THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.981 of 2013
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Though the matter is listed on interlocutory application
for suspension of sentence, preferred under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C, the parties have agreed to argue the matter finally.
The matter was heard with the consent of the parties finally.
- The appellant/sole accused is aggrieved by the
judgment dated 08.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District
in S.C.No.25 of 2010, by which he has been convicted for
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and
has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with
fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C
and to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment along with
a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C,
with a default clause to undergo further simple imprisonment
for a period of one year. The sentences have been directed to
run concurrently. - The facts of the case reveal that on 15.05.2008 at about
9:00 AM, one Ananthaiah lodged a complaint at Kullakachrela
Police Station stating that his mother, Smt. Anjilamma, had
gone to work as a labour at Rajaiah’s Brick Factory on
13.05.2008 and later she went to the house of Md. Rasheed,
2
who was celebrating Gyarme festival. It was also stated that
her mother disappeared after that and on 15.05.2008, one
Jakkulapally Venkataiah informed him about a female dead
body lying in Patel Water Tank and he has identified the dead
body of his mother. He has further stated that he suspects
one Anjilaiah, who was having illegal intimacy with his
mother and is responsible for the death of his mother. A case
was accordingly registered in Crime No.43 of 2008 invoking
the provisions of Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The police, after
carrying out the investigation, filed a charge sheet. - The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses
(P.Ws.1 to 11) and as many as 12 documents were marked as
Exs.P.1 to P.12. The defence has also produced three
documents, which were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.3. The
conviction in the present case is based upon the testimonies
of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5. None of the witnesses
examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses, except
P.W.1, who is the son of the deceased.
The record of the case reveals that P.W.1 is the
complainant and son of the deceased. P.W.2 is the daughter
of the deceased. P.Ws.3 to 5 are the circumstantial
witnesses. P.W.6 is the panch witness in respect of scene of
offence, inquest and rough sketch. P.W.7 is the panch for
confession and seizure. P.W.8 is the Medical Officer who
conducted the post-mortem examination and P.Ws.9 to 11 are
the Investigating Officers.
3
P.W.1, in his statement before the trial Court, has
stated that he knows the accused since last five years and his
mother left the house along with the accused to work as a
coolie. He also stated that the wife of the accused used to
quarrel with his mother and after working as a labour, on the
date of the incident the accused went along with his mother
to the house of one Md. Rasheed to have dinner. However, he
has nowhere stated that the accused left with his mother after
dinner was over.
Similarly, P.W.2, who is the daughter of the deceased,
has stated that his mother went out on the date of the
incident with the accused and returned home. She has
further stated that later the accused along with her mother
went to the house of Md. Rasheed to attend a dinner.
However, she has also not stated that the accused and the
deceased left the house of Md. Rasheed together after
attending dinner. The only common statement made by them
is that their mother went out to work as a labour with the
accused and also went out to attend a dinner at the house of
Md. Rasheed.
P.W.4, whose house is in front of the house of the
deceased, has stated that the accused used to visit the house
of the deceased on and off. However, he has not made any
statement incriminating the accused with the crime.
P.W.5 is the person, at whose house dinner took place,
namely Md. Rasheed. He has stated categorically that it was
4
the deceased alone who came to his house to have dinner.
P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 have been declared hostile by the
prosecution.
P.W.8, who is a Doctor working as a Senior Public
Health Officer did autopsy over the body of the deceased and
found contusions on the frontal right parietal, temporal and
occipital region of the skull, right temporal muscle, lower slip
including neck muscle besides other injuries. He has opined
that the death was due to the pressure applied on the neck
resulting in the fracture of the right hyoid bone. Meaning
thereby, homicidal in nature.
P.W.6 is the panch witness and he has stated that in his
presence, the body was taken out of the water tank and scene
of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama were drawn
in his presence and he has signed the same. He also stated
that he noticed scratch marks on the face of the deceased
Anjialamma. He also stated that the police drew the rough
sketch of the scene of crime in his presence.
