hotel. PW 1 who was not on duty on 13th February 2001 reported for the first shift on 14th February 2001 and at about 11.30 a.m. all the three guests were about to leave the hotel. PW 1 asked the said three guests as to whether they were going to continue in the room to which he received an affirmative response. One of the three guests whom PW 1 identified as the Appellant herein in Court, deposited an amount of Rs.1200/- against which a receipt was issued. PW 1 identified both the Appellant and the co-accused 17 in Court. On 15th February 2001 PW 1 was again on duty for the first shift. According to him, he received no response from Room 303 between 12.30 p.m. and 12.45 p.m. and sent a waiter upto the room. Again there was no response. PW 1 reported this to the Vakola Police Station. The Police obtained a duplicate key and upon the room being opened, PW 1 found that the third guest who had accompanied the Appellant and the co-accused was lying dead in a pool of blood. PW 1 participated in the identification parade held at the Arthur Road Jail in respect of the Second Accused. Admittedly no identification parade was held in respect of the Appellant. In his complaint to the Police, Exhibit 12, PW 1 has stated the assumed names of the two accused, namely, Ravi Malhotra and Bhupender Singh as reflected in the hotel register. During the course of his cross-examination, PW 1 stated that on 13th February 2001 his further statement was recorded by the Police after he had identified a photograph which was shown to him by the Police.

13. PW 2 John Nadar, was a receptionist at the hotel and 18 reported for the third shift at 10 p.m. on 14th February 2001. His testimony was that between 4.30 a.m. and 4.45 a.m. two customers went out of the hotel when he was at his counter. Upon being asked, both the customers stated that they were not checking out, but were going for a walk and that one other person was sleeping in Room 303. PW 2 identified the two customers who left the hotel as the Appellant and the co-accused in Court. PW 2, like PW 1 was also shown a photograph at the Police Station which he recognized as the photograph of the Appellant. PW 2 participated in the identification parade of the co-accused.

14. PW 4 P.S. Gupta, was serving as a receptionist at the hotel, like PW 1 and PW 2. On 13th February 2001 he was on duty at the Reception Counter in the first shift between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. Between 1.30 and 2 p.m. three customers came to the Reception Counter and booked a room whereupon PW 4 made an entry against the names of the two customers as “2+1”. Two of the customers gave their names as Ravi Malhotra and Bhupender Singh which were 19 accordingly recorded in the register at Entry No.80034 (Exh.19). PW 4 identified the Appellant as the customer who had furnished his name as Ravi Malhotra while checking in at the hotel. After the incident, PW 4 went to Room 303 where he found the dead body of the person who had accompanied the Appellant at the hotel on 13th February 2001. PW 4 accompanied the team of Police officials to the village of the Appellant (village Chitti in Jalandhar District) from where he had absconded. PW 4 deposed that the Police had taken one photograph from a room of a residential house of the Appellant. PW 4 had also identified the Appellant at Vakola Police Station.

15. PW 11 Barun Biswas was a waiter at the hotel. His testimony was that there was no bell boy at the hotel and hence a waiter had to accompany each guest with the key of the room which was alloted to him. He deposed that on 13th February 2001, he had accompanied two customers who had come to the hotel and to whom Room 303 was allotted. Half an hour thereafter one more guest had come to the counter whom PW 1 had sent together with the witness to 20 Room 303. An extra bed was arranged for the third guest. PW 11 deposed that he had seen the occupants of Room 303 again during the course of his duty on 14th February 2001. PW 11 identified the Appellant in Court as the person whom he had seen on 13th February 2001 together with the other occupants who had booked Room 303 at the hotel.

