✦ High Court of India

State v. Rajbahadur) and Session Trial No

Case Details

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104278-DB Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2217 of 2014 Appellant :- Rajbahadur Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Nigam,Syed Imran Ibrahim ,Amicus Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. This appeal is by the accused appellant challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 26.3.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat, in Session Trial No. 179 of 2010 (State vs. Rajbahadur) and Session Trial No. 38 of 2011 (State vs. Rajbahadur), arising out of Case Crime No.148 of 2009, Police Station Kakvan, District Ramabai Nagar, whereby the accused appellant Rajbahadur has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- under section 302 IPC; three years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 201 IPC; and 10 years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 376 IPC. All the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The husband of the deceased (PW-1) has given a written report to the concerned police station stating that he belongs to Jatav community. Wife of informant Smt. Rajwati left at around 4:00 p.m. on 22.11.2009 alongwith accused Rajbahadur for Visdhan (a market) but never returned. On 24th November, 2009, PW-1 received information from certain ladies of the village that dead body of his wife is lying in the agricultural field of Pinku. The (2) informant alongwith his family members came to the spot and identified the dead body as that of his wife. It was alleged that the accused appellant alongwith his companion has committed the murder and has thrown the dead body of the deceased in the agricultural field. 3. On the basis of such report, a first information report came to be registered as Case Crime No. 148 of 2009 at 8:30 a.m. on 24.11.2009. The inquest was conducted on the same day and as per the report, the dead body of the deceased was found in the agricultural field. There were various marks of injury on the deceased and it appeared that somebody has strangulated her with a rope. The inquest witnesses therefore opined that this was a case of homicidal death and that postmortem be conducted on the dead body. The body was accordingly sealed and sent to the Mortuary where postmortem was conducted on the next day i.e. 25.11.2009 at 11:30 a.m. As per the Autopsy Surgeon, the time of death was approximately one and half day. The cause of death of the deceased has been determined as asphyxia due to ante- mortem strangulation. Following ante-mortem injuries have been found on the body of the deceased:- “i. Abraded contusion of 5 cm. x 4 cm. on right side of face, 2 cm. above right eyebrow. ii. Contusion swelling 4 cm. x 3 cm. on right side of face, 3 cm. below the right eyebrow. iii. Abraded contusion 4 cm. x 3 cm. on left side of face just below left eye. iv. Teeth mark on left cheek 3 cm. x 4 cm. v. Abraded contusion 3 cm. x 2 cm. on left side of neck 3 cm. below chin. (3) vi. Ligature mark 30 cm. X 2 cm. around neck and horizontal, 5 cm. below chin, 5 cm. below right ear and 0.5 cm. below left ear. vii. Abraded contusion 3 cm. x 3 cm. on right clavicle. viii. Abraded contusion 3 cm. x 1 cm. on right side abdomen. ix. Abraded contusion 21 cm. x 9 cm. on right thigh. x. Soil and some dirt inside the vagina. 4. The records also reveal that cloths of the deceased were recovered and were sent for forensic examination. Slides were also prepared of the deceased, which too were sent for forensic examination. Report of the forensic examination dated 10.02.2010 has been received, which is exhibited on record as Exhibit Ka-10. 5. The investigation was concluded with submission of charge-sheet against the accused-appellant Rajbahadur under Sections 302 and 376 I.P.C. as it was found during investigation that the deceased had been subjected to sexual assault which stood corroborated by the postmortem report. Semen was found on the slides prepared of the deceased. Human blood was also found on the body of the deceased, as also on her cloths, but they were found disintegrated and, therefore, could not be tallied with the cloths. 6. The Magistrate took cognizance of the charge-sheet and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where it got registered as Sessions Trial No. 179 of 2010. Charges were framed against the accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. Subsequently, a charge under Section 376 I.P.C. was also added against the accused appellant on 03.02.2011. (4) The contents of the charge were explained to the accused, who denied his implication and demanded trial. The trial commenced. 7. The prosecution has adduced following documentary evidences:- “i. Tahrir (Ext. Ka-1). ii. Chik report (Ext. Ka-2). iii. Copy of G.D. (Ext. Ka-3). iv. Postmortem Report (Ext. Ka-4). v. Panchayatnama (Ext. Ka-5). vi. Letter of C.M.O. (Ext. Ka-6). vii. Sample Seal (Ext. Ka-7). viii. Photolash (Ext. Ka-8). ix. Challan Lash (Ext. Ka-9). x. F.S.L. Report (Ext. Ka-10). xi. Charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-11). Xii. Site Plan (Ext. Ka-12). Xiii. Charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-13).” 8. There are two witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution namely, the husband of the deceased Munnu Lal