P.W.7 is also the panch witness and he has stated that
he has gone to the police station five years back along with
Vittal Naik, who is from his village, where the accused was
present, and at the instance of the police, he enquired from
the accused about the incident and the accused has
confessed that he has killed a woman and at his instance, a
wooden stick was seized by the police.
5
The trial Court, based upon the evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 2, who have stated that their mother went out
with the accused, has convicted the accused for offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C.
The trial Court has taken into account extra-judicial
confession of the appellant/sole accused as well as the
statements of the panch witnesses, P.Ws.6 and 7 and the
seizure of the wooden stick at the behest of the appellant/sole
appellant and has arrived at a conclusion that the injuries,
which were found on the body of the deceased were caused
with the seized stick, keeping in view the evidence of the
medical officer. The trial Court has held that the evidence of
circumstantial witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.3 and 5, panch witnesses
along with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the children
of the deceased, and injuries on the dead body, when all read
together, clearly establishes the fact the appellant/sole
accused has in fact committed the offence of murder. The trial
Court has also held that no explanation was offered in respect
of the disappearance of the deceased after parting with his
company. Thus, in short, the trial Court based upon
circumstantial evidence has arrived at a conclusion that it
was the appellant/sole accused, who has committed the
offence of murder.
Another important aspect of the case is that the stick
was recovered the behest of the accused. However, there was
no F.S.L. Report in respect of any bloodstains on the stick.
6
The entire case of the prosecution is based upon
circumstantial evidence and based upon the circumstantial
evidence, the appellant has been convicted by the trial Court. - The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of
conviction based upon the circumstantial evidence and has
held that the Judge while deciding matters resting on
circumstantial evidence should always tread cautiously so as
to not allow conjectures or suspicion, however strong, to take
the place of proof. Paragraphs 30 and 66 of the Judgment
delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pattu
Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu1 are reproduced as under:-
“30. Before we undertake a consideration of the evidence
supporting such circumstances, we would like to note that the law
relating to circumstantial evidence is well settled. The Judge while
deciding matters resting on circumstantial evidence should always
tread cautiously so as to not allow conjectures or suspicion,
however strong, to take the place of proof. If the alleged
circumstances are conclusively proved before the Court by leading
cogent and reliable evidence, the Court need not look any further
before affirming the guilt of the accused. Moreover, human agency
may be faulty in expressing the picturisation of the actual
incident, but circumstances cannot fail or be ignored. As aptly put
in this oft-quoted phrase: “Men may lie, but circumstances do
not”. - In our considered opinion, the prosecution has proved the
complicity of all the appellants in murdering Santhakumar by
strangulating him and thereafter throwing the dead body at TigerChola. It is worth recalling that while it is necessary that proof
beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases,
it is not necessary that such proof should be perfect, and someone
who is guilty cannot get away with impunity only because the
truth may develop some infirmity when projected through human
processes. The traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has
to be replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach for
1
(2019) 4 SCC 771
7
administering justice in a criminal trial. Justice cannot be made
sterile by exaggerated adherence to the rule of proof, inasmuch as
the benefit of doubt must always be reasonable and not fanciful.
[See Inder Singh v. State (UT of Delhi) [Inder Singh v. State (UT of
Delhi), (1978) 4 SCC 161 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 564] ; State of
H.P. v. Lekh Raj [State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj, (2000) 1 SCC 247 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 147]; Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing
Chamansing [Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing,
(2001) 6 SCC 145 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1070] and Chaman v. State of
Uttarakhand [Chaman v. State of Uttarakhand, (2016) 12 SCC 76 :
(2016) 4 SCC (Cri) 6] .]”
In the present case, it is true that the deceased went out
to work as a labour with the appellant/sole accused.