16. The principal ground of challenge to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is that the identification of the Appellant is liable to be discarded because the prosecution witnesses had been shown a photograph of the deceased during the course of investigation. PW 4, as noted earlier, accompanied the team of the Police to the village of the Appellant in the district of Jalandhar. PW 4 deposed that the Police had taken a photograph from one room of the residential house of the Appellant. PW 4 deposed that he had identified the photograph. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 11 have also deposed that they had seen the photograph of the Appellant at the Police Station. The submission before the Court is that this 21 circumstance is in itself sufficient to discredit the identification of the Appellant. In support of the submission, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant relied upon several judgments to which it would be necessary shortly hereafter to turn. On the other hand, the submission of the Learned APP is that there is nothing wrong in the photograph of the Appellant being shown to the witnesses who were employed at the hotel during the course of the investigation and the only object was to see that the investigation was proceeding in the correct direction.

17. In Laxipat Choraria vs. State of Maharashtra,3 the three Appellants were convicted under Section 120B of the Penal Code and Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act on a charge of having entered into a criminal conspiracy to smuggle gold into India. Suitcases containing strips of gold inserted under the lining of the lid were brought into India by an Air hostess who was employed by Air India. PW 1 who had carried the suitcases was examined as a witness and although she could have been prosecuted, she was not 3 AIR 1968 SC 938 22 arraigned as an accused. The evidence of PW 1 was questioned in respect of the identification of two of the accused because she was shown their photographs before her statement was taken. The Supreme Court held that it was in agreement with the principle enunciated in English Cases that the showing of a large number of photographs to the witness and asking him to pick up that of the suspect is a proper procedure but showing one photograph to the witness and asking him whether he was an offender was improper. Showing a photograph prior to the identification would render the identification worthless.

18. In Laxmi Raj Shetty vs. State of Tamil Nadu,4 which was an appeal arising out of a conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code, the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of an identification of the accused by showing a photograph. Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.P. Sen, while delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court observed as follows: 4 (1988) 3 SCC 319 23 “In the world as a whole today, the identification by photograph is the only method generally used by the Interpol and other crime detecting agencies for identification of criminals engaged in drug trafficking, narcotics and other economic offences as also in other international crimes. Such identification must take the place of a test identification.” The Supreme Court held that the identification of the accused from a photograph shown by PW 50 was sufficient to lend support to their identification in the Court. In Ravindra Alias Ravi Bansi Gohar Vs. State of Maharashtra,5 the photographs of the accused were shown to the witnesses who were to identify them in the test identification parade. The Supreme Court held that showing photographs to the witnesses prior to the identification parade vitiated the process: “The identification parades belong to the investigation stage and they serve to provide the investigating authority with materials to assure themselves if the investigation is proceeding on the right lines. In other words, it is through these identification parades that the investigating agency is required to ascertain whether the persons whom they suspect to have committed the offence were the real culprits – and not by showing the suspects or their photographs. Such being the purpose of identification parades, the investigating agency, by showing the photographs of the suspects whom they intended to place in the TI parade, made it farcical. If really the investigating 5 1998 SCC (Cri) 1527 24 agency was satisfied that PWs 2 and 12 did know the appellants from before and they were in fact amongst the miscreants, the question of holding the TI parade in respect of them for their identification could not have arisen.” In Ravi @ Ravichandran V. State Rep. By Inspector of Police,6 photographs of the accused were taken at the Police Station. The Investigating Officer allowed them to be published. According to the prosecution witnesses, they were shown to be the accused in the crime. Some of the witnesses were aware of the publication. A period of ten days elapsed before the holding of an identification parade. The Supreme Court held that a test identification parade was required to be held as early as possible so as to exclude the possibility of the accused being identified at the Police Station or at some other place by the concerned witnesses or with reference to the photographs published in the newspaper and the conviction should not be based on a vague identification.