Facts

as PW-1, who is the first informant, as well as Abhinath PW-2, who happens to be the son of the deceased. The other witnesses are formal in nature. 9. PW-1 has stated that his wife had left alongwith accused Rajbahadur for going to Visdhan market at 4 in the evening (5) but did not return in the night. He stated that he made no attempts to search her as often his wife used to go with the accused Rajbahadur and would return after one or two days. On 24.11.2009, some ladies and boys of the village saw the dead body of the deceased lying in the redgram field of Pinku. On receiving such information, he came to the place of occurrence and identified the dead body. He then informed his brother-in-law Dhanpat on phone, who came and thereafter written report was got scribed by Dhanpat. This witness has proved the written report. This witness has further stated that he had gone to Kanpur to work as labour about two years back and in his absence the accused Rajbahadur developed illicit relation with his wife. About six months prior to the incident, PW-1 claims to have returned to the village and started living in the family. The deceased was living with her husband and children. The accused used to force her to go with him and maintain physical relations with her against her wishes. Of and on, the accused used to take the deceased with him for 2 to 4 days. The witness has further stated that after his return, the deceased was not willing to join the company of the accused but by extending threats, he used to forcibly form physical relations and also used to take her with him for few days. He has stated that after the deceased was taken from his house, the accused apparently has killed her. 10. PW-1 has been cross-examined, wherein he stated that he has four children, two of whom are son and two other are daughters. His eldest son is Abhinash (PW-2), who works as a labour and also drives tractor. Name of his younger son is Chhaviram, who keeps roaming here and there. He has stated that the written report has been scribed by his brother-in-law but he has not mentioned about unknown persons having killed the deceased. He has affixed his thumb impression after (6) the contents of written report was read out to him by his brother-in-law. He claims that he was present in the house and has seen his wife going with the accused. His son has also seen the deceased leaving with the accused. It is also stated that while leaving, the deceased kept certain cloths in a polythene. He has further explained that neither his son used to object to the leaving of the deceased with the accused nor he ever had any altercation or fight with the accused on this aspect. The witness has further stated that he has not lodged any complaint about movements of his wife. Accused Rajbahadur otherwise is a relative and calls his wife (deceased) as Mausi (maternal aunt). The witness however has categorically stated that on account of relations of his wife with Rajbahadur, his family was getting a bad name. He has then asserted that due to illicit relations, he was not disturbed. He had no concern as to with whom and where his wife used to go. He also did not remember the cloths worn by the accused at that time. He stated that on the date of incident, he was at home from morning till evening. He went to the market in the evening and returned at around 6:30 p.m. or 6:45 p.m. The market is at a distance of 3 furlongs from his house. The market is situated in Visdhan area. He had gone alone to the market. He has further stated that conflict used to take earlier regarding relations with his wife but for the last few days, there was no such fight going on between them. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that he had a fight with his wife about 8 to 10 days prior to the incident. He however never made any complaint against the accused with any police officer etc. He had also not made any complaint with other family members. The witness has further stated that he has no enmity with the family of the accused. According to the witness, his wife was a chaste lady, but later she seized to be faithful to her. The (7) witness has denied the suggestion that there was a fight with his wife in the night and he has killed his wife and concealed the body in the field of Pinku. 11. The other witness of fact is Abhinash, PW-2, who happens to be the son of the deceased. He was around 20 years of age at the time of death of his mother. He claims that accused is a Goonda and dominating person of the area. As per his mother was not willing to go with the accused yet he insisted and on account of pressure she left with him. He also stated that during absence of his father, the accused had established illicit relations with his mother. As per him, his mother was alone and as the children were young and weak, none could object to the acts of accused. After his father had returned from Kanpur, the accused started objecting to her normal life and for such reason he has killed his mother. 