However, the deceased and the accused went to the house of
Md. Rasheed to attend dinner and they never left together
after attending the dinner. In fact, there is no evidence on
record to establish that the deceased and the accused left
together after the dinner. The only statement, which has been
made by P.Ws.1 and 2 is that their mother went out to work
as labour with the accused and therefore, the theory of last
seen together is not applicable in the present case.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gargi v. State of
Haryana2 has again dealt with the conviction based upon
circumstantial evidence. In the aforesaid case, there was a
gap between point of time when the accused and the deceased
were last seen together. Paragraphs 33.1 and 33.3 of the
aforesaid Judgment read as under:-
“33.1. Insofar as the “last seen theory” is concerned, there
is no doubt that the appellant being none other than the wife of
the deceased and staying under the same roof, was the last person
2
(2019) 9 SCC 738
8
the deceased was seen with. However, such companionship of the
deceased and the appellant, by itself, does not mean that a
presumption of guilt of the appellant is to be drawn. The trial court
and the High Court have proceeded on the assumption that
Section 106 of the Evidence Act [“106. Burden of proving fact
especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially
within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that
fact is upon him.”] directly operates against the appellant. In our
view, such an approach has also not been free from error where it
was omitted to be considered that Section 106 of the Evidence Act
does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden. This Court
has explained the principle in Sawal Das [Sawal Das v. State of
Bihar, (1974) 4 SCC 193 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 362] in the following :
(SCC p. 197, para 10)
“10. Neither an application of Section 103 nor of 106 of the
Evidence Act could, however, absolve the prosecution from the
duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the
prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the
prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a
conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the
question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof
may lie upon the accused.”
33.3. In the given set of circumstances, the last seen theory
cannot be operated against the appellant only because she was the
wife of the deceased and was living with him. The gap between the
point of time when the appellant and the deceased were last seen
together and when the deceased was found dead had not been that
small that possibility of any other person being the author of the
crime is rendered totally improbable. In Sk. Yusuf [Sk.
Yusuf v. State of W.B., (2011) 11 SCC 754 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
620], this Court has said : (SCC pp. 760-61, para 21)
“21. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time gap
between the point of time when the accused and the deceased
were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so
small that possibility of any person other than the accused being
the author of the crime becomes impossible.”
In the present case also, the appellant/sole accused and
the deceased went out together to work as a labour and
thereafter the deceased went to the house of Md. Rasheed to
attend dinner and it is nobody’s case that they left the house
together and they were seen together in the morning. There
was a substantial gap between the point of time when they
9
were last seen together and therefore, the conviction based
upon the circumstantial evidence is bad in law.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gargi (supra)
has dealt with the principles governing the circumstantial
evidence in paragraphs 17 and 18, which are reproduced as
under:-
“17. When the present case pivots around circumstantial
evidence, having regard to the questions involved, apposite it
would be to take note of a few fundamental principles governing
the circumstantial evidence and its appreciation. - It remains trite that in judicial proceedings, proof is made
by means of production of evidence, which may be either oral or
documentary. As regards its nature, the evidence is either direct or
circumstantial. The direct evidence proves the existence of a
particular fact that emanates from a document or an object
and/or what has been observed by the witness. The circumstantial
evidence is the one whereby other facts are proved from which the
existence of fact in issue may either be logically inferred, or at least
rendered more probable. [A Text Book of Jurisprudence by G.W.
Paton, 4th Edn., p. 598.]
18.1. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has
explained the essentials before a particular fact could be held
proved by way of the proof of other fact or facts; and has
expounded on the principles as to how circumstantial evidence
need to be approached in a criminal case. We need not multiply on
the case law on the subject; only a brief reference to the relevant
decisions would suffice.
18.2. In Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan [Chandmal v. State of
Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 621 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 120], this Court
said : (SCC p. 625, para 14)
“14. It is well settled that when a case rests entirely on
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests.
Firstly, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established.
Secondly, these circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, 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. That is to say, the circumstances should be
incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that
of the accused’s guilt.”
18.3. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra [Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,
10
(1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487], this Court laid down the
golden principles of standard of proof required in a case sought to
be established on circumstantial evidence with reference to several
past decisions, including that in Hanumant v. State of
M.P. [Hanumant v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri LJ
129] , in the following : (SCC p. 185, paras 153-54)
“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” as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra [Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra,
(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033] where the observations
were made : [SCC p. 807, para 19 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
‘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, 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. - These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute
the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence.”