19. In D.Gopalakrishnan vs. Sadanand Naik,7 the Supreme 6 2007 SAR (Criminal) 507 7 (2005)1 SCC 85 25 Court considered the question as to whether it was permissible to show a photograph to the witness during the course of investigation. The judgment of the Supreme Court is authority for the principle that there are no statutory guidelines governing this field in India and essentially, the Court must consider whether the process followed is consistent with a fair and proper investigation. Showing a photograph during the course of investigation is not an anathema to a fair investigative process. The Supreme Court observed as follows: “There are no statutory guidelines in the matter of showing photographs to the witnesses during the stage of investigation. But nevertheless, the police is entitled to show photographs to confirm whether the investigation is going on in the right direction.” In that case the infirmity noted by the Supreme Court was that album of photographs shown by the investigating officer to the eye- witnesses had names written underneath the photographs. That was held not to be fair and proper: 26 “It appears that the investigating officer procured the album containing the photographs with the names written underneath and showed this album to the eyewitnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC. The procedure adopted by the police is not justified under law as it will affect fair and proper investigation and may sometimes lead to a situation where wrong persons are During the course of the identified as assailants. investigation, if the witness had given the identifying features of the assailants, the same could be confirmed by the investigating officer by showing the photographs of the suspect and the investigating officer shall not first show a single photograph but should show more than one photograph of the same person, if available.”

20. In Yuvraj Ambar Mohite vs. State of Maharashtra,8 in an appeal arising out of a conviction under Section 302, one of the grounds urged before the Supreme Court was that only one photograph of the appellant should not have been shown to the witness in Court. The Supreme Court referred to the judgment in Gopalkrishnan. The submission urged on behalf of the Appellant was not accepted.

21. The position in law which emerges is that: (i) Identification 8 (2006) 12 SCC 512 27 by means of a photograph is used by crime detecting agencies for the identification of criminals, including those whose illegal activities transcend national and geographical boundaries; (ii) Such an identification, when made, takes the place of a test identification; (iii) Showing of a photograph or, when available, more than one photograph during the course of investigation by the Police is to confirm whether the investigation is proceeding in the right direction; (iv) Basic requirements of procedural fairness must be observed; it would hence be impermissible to adopt a technique such as writing the name of the person underneath the photograph which may lead to the identification of a wrong person as the assailant; (v) If a witness has furnished identifying features of the assailants during the course of the investigation, this could be confirmed by the Investigating Officer by showing the photographs of the suspect but the Investigating Officer should not first show a single photograph, but should show more than one photograph if available; (vi) Showing a photograph or photographs to a witness prior to a test identification parade would render the investigation in the T.I. parade meaningless; 28 (vii) There are no statutory guidelines which hold the field in India in this regard and the Court would have to assess in every case as to whether the procedure which has been followed is basically fair or otherwise.

22. Section 9 of the Evidence Act provides that facts which establish the identity of a person whose identity is relevant, in so far as they are necessary for that purpose. In Ronny Alias Ronald James Alwaris vs. State of Maharashtra,9 the Supreme Court held that while the identification of an accused at his trial, is substantive evidence it is, by its very nature, of a weak character. On the other hand, evidence of identification in a test identification parade is not substantive evidence, but is only corroborative evidence which falls in the realm of investigation. Identification in the Court after a long lapse of time render it unsafe to rely upon an uncorroborated piece of such evidence. On the other hand, if a witness is known to the accused in circumstances which lend assurance to the identification in the Court, 9 1998 SCC (Cri) 859 29 there is no reason why, identification of the accused in Court should not be accepted. These principles emerge from the following observation of the Supreme Court : “The statement of the witness made in the court, a fortiori identification by him of an accused is substantive evidence but from its very nature it is inherently of a weak character. The evidence of identification in the TIP is not a substantive evidence but is only corroborative evidence. It falls in the realm of investigation. The substantive evidence is the statement of the witness made in the court. The purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapitulate what he has seen earlier, strength or trustworthiness of the evidence of the identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in court. If a witness identifies the accused in court for the first time after a long time, the probative value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal, so much so that it becomes unsafe to rely on such a piece of evidence. But if a witness has known an accused earlier in such circumstances which lend assurance to identification by him in court and if there is no inherent improbability or inconsistency, there is no reason why his statement in court about the identification of accused should not be relied upon as any other acceptable but uncorroborated testimony.” In Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab,10 the Supreme Court while 10 1994 SCC (Cri) 899 30 striking down the constitutional validity of Section 22 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 held that identification on the basis of a photograph could not be held to have the same value as the evidence of a test identification parade. (paragraphs 360 and 361 page 1035).

23. In the present case, PW 4 accompanied the team of the Police to various places and ultimately to village Chitti of the Appellant in the district of Jalandhar. A photograph of the Appellant was taken from the residential house of the Appellant on 12th March

2001. The Appellant was not part of the identification parade that was held on 10th April 2001. Showing the photograph of the Appellant must be regarded as being to ensure that the investigation was proceeding in the right direction. The showing of the photograph took place on 12th March 2001 during the course of investigation. PWs. 1, 2 and 4 were receptionists in hotel Yatree where the accused- Appellant had checked into on 13th February 2001 under an assumed name together with the co-accused and the deceased. Each of 31 these witnesses had occasion to observe the Appellant and interact with the Appellant in the ordinary course of their duties between the date on which he checked into the hotel and the date of the incident. PW 4 was the receptionist on duty when the Appellant checked into the hotel on 13th February 2001. PW 1 was on duty at the hotel on 14th February 2001 when the Appellant deposited an amount of Rs.1200/-. PW 2 was the receptionist on duty on the night between 14th and 15th February 2001 when the Appellant together with the co- accused left the hotel at about 4.30 a.m. stating that they would return. PW 11, was an employee of the hotel who had acted as bell boy to escort the Appellant into the room when he checked into the hotel on 13th February 2001. Each of the aforesaid witnesses testified to having seen the Appellant at different stages of his stay at the hotel commencing from the check in to the departure.

24. The Appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased by the father of the deceased, PW 8, on 12th February 2001 at Delhi Airport. PW 8 deposed that the Appellant had accompanied 32 him and Kuljinder from his village in Punjab. At Delhi Airport, the Appellant informed PW 8 that he would take Kuljinder to Mumbai from where Kuljinder would depart for the U.K. by a flight which was scheduled to leave at 4 a.m. on 15th February 2001. Now, the only circumstance that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused is not sufficient in itself to establish the guilt of the accused. (Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Inderjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1991 Cri. L.J. 2191 para 2). The significance of the 'last seen' theory is to be assessed with reference to the period of time which has elapsed since when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead. In certain cases, the period that has elapsed since the time that the deceased and the accused were last seen together and the deceased is found dead may be so small that the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. On the other hand, when there is a long gap between the two events, the possibility of a third person having intervened cannot be ruled out. Consequently, in such a case, in the absence of any 33 other positive evidence, it would be hazardous to arrive at a conclusion of guilt. This principle of law has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Satish,11 and in Venkatesan vs. State of Tamil Nadu.12

25. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In several recent decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the principle which underlies Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be applied in the context of the last seen theory when certain facts are especially within the knowledge of a person. In the State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram,13 the Supreme Court held as follows : “Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him 11 2005 SCC (Cri.)642 12 2008 SAR (Criminal) 646 13 (2006) 12 SCC 254 34 by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain.” The Supreme Court followed its earlier judgments in Joseph vs. State of Kerala,14 and Sahadevan vs. State.15 In Joseph' s case, the Supreme Court held as follows : “Of late, courts have, from the falsity of the defence plea and false answers given to court, when questioned, found the missing links to be supplied by such answers for completing the chain of incriminating circumstances necessary to connect the person concerned with the crime committed (see State of Maharashtra v. Suresh,(2000) 1 SCC 471). That missing link to connect the accused- appellant, we find in this case provided by the blunt and outright denial of every one and all the incriminating circumstances pointed out which, in our view, with sufficient and reasonable certainty on the facts proved, connect the accused with the death and the cause for the death of Gracy.”