12. In cross-examination, PW-2 has explained that he is eldest of four siblings and his younger sister is already married. The married sister has died and her one and half years old minor child was living with his sister’s in-laws. He has been driving tractor of others for the last seven years. Whenever, there was a fight between his parents, the mother acted unreasonably, however, there was not many fight between the parents. He further stated that whenever his mother used to go with accused, she would not inform his father about the same. None in the family objected to the movement of the deceased with the accused. Accused used to call his mother as Mausi (maternal aunt) but never treated her as such. The accused never misbehaved with him or his father. On the date of incident, the accused however misbehaved with his father at about 7 and asked him to go for work where he was earlier working. He has admitted that on (8) account of her mother’s relations with the accused, the family was earning a bad name. Accused used to take his mother forcibly but no complaint was made with any one. This witness has stated that written report was scribed by his uncle Dhanpat. He stated that he did not object to the act of accused when he forcibly took his mother in his presence. This witness has denied the suggestion that the incident of murder has been caused by the witness alongwith his father as the act of the deceased was bringing bad name to the family. 13. PW-3 is Constable Istiyak Ahmad, who has proved the chik FIR. 14. PW-4 is Dr. Ramesh Pati Tiwari, who has conducted the postmortem on the deceased. He has specified the injuries on the deceased. As per him, the hyoid bone of the deceased was fractured and right collarbone and first and second rib were fractured. Rigor mortis was not present in the upper part of the body and was reducing in the lower part. The lungs was congested. Small intestine was partly filled with gas and large intestine was also filled with fecal matter. As per the doctor, the cause of death was strangulation about one and half day prior to the conduct of postmortem. The doctor has also verified that two vaginal smear slides were prepared of the deceased and given to the police. 15. PW-4 has been cross-examined and has explained that the postmortem was conducted at 11:30 in the morning and the deceased had nine injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, force was used to establish relations on account of which deceased sustained injuries on her private parts. 16. PW-5 is S.I. Radhey Shyam, who was the Chowki In- charge Visdhan, P.S. Kakvan and has proved the inquest (9) report. He has denied the suggestion that inquest proceedings were conducted by the police personnel in their office. 17. PW-6 is S.I. Jitendra Kumar Singh, who has conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet in the matter. 18. In cross-examination, PW-6 has stated that the investigation was conducted by him after transfer of the previous investigator S.K. Yadav. He has conducted the investigation subsequently and submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 376 I.P.C. 19. PW-7 Shilesh Kumar Yadav is the first investigating officer, who has explained the steps taken by him to conduct investigation in the matter. 20. On the basis of material produced during trial by the prosecution, the incriminating material were confronted to the accused for recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has stated that at the relevant point of time, his brother had met with an incident and he had taken him to a private hospital. He has denied the all accusations made against him. However, he has admitted that his wife had died about four yeas back and between his house and that of the deceased, there was only a wall. The accused further stated that certain persons had abducted the deceased, who was politically active in the area and subjected her to sexual assault, in respect of which the deceased had made a written complaint on 03.08.2009 and as no steps were taken, she also made a complaint to the District Magistrate, I.G. and D.I.G. but no action was taken on such complaint, whereafter she has been killed and he has been falsely implicated. (10) 21. In addition to the above, the defence has also produced testimony of Ramesh as DW-1, who has stated that at the relevant point of time, the accused had gone out of the village since his brother had met with an accident and he was not present in the village. In the cross-examination, this witness has denied that due to his cordial relations with the accused, he is making a false disclosure. 22. Tulsiram is DW-2, who has also come out with similar testimony, as per which the brother of the accused had gone in a Jeep which had collided with a tree and he sustained injuries. The accused had gone to see him and was not present when the incident occurred. 23. On the basis of evidence led in the matter, the trial court has come to the conclusion that there was a definite motive for the accused to eliminate the deceased, after her husband had started living with the deceased and she was objecting to the relations between her and the accused. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 has been relied upon as evidence of last seen, on the basis of which the accused appellant has been held guilty. Ultimately, sentence of life has been awarded to the accused appellant after recording a finding that charge under Sections 302, 201 and 376 I.P.C. is made out against the accused appellant.