18.4. In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the
appellant in Sonvir [Sonvir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 8 SCC 24
: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 486], this Court, after taking note of the other
cited decisions, pointed out the principles as under : (SCC p. 52,
para 82)
“82. … Law of conviction based on circumstantial evidence is
well settled. It is sufficient to refer to the judgment of this Court
in Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan [Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan,
11
(2011) 3 SCC 685 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 54] where in para 17 the
following has been held : (SCC p. 693)
‘17. Before we proceed with the matter, it has to be borne in
mind that this case depends upon circumstantial evidence and,
as such, as per the settled law, every circumstance would have
to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and further the chain of
circumstances should be so complete and perfect that the only
inference of the guilt of the accused should emanate therefrom.
At the same time, there should be no possibility whatsoever of
the defence version being true.’”
18.5. Thus, circumstantial evidence, in the context of a crime,
essentially means such facts and surrounding factors which do
point towards the complicity of the charged accused; and then,
chain of circumstances means such unquestionable linking of the
facts and the surrounding factors that they establish only the guilt
of the charged accused beyond reasonable doubt, while ruling out
any other theory or possibility or hypothesis.
18.6. Incidental to the principles aforesaid, which are neither
of any doubt nor of any dispute, profitable it would be to keep in
view the caveat entered by G.W. Paton [A Text Book of
Jurisprudence by G.W. Paton, 4th Edn., p. 598.] as regards
circumstantial evidence thus:
“On the other hand, circumstances may mislead or false
clues may have been laid by the wrongdoer to cast suspicion on
another.” [This has been stated with reference to in Criminal Law
by C.S. Kenny wherein, it is cautioned that : though
‘circumstances cannot lie’, they can mislead. They may even have
been brought about for the very purpose of misleading, as when
Joseph’s silver cup was placed in Benjamin’s sack, or when Lady
Macbeth ‘smeared the sleeping grooms with blood’.]
Keeping in view the aforesaid principles laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and keeping in view the evidence
on record, as the chain of events is not complete in the
present case, the conviction of the appellant/sole accused is
bad in law. - The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan v. Mahesh Kumar3 in paragraphs 10 and 12 has held as
under:-
“10. It is well settled that in the cases of circumstantial
evidence, 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 guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of
3
(2019) 7 SCC 678
12
a conclusive nature and should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words,
there must be a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any
reasonable ground for 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
and none else.
- It has been further relied on by this Court in Sujit
Biswas v. State of Assam [Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013)
12 SCC 406 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 677] and Raja v. State of
Haryana [Raja v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 43 : (2015) 4
SCC (Cri) 267] and has been propounded that while scrutinising
the circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the Court to evaluate
it to ensure the chain of events clearly established and completely
to rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused.
It is true that the underlying principle whether the chain is
complete or not, indeed would depend on the facts of each case
emanating from the evidence and there cannot be a straitjacket
formula which can be laid down for the purpose. It is always to be
kept in mind that the circumstances adduced when considered
collectively, must lead only to the conclusion that there cannot be
a person other than the accused who alone is the perpetrator of
the crime alleged and the circumstances must establish the
conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as the
circumstantial evidence should be of conclusive nature and
should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. The chain of evidence must be
complete chain of evidence to arrive at a conclusion that it is
only the accused who has committed offence.
In the present case, the chain of evidence is not
complete. It was not established that the stick, which was
recovered at the behest of the accused, was the same stick
used for causing injuries over the body of the deceased
resulting in her death. The so called extra-judicial confession
13
was in presence of police, and therefore, in the light of the
aforesaid judgment, the conviction of the accused is bad in
law and deserves to be set aside. - The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh v. State
of Haryana4 has dealt with the extra-judicial confession.
Paragraph 50 of the aforesaid Judgment reads as under:-
“50. Now we need to concentrate on the relevance of the
alleged confessions of the co-accused made before Zile Singh (PW
16). In Periaswami Moopan, In re [Periaswami Moopan, In re, 1930
SCC OnLine Mad 86 : AIR 1931 Mad 177] , Reilly, J. observed:
(SCC OnLine Mad)
“… where there is evidence against the co-accused sufficient,
if believed, to support his conviction, then the kind of confession
described in Section 30 may be thrown into the scale as an
additional reason for believing that evidence.”
Therefore, the aforesaid extra-judicial confession against
the co-accused needs to be taken into consideration if at all it is
one, only if other independent evidence on record have established
the basic premise of the prosecution. The confession of the coaccused cannot be solely utilised to convict a person, when the
surrounding circumstances are improbable and create suspicion
(refer to Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar [Haricharan
Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 : (1964) 2 Cri LJ 344] ).
As the confession of a co-accused is weak piece of evidence, we
need to consider whether other circumstances prove the
prosecution case.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgment
has held that extra-judicial confession cannot be the sole
basis of conviction and cannot be relied on when surrounding
circumstances are improbable and create suspicion. The weak
piece of evidence is the extra-judicial confession which was
recorded in the presence of the police and the chain of
4
(2018) 18 SCC 654
14
evidence is certainly not at all complete and therefore, the
conviction of the accused deserves to be set aside.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Nirankari
v. State of Rajasthan5, in paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 has held as
under:-
“29. It is now well established, by a catena of judgments of this
Court, that circumstantial evidence of the following character
needs to be fully established:
(i) Circumstances should be fully proved.
(ii) Circumstances should be conclusive in nature.
(iii) All the facts established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of guilt.
(iv) The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude
the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused
(see State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [State of
U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
642]; Chandrakant Chimanlal Desai v. State of
Gujarat [Chandrakant Chimanlal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 1
SCC 473 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 157] ). It also needs to be emphasised
that what is required is not the quantitative, but qualitative,
reliable and probable circumstances to complete the claim
connecting the accused with the crime. Suspicion, however grave,
cannot take place of legal proof. In the case of circumstantial
evidence, the influence of guilt can be justified only when all the
incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be not
compatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any
other person. - The following tests laid down in Padala Veera
Reddy v. State of A.P. [Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., 1989
Supp (2) SCC 706 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 407] also need to be kept in
mind : (SCC pp. 710-11, para 10)
“10. (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) 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
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction
must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such
evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the
accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
5
(2017) 8 SCC 497
15
- Sir Alfred Wills in his book Wills’ Circumstantial
Evidence (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be
observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
“(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be
clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the
factum probandum;
(2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the
existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability;
(3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence,
the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case
admits;
(4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory
facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and
incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis
than that of his guilt; and
(5) if there by any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused,
he is entitled as of right to be acquitted.”
Keeping in view the aforesaid Judgement, no prudent
person can draw a conclusion that the chain of events is
complete. It is true that the stick which was allegedly used for
causing injuries resulting in her death was recovered at the
behest of the appellant/sole accused, however, there is no
FSL Report in respect of any blood stains on the stick. - The trial Court has taken into account the extrajudicial confession. However, it does not help the prosecution
at all, as the chain of events does not lead to the result i.e.,
accused committing the crime of murder. The appellant/sole
accused has been convicted based upon the circumstantial
evidence and the chain of events is certainly incomplete. It is
true that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that their mother went
out of the house along with the appellant to work as a labour.
However, they have stated that after working as a labour for
16
the whole day, the appellant and the deceased went to the
house of Md. Rasheed. There is no evidence on record of any
person stating that they left the house of Md. Rasheed
together.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, as
the evidence does not establish the factum of crime to be
attributed to the present appellant/sole accused, this Court is
of the opinion that the impugned judgment delivered by the
trial Court deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set
aside.
Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The
appellant/sole accused is acquitted of the offences for which
he was charged. The appellant/sole accused shall be set at
liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
___________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
08.02.2022
JSU/PLN
Comments