Legal Reasoning

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' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: "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, and (17) (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. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 35. It is in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) that this Court is required to examine the prosecution evidence led in the facts of the present case. 36. The only circumstance, which implicates the accused appellant is the statement of last seen by the two witnesses of fact, namely PW-2 and PW-3. We have already analysed their testimony and in our opinion their version does not inspire absolute confidence of the Court, particularly as their version contains contradiction and their conduct otherwise does not appear to be wholly natural. We also find that the plea of illicit relationship has not been independently supported by any other evidence. Except for the version of the two prosecution witnesses, who have furnished the motive for the offence and have implicated the accused appellant, there is no other material to prove the complicity of the accused appellant in commission of the offence. 37. Upon evaluation of evidence that has been placed on record, we are, therefore, of the considered opinion that an alternative hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused appellant cannot be ruled out in the facts of this case. There is also a time gap between the incident of last seen and the recovery of dead body. As per the doctor, the time of death is about one and a half day on 25.11.2009 and accordingly the approximate time of death would work out to the late evening hours of 23.11.2009. There is nothing on record to show as to what happened between 4.00 pm on (18) 22.11.2009 and 24.11.2009 when the dead body was recovered. PW-2 in fact has stated that about 7.00 pm on 22.11.2009 the accused appellant came to the house and had a fight with the first informant. If that be so, then it is apparent that the deceased was not with the accused appellant in the evening hours of 22.11.2009. What happened to the deceased or in whose company she was thereafter are facts which are not clearly established. It would not be prudent and safe to rely upon the testimony of two related prosecution witnesses to hold that the chain of events consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused has been established by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the accused appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 26.3.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat, in Session Trial No. 179 of 2010 (State vs. Rajbahadur) and Session Trial No. 38 of 2011 (State vs. Rajbahadur), arising out of Case Crime No.148 of 2009, Police Station Kakvan, District Ramabai Nagar, whereby the accused appellant Rajbahadur has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- under section 302 IPC; three years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 201 IPC; and 10 years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 376 IPC. cannot be sustained. 38. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. Judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 26.3.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat, in Session Trial No. 179 of 2010 (State vs. Rajbahadur) and Session Trial No. 38 of 2011 (State vs. (19) Rajbahadur), arising out of Case Crime No.148 of 2009, Police Station Kakvan, District Ramabai Nagar is set aside. The accused appellant Rajbahadur is acquitted from the charges of offence under Sections 302, 201, 376 IPC. The accused appellant, who is in jail for the last 14 years, shall be released forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case. 39. No order is passed as to costs. Order Date:- 2.5.2023 Shafique/Anil (Vinod Diwakar,J.) (Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.)

Arguments

24. We have heard Shri Raja Ram, learned counsel for the accused appellant, Ms. Archna Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and carefully examined the records of the present appeal. 25. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that this is a case of circumstantial evidence, in which accused appellant has been falsely implicated. He submits that the (11) prosecution version that deceased had gone with the accused and had not returned in the night, without lodging a missing report, shows unnatural conduct on the part of the husband. It is also submitted that there is no recovery made from the accused appellant and the motive has otherwise not been established. Learned counsel therefore submits that an alternative hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused-appellant is available in the facts of the case and, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the accused- appellant is unsustainable in law. 26. Learned counsel further submits that the accused appellant has undergone incarceration of more than 14 years with remission without any credible evidence against him and, therefore, this appeal is liable to succeed and be allowed. 27. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand, states that the trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly relied upon the testimony of eye witness, who have lastly seen the deceased going in the company of the accused, whereafter her dead body was recovered. Submission is that the accused has not been able to explain as to what happened to the deceased after she left with him. Argument is that the trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record to implicate the accused-appellant and, therefore, his conviction and sentence merits no interference. 28. We have considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties. The prosecution case herein is based upon the written report of PW-1, as per whom the deceased had gone with accused at about 4 in the evening on 22.11.2009 and has not returned. According to the first informant, it is the accused, who had taken his wife with him (12) and had killed her alongwith some unknown persons, whereafter her dead body has been dumped in the agricultural field. This version of the informant is supported by testimony of two witnesses, namely PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 is the informant himself. The other witness of fact is PW-2, who happens to be the son of the deceased. These two witnesses are related witnesses, who alone have supported the prosecution case. No other independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case. This admittedly is a case of circumstantial evidence where motive also assumes significance. This Court, therefore, is required to consider as to whether the testimony of prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 are trustworthy and reliable and the chain of circumstances have been proved such by the prosecution. That it leads only to the hypothesis of guilt attributed to the accused appellant, and that no alternative hypothesis consistent with the plea of innocence of the accused is available in the case. 29. PW-1 and PW-2 have categorically stated that the deceased left with the accused appellant at about 4.00 in the evening but she did not return in the night. Both the witnesses of fact admitted that they made no efforts to locate the deceased nor any missing report etc. was lodged with the police. This conduct on part of the husband and the son of the deceased sounds somewhat unnatural. 30. The explanation for such conduct on part of the two witnesses of fact is that the deceased was having illicit relations with the accused for the last few years and she was in the habit of going with accused for few days without any objection or resistance by the family members. This statement made by the prosecution witnesses is not (13) supported by any independent version or complaint with regard to existence of illicit relations between the deceased and the accused appellant. Both the witnesses of fact have admitted that no complaint of illicit relations between the deceased and the accused appellant was ever made either before the police authorities or with the relatives. This again is not a natural conduct on part of the husband and son, inasmuch as the conduct of illicit relations is ordinarily not taken well by the family members and some sort of protest or resistance is offered or is expected to be offered by close family members. The prosecution witnesses have alleged that about two years back the husband of the deceased started living at Kanpur and in his absence the accused appellant forcibly established relations with the deceased and continued it notwithstanding the fact that the husband had returned about six months back. On this aspect of the prosecution case we find that PW-1 has specifically stated that he never had any fight or dispute with the accused appellant and there was never any difference between him and his wife. The prosecution witnesses nevertheless have admitted that on account of this illicit relation between the deceased and the accused appellant, the family was getting a bad name. This is specifically stated by both the prosecution witnesses of fact. These two witnesses, however, have tried to clarify their statement by saying that they were really not bothered by the illicit relations of deceased with the accused appellant. This part of the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 does not appear to be inspiring or natural and is apparently self-contradictory as they have admitted that family was earning a bad name in the village. 31. PW-1 has admitted that he was in the house on the date of incident and it was in his presence that the deceased left (14) with accused appellant. No protest was made by him as it was a common feature. PW-2, however, states that deceased was not willing to go with accused and he pressurized her to go with him. There is thus an apparent inconsistency in the testimony of PW-1 vis-a-vis PW-2 regarding the act of deceased going voluntarily. PW-2 has also admitted that though the accused appellant pressurized the deceased to go with him but he made no resistance or objection. On the date of incident the son i.e. PW-2 was around 20 years of age. We are not much impressed by the statement of PW-2 that he allowed his mother to go with the accused appellant, contrary to her wishes, without making any endeavour to resist the move of the accused appellant as his conduct does not appear to be natural. 32. From the evidence that has been placed on record, it is apparent that the alleged illicit relationship between the deceased and the accused appellant was continuing for the last several years without any resistance or objection extended to it either by the husband or by the son. This version of the prosecution witness, however, does not find support from the medical evidence on record. The postmortem report is on record, which shows existence of multiple injuries on the body of the deceased. There were teeth bite marks on the deceased as well as other scratch and contusion marks on different parts of the body of the deceased. The vagina of the deceased was filled with soil and dust etc. Hyoid bone of the deceased was fractured. The manner in which the deceased has been done to death shows the offending act to be more an act of revenge, rather than an act of consensual relationship between the two individuals. The prosecution witnesses have not been able to disclose any cogent reason for the accused appellant to commit the offence (15) of forceful sexual assault when the deceased was in relationship with him for long. Merely saying that the deceased was not willing to continue with illicit relations after her husband has returned is not strong and convincing enough, inasmuch as the accused appellant apparently had no obstruction from anyone in the family to the relationship and there was hardly any reason for such ghastly act to be committed by the accused appellant. 33. We find some substance in the contention of the counsel for the appellant, Sri Ram Nath, that a contrary hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused is available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was instead definite motive for the husband and the son to commit the offence upon deceased, as the family was getting a bad name on account of illicit relationship between the deceased and the accused appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the deceased was politically active in the village and in fact she had been subjected to sexual assault in the recent past by certain unknown persons, in respect of which she had lodged a report and had made various representations to the higher authorities. Submission is that these aspects have not been probed, which clearly indicate that someone else may have been behind the commission of the offence. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that merely on the statement of two related witnesses it would not be prudent to hold that chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the hypothesis of guilt on part of the accused appellant is complete so as to convict the accused appellant. 34. Law with regard to a case of circumstances of evidences stands crystallized in the judgment of the Supreme Court in (16) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, which has consistently been followed since then. In paragraphs 152 to 154, the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) observed as under:- “152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. (1) This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions uptodate, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2) and Ramgopal v. Stat of Maharashtra(3). It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant's case (supra): "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 far a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 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.

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments