Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1410 of 2010

Dhan Raj @ Dhand                 … Appellant versus    

  State of Haryana                                                    ...Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 703 of 2011

Badal                                                        … Appellant versus  

State of Haryana                                                       ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. These appeals arise from the impugned judgment of the High  

Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana   wherein  vide  a  common  

judgment dated February 26, 2010, the High Court disposed of

Page 2

Criminal Appeal No. 496-DB of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 510-

DB of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 719-DB of 2009 and Criminal  

Revision No. 334 of 2000. The present appeals however arise  

out of Criminal  Appeal  No.  496-DB of 1999 filed by accused  

Dhan Raj challenging the judgment of conviction and order of  

sentence  dated  September  25  and  27,  1999  passed  by  the  

Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Jhajjar  in  Sessions  Case  No.21  of  

21.5.1997/13.08.1998 and Criminal Appeal No. 719-DB of 2009  

filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment  of acquittal  

dated February 18, 2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhajjar  

in Session Case No.73 of 21.5.1997/17.3.2008, acquitting the  

accused Badal of the charges framed against him.

2. The High Court in the present matters convicted the accused  

appellants  on  the  basis  of  circumstantial  evidence  by  the  

impugned judgment.  It  has been well  established by leading  

judicial precedents that where the prosecution’s case is based  

on circumstantial evidence, only the circumstantial evidence of  

the highest  order  can satisfy  the test  of  proof  in  a  criminal  

prosecution.  In  order  to  base  conviction  on  circumstantial  

evidence  the  circumstantial  evidence  put  forth  by  the  

2

Page 3

prosecution  should  establish  a  complete  unbroken  chain  of  

events so that only one inference is drawn out from the same.  

If  more  than one inference can  be drawn then the  accused  

should be entitled to the benefit of doubt.

3. In the present appeals we therefore would evaluate the case of  

the prosecution in terms of the evidence brought on record and  

the  statements  and  discovery  made  in  the  course  of  

investigation.

4. The case of the prosecution revealed in the first appeal (being  

Crl.A.  No.1410  of  2010)  is  that  the  deceased  Vijaypal  was  

serving a doctor who was posted in the Dispensary of Village  

Kheri Jat and residing at Jhajjar. On January 24, 1997 he left for  

his  dispensary  from his  home at  9.45  a.m.  by  a  Maruti  car  

which did not have a registration number. Sukhbir Singh (PW  

13), a dispenser posted at  Kheri Jat informed Harpal Singh (PW  

6),  brother of deceased that the dead body of  Vijaypal was  

found in a field of  village Bizidpur where Harpal Singh went  

with  Sukhbir  Singh  and  found  the  body  in  a  side  posture  

bearing injuries from a sharp-edged weapon. There was blood  

3

Page 4

on the ground and the Maruti  car  was found to be missing.  

Harpal Singh filed an FIR  and investigation was initiated. Post  

mortem  was  also  performed.  The  wife  of  the  deceased  

disclosed that the deceased had with him a briefcase and a  

wrist-watch when he left  home.  Co-accused Sanjay,  while  in  

custody of Delhi Police for a different case, made a statement  

about the occurrence of this case. Subsequently, his production  

warrants were obtained and he was arrested for the present  

murder on February 4, 1997. Sanjay in his disclosure statement  

states that Dhan Raj  and Badal,  the appellants herein,  were  

associated with him in the commission of the crime and that  

Dhan Raj  had taken away the briefcase and Badal  took the  

wrist-watch  of  the  deceased.  Furthermore,  in  his  statement,  

Sanjay disclosed that he had concealed a Kirpan along with his  

blood stained clothes near Sadli  Road, and he got the same  

articles recovered as well. Dhan Raj and Badal were arrested  

on February 4, 1997 and recovery of briefcase and wrist-watch  

was effected. Subsequently, on completion of investigation, a  

challan was presented in the court.

4

Page 5

5. The case of the prosecution in the second appeal is also the  

same.  However,  the  accused  were  tried  separately  as  the  

accused Badal was arrested later.

6. After  perusing  the  material  brought  on  record,  we  would  

narrate  the  facts  as  they  appear  to  us.  However,  as  the  

preliminary facts are the same, for convenience’s sake, they  

are narrated from the trial in Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2010  

and  the  trial  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  703  of  2011  will  be  

discussed separately.

6.1 Vijaypal (the deceased herein) was posted as a doctor in the  

Kheri Jat village dispensary and he was residing at Jhajjar.  

As per  the statement of  Raj  Singh (PW 15),  who was the  

elder brother of the deceased and stayed in the deceased’s  

house, on January 24, 1997 at about 9.45 a.m.,  Dr. Vijaypal  

left  his  home  for  the  dispensary  in  his  Maruti  car,  the  

registration of which was awaited; that after a few minutes,  

the accused Sanajay, Dhan Raj and Badal in a four-wheeler  

reached the deceased’s home and inquired about him and  

disclosed  their  names  afterwards,  whereafter  they  

5

Page 6

immediately  left  towards  Delhi.  Later  in  the  day,  Sukhbir  

Singh  (PW  13)  a  dispenser  posted  at  Village  Kheri  Jat,  

informed Harpal Singh (PW 6),  the younger brother of the  

deceased,  and  the  complainant  that  the  dead  body  of  

Vijaypal was found lying in the wheat crop bearing injuries  

caused by a sharp edged weapon with blood on the ground  

nearby and the car of the deceased was also found to be  

missing. On the basis of the statements of Harpal Singh, FIR  

No. 26 of 1997 was registered and investigation was initiated  

with the conduction of the post-mortem and the recording of  

statement of the witnesses by the Investigating Officer.  

6.2  The statement of the wife of the deceased being PW 7 which  

was corroborated with the statement  of  Sub-Inspector  Brij  

Pal  (PW-10) revealed that the deceased also had with him a  

wrist  watch  and  a  briefcase  when  he  had  left  his  home,  

which were also missing.  On the next day, accused Sanjay  

was arrested by the Delhi Police in a case under Section 411  

of the Indian Penal Code arising out of FIR No. 32 of 1997  

and from him, the car of the deceased (determined after the  

engine  and  chassis-number  of  the  car  were  tallied)   was  

6

Page 7

recovered.  While  in  custody  of  Delhi  Police,  he  made  a  

statement about the present case on January 25, 1997. In  

the said  statement,  it  must  be noted that  he named one  

Rohtas as his accomplice and stated that Rohtas only took  

the wrist-watch and the briefcase of the deceased.

6.3  Subsequently, Sanjay’s production warrants were obtained  

and he was arrested by the Haryana Police on February 4,  

1997 in the present case arising out of FIR No.26 of 1997  

and therein he made a disclosure statement averring that  

appellants Dhan Raj and Badal were associated with him in  

the commission of the crime and that Badal had taken away  

the wrist-watch of  the deceased and Dhan Raj  had taken  

away  the  briefcase.  It  must  be  noted  that  there  is  a  

discrepancy between the two statements of Sanjay.

6.4 Furthermore,  Sanjay’s  disclosure  led  to  the  recovery  of  a  

Kirpan  concealed  by  him  and  blood-stained  clothes,  as  

specified in  the statement.   The blood on the Kirpan was  

found  to  be  human  blood  by  the  Forensic  Science  

Laboratory, Madhuban. It appears that the accused Dhan Raj  

7

Page 8

was also arrested on February 4, 1997 and the recovery of  

the briefcase was effected. Accused Badal remained absent  

during the trial inspite of issuance of warrant of arrest and  

he was declared a proclaimed offender but he was arrested  

later and subsequently the recovery of the wrist-watch was  

effected.  The  briefcase  and  the  wrist-watch  were  duly  

identified  by  Shanti  Devi  (PW  7)  as  possessions  of  the  

deceased.

6.5 As  per  the  report  of  Dr.  Rajinder  Rai  (PW-5),  who  had  

conducted the post-mortem of the deceased’s body, there  

were seven injuries found on the body, and, in his opinion,  

death  was  due to  shock  and  haemorrhage as  a  result  of  

multiple  injuries  which  were  ante  mortem  in  nature  and  

sufficient to cause death might have been committed by a  

Kirpan.

6.6 The investigation was completed and the challan was duly  

presented  in  court.  The  case  was  duly  committed  to  the  

Court of Sessions vide order dated May 8, 1997 and charge  

under  Section  302  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  was  framed  

8

Page 9

against Sanjay and under Section 302 read with Section 34  

and  Section  392  read  with  Sections  395  and  397  of  the  

Indian Penal  Code,  against  the two accused wherein  they  

pleaded not guilty and sought for a trial. At this point, it is  

pertinent  to  mention  that  the  trial  of  accused  Badal  was  

conducted separately as he was arrested later. In the course  

of  the trial,  twentythree witnesses  were examined by the  

prosecution to prove its case. The statement of the appellant  

Dhan Raj  was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of  

Criminal  Procedure,  wherein  he  has  pleaded  that  he  has  

been  falsely  implicated  and  that  the  Sub–Inspector  has  

fabricated a false recovery in collusion with one Rohtas @  

Maharaja who was also arrested in the matter. The case of  

the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence and  

the trial court after hearing the parties vide judgement dated  

September 25, 1999 convicted and sentenced the accused  

Sanjay and Dhan Raj ordering imprisonment for life and a  

fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 341  

of the Indian Penal Code along with rigorous imprisonment  

for eight years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section  

9

Page 10

392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and the  

sentences  to  run  concurrently.  Vide  judgment  dated  

February  18,  2009,  the  trial  court  acquitted  the  accused  

Badal.   

6.7 As the accused Badal was tried separately and was acquitted  

in the trial, we find it pertinent to discuss the same briefly. A  

case under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section  

392  read  with  Sections  395  and  397  was  made  against  

accused  Badal  and  the  other  co-accused  and  they  were  

charge-sheeted by an order dated June 4, 1997. Badal was  

arrested  (as  stated  in  the  order  of  the  Trial  Court  dated  

February 18, 2009) on February 20, 2007 and then his trial  

began with the earlier witnesses in the trial of Dhan Raj and  

Badal  being  recalled  and  recorded  against  the  accused  

Badal.  He  was  examined  under  Section  313  of  Cr.P.C.  

wherein  he  pleaded  not  guilty  and  claimed  that  he  was  

falsely implicated and that he never made any  disclosure  

statement and no recovery was effected from him.

1

Page 11

6.8  In  the  said  trial,  the  findings  of  the  court  were  that  the  

deceased was murdered in Bizidpur by several knife blows  

on his person while on his way to Kheri Jat. That evidence of  

PW1 to PW7 recorded in the earlier trial did not amount to  

material  evidence  against  the  accused.  The  statement  of  

Shanti  Devi  being  PW7  regarding  the  wrist  watch  of  the  

deceased that the wrist watch recovered from Badal is the  

same that  belonged  to  the  deceased  as  the  initials  ‘VPS’  

were written on the same, does not inspire confidence; there  

is no corroboration of that fact and that it  does not seem  

logical  that  a  person  will  write  something  like this  on his  

wrist watch. Further, it was noted that the prosecution failed  

to connect the accused with the recovery of the wrist watch  

in view of a decision of the High Court that there was no  

sufficient motive. The Trial Court also pointed out that the  

case of the prosecution that the deceased was robbed and  

killed on the road and his dead body was left on the road  

itself,  is not supported by any evidence as the dead body  

was found in  the fields and that  the prosecution failed to  

answer  how the dead body reached there. It was also noted  

1

Page 12

that in the Kutcha area where the body was found no foot  

prints  of  the  accused  were  found   by  the  investigating  

agency.

6.9 On the basis of the aforementioned findings, the Trial Court  

acquitted the accused appellant and concluded that charges  

against  the  accused  were  not  proved  beyond  reasonable  

doubt as the case of the prosecution was highly doubtful and  

that PW9 to PW18, who were the material witnesses, did not  

give  any  material  and  conclusive  evidence  against  the  

accused appellant.

6.10Aggrieved  by  the  judgments  of  the  trial  court,  accused  

appellant Dhan Raj filed Criminal Appeal No. 496-DB of 1999  

and the State of Haryana filed Criminal Appeal No. 719-DB of  

2009 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High  

Court in its  impugned judgment held that the case of the  

prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and that in  

the backdrop of the existing facts the chain of circumstantial  

evidence is complete and the involvement of the accused in  

robbery  and  commission  of  murder  and  robbery  is  

1

Page 13

established. Thus, the High Court upheld the conviction of  

the appellant accused Dhan Raj and convicted the appellant  

Badal on same grounds as those of Dhan Raj and Sanjay.   

6.11Aggrieved,  the  appellants  Dhan  Raj  and  Badal  filed  the  

present appeals and the matter came before us.

7. The High Court convicted the accused appellants and Sanjay  

the other co-accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence.  

However, we will confine ourselves only to the circumstantial  

evidence produced against the accused appellants.  The High  

Court  relied  firstly, on  the  statement  of  the  wife  of  the  

deceased  Shanti  Devi  (PW7)  wherein  she  stated  that  the  

deceased wore a HMT wrist watch gifted to him at the time of  

his marriage by her parents and was carrying a briefcase with  

the  sticker  of  the  initials  ‘VPS’  when  he  left  his  house  on  

January 24, 1997 and that the same were missing when the  

body  of  the  deceased  was  found  in  the  fields.  Secondly,  

reliance was placed on the statement of the Raj Singh (PW-15),  

the brother of the deceased, wherein he has stated that when  

he was visiting his brother the deceased on January 24, 1997  

1

Page 14

after  the  deceased had left  the  three accused came to  the  

deceased’s house and enquired about him after disclosing their  

names. Thirdly, the High Court relied on disclosure statement  

of  the  co-accused  Sanjay  on  the  basis  of  which  the  blood  

stained  clothes  and  the  Kirpan  were  recovered  and  he  had  

stated that  Dhan Raj  had taken away the briefcase and the  

wrist  watch  was  taken  away  by  Badal.  Fourthly,  the  High  

Court greatly relied on the two disclosure statements of  the  

accused-appellants on the basis of which the recovery of the  

briefcase and wrist watch was made.   

8. It  was  also  noted  by  the  High  Court  that  the  blood  on  the  

Kirpan  was  human  blood  and  that  injuries  inflicted  on  the  

deceased might be caused by a Kirpan as per the opinion of the  

Doctor.  While  commenting  on  the  completeness  of  the  

circumstantial  evidence  it  was  further  noted  that  the  

truthfulness of the testimony of Sanjay was proved on the basis  

of the recovery of the car. Furthermore, it was noted that the  

fact  that the deceased was carrying a briefcase and a wrist  

watch  has  been  proved  with  the  statement  of  Shanti  Devi.  

Thus, on the basis of the above, the disclosure statements of  

1

Page 15

the  accused  appellant  and  the  disclosure  statement  of  co-

accused  Sanjay  were  treated  as  clinching  evidence  proving  

their involvement by the High Court.

9.  In order to discuss the correctness of the order of conviction,  

we now proceed by considering the four grounds on which the  

High Court relied. We would first discuss the reliance placed on  

the evidence given by the co-accused Sanjay. The co-accused  

Sanjay  in  the  course  of  investigation  by  his  confessional  

statement being an extra-judicial confession dated February 4,  

1997 named the accused appellants as his accomplices in the  

murder and robbery and stated that Dhan Raj and Badal took  

the  briefcase  and  wrist  watch  of  the  deceased  respectively.  

However,  in  an earlier  confessional  statement  dated January  

25,  1997  made  in  the  investigation  in  FIR  No.  32  of  1997,  

Sanjay has named Rohtas as his accomplice and stated that he  

only took the wrist watch and the brief case and from the same  

confession the car of the deceased was recovered.  From the  

later  confession,  the  Kirpan  and  blood  stained  clothes  were  

recovered.  

1

Page 16

10.  It is well established that extra-judicial confession has been  

treated by this Court as weak evidence in the absence of a  

chain of cogent circumstances, for recording a conviction (See:  

Gopal  Sah  vs.  State  of  Bihar1,  and Pancho  vs.  State  of   

Haryana2). It was held in Sahadevan and Anr. vs. State of Tamil   

Nadu3 that if an extra judicial confession suffers from material  

discrepancies or inherent improbabilities then this Court cannot  

base a conviction on the same.  In the present case, there is an  

apparent  discrepancy  in  the  confession  statement  of  Sanjay  

and  the  same  is  a  glaring  one  as  he  has  named  different  

accomplices  in  the  same  crime  in  his  two  confessional  

statements.  Furthermore,  Sanjay’s  confessional  statements  

only connect him to the car and the Kirpan, his statement that  

the accused appellants took the wrist watch and the briefcase  

in the absence of other evidence except the recovery of the  

same does not  establish that  anything beyond the fact  that  

they may possess stolen goods. In no manner does the later  

statement  of  the  co-accused  supports  that  the  accused  

appellants were involved in the commission of murder. In the  1 (2008) 17 SCC 128 2 (2011) 10 SCC 165 3 (2012) 6 SCC 403

1

Page 17

case of Pancho vs. State of Haryana (supra) this Court did not  

convict  the  accused  Pancho  on  the  basis  of  the  confession  

statement of the co-accused in the absence of other cogent  

evidence, inspite of the belated recovery of the alleged weapon  

of murder.

11. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that reliance on  

the  extra-judicial confession of the co-accused is misplaced.

12. Owing  to  the  later  confessional  statement  of  co-accused  

Sanjay, the accused appellants were arrested and subsequently  

on  the  basis  of  the  disclosure  statements  of  the  accused  

appellants  and  corroboration  by  Shanti  Devi  (PW  7),  wrist-

watch  and  the  briefcase  were  recovered.  Owing  to  the  

interdependence of  the  above evidence,  we will  discuss  the  

same  together.  The  prosecution  relied  on  the  disclosure  

statements of the accused appellants, the subsequent recovery  

of the briefcase and wrist watch on the basis of the same and  

the statement of Shanti Devi corroborating that the recovered  

wrist  watch  and  briefcase  belonged  to  the  deceased.  After  

considering  the  evidence  on  record,  we  find  that  no  proper  

1

Page 18

recovery has been made in the present case. The objects which  

were recovered were two common articles,  not holding much  

value and it  does not seem rational that any accused would  

keep  such  incriminating  items  connecting  themselves  to  a  

crime with them in their house. Regarding the recovery of the  

wrist  watch from Badal  and its  identification  by Shanti  Devi  

PW7,  we  concur  with  the  opinion  of  the  Trial  Court.  The  

relevant extract of the judgment of the trial court is reproduced  

hereunder:

“She further stated that she saw the wristwatch  Ex.P2  in the Police Station on 13.4.1997 and she identified the  watch  because  alphabets  VPS  were  written   on  the  watch.  This  statement  of  PW7  does  not  inspire  confidence because it does not appeal to the common  sense  that  the  wrist  watch  which  was  allegedly  purchased in the year 1971 at the time of marriage of  the deceased, could not carry the writing of alphabets  VPS  thereon  uptil  1997.  Otherwise  also,  it  does  not  appeal to the common sense that a person would write  any  word  on  the  wrist  watch  to  connect  him in  this  fashion.  If these alphabets would have actually been  written on the wrist watch, the complainant would have  also mentioned this fact in the FIR because complainant  was none else but the real brother of the deceased”

1

Page 19

Furthermore,  it  appears  to  us  that  the  recovery  has  not  been  

corroborated  by  any  proper  independent  evidence.  Moreover,  

recovery of an object is not a discovery of fact, as per the decision  

of this Court in Mano vs. State of Tamil Nadu4. Recovery must be  

of a fact which was relevant to connect it with the commission  of  

crime. Therefore, even if the recovery of goods is reliable then it  

does  not  indicate  that  the  accused  appellants  committed  the  

murder and the only admissible fact which can be inferred is that  

they are in possession of stolen goods.  

13. We would refer to the decision of this Court in  Madhu vs.  

State of Kerala5 the facts of which are relevant in the present  

case. In the said case, the body of the deceased was found  

near her home with her ornaments on her person missing. On  

the basis of the information furnished by the accused recovery  

of the said ornaments was made. This fact coupled with the  

sighting of the accused near the place of crime was the basis  

for conviction. However, this Court reversed the conviction on  

the ground that said recovery and sighting of the accused near  4 (2007) 13 SCC 795 5 (2012) 2 SCC 399

1

Page 20

the deceased do not lead to the sole conclusion that murder  

was committed by the accused only. In State of Rajasthan vs.   

Talevar  and  Anr.6  also  it  was  held  that  where  the  only  

evidence against the accused is recovery of stolen property,  

then  although  circumstances  may  indicate  that  theft  and  

murder might have been committed at the same time, it is not  

safe  to  draw an inference that  the  person in  possession  of  

stolen property had committed murder. Also the recovery of  

looted articles  at  the instance of  the accused could  not  be  

relied upon in absence of any details as to when and where  

such recovery was made and in absence of any confession of  

commission of offence by the accused. Besides, the seizure of  

the goods was not corroborated by any independent witness in  

the present case.

14. The abovementioned circumstantial evidence was supported  

with the statement of  Raj  Singh (PW-15),  that  when he was  

visiting his brother the deceased on January 24, 1997 after the  

deceased had left, the three accused came to the deceased’s  

house and enquired about  him after  disclosing  their  names.  

6 (2011) 11 SCC 666

2

Page 21

Before discussing the admissibility of the said statement, we  

would refer to the landmark decision of this Court in  Sharad  

Birdichand  Sarda  vs.  State  of  Maharashtra7  regarding  

circumstantial  evidence,  where this Court held regarding the  

question of the accused last seen with the deceased held that  

where it is natural for the deceased to be with the accused at  

the material time, other possibilities must be excluded before  

an  adverse  inference  can  be  drawn.  It  is  evident  from  the  

above that this Court refrains from drawing adverse inferences  

in  a  factual  matrix  which points  out  toward the guilt  of  the  

accused. Thus, we will consider the statement of Raj Singh also  

in the same light. As per the statement of Raj Singh, the three  

accused had come asking for the deceased but in the absence  

of other corroborating evidence and independent evidence, it is  

not established that the accused appellants had abetted the  

co-accused Sanjay in the commission of the crime. Also it can  

be the defence’s case that the said statement has been added  

as an afterthought to strengthen the case of the prosecution.  

We have found no material on record which corroborated the  

statement  of  Raj  Singh  who  is  an  interested  witness.  7 (1984) 4 SCC 116

2

Page 22

Furthermore,  there  is  no  other  evidence  which  indicates  or  

established the presence of the accused appellants near the  

place of commission of crime. Also, as noted by the Trial Court  

in the trial of Badal, no footprints were found in the surrounding  

Kutcha area where the body of the deceased was found.  

15. We have noticed in the case of  Madhu vs. State of Kerala   

(supra) facts of which were discussed earlier,  that this Court  

inspite of the factum that the accused were sighted close to  

the  place  of  occurrence  at  around  the  time  of  occurrence  

reversed the  conviction  as  guilt  was  not  established.  In  the  

present factual matrix, it is only an interested witness stating  

that  the  accused  had  come  asking  for  the  deceased.  This  

factum alone does not establish guilt as no other evidence is  

found that they were near the Bizdipur area where the crime  

was committed or had visited the house of the deceased. For  

establishing the guilt on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it  

is also to be taken into account that the chain of circumstantial  

evidence must be completed. It appears from the facts that the  

said chain of circumstantial evidence cannot be concluded in  

the  manner  sought  to  be  done  by  the  prosecution.  The  

2

Page 23

circumstances  must  be  conclusive  in  nature.  In  the  instant  

case, after analysing the facts, it appears to us that there is a  

gap between the circumstances tried to be relied upon to hold  

the appellants as guilty.    

16. Thus, we find many loopholes in the case of the prosecution  

and  grounds  on  which  the  High  Court  has  convicted  the  

accused appellants. We would refer to the decision of this Court  

in  Munish  Mubar  v.  State  of  Haryana8 wherein  Dr.  Justice  

Chauhan has very aptly and succinctly stated the following:

“The circumstantial  evidence is a close companion of  factual matrix,  creating a fine network through which  there  can  be  no  escape  for  the  accused,  primarily  because the said facts, when taken as a whole, do not  permit  us  to  arrive  at  any  other  inference  but  one  indicating the guilt of the accused.”

A  court  has  to  examine  the  entire  evidence  in  its  entirety  

especially in case of circumstantial evidence and ensure that the  

8 (2012) 10 SCC 464

2

Page 24

only  inference  drawn  from  the  evidence  is  the  guilt  of  the  

accused.  If  more  than  one  inference  can  be  drawn  then  the  

accused must have the benefit of doubt as it is not the court’s job  

to  assume  and  only  when  guilt  beyond  reasonable  doubt  is  

proved then it is fair to record conviction.

17. In case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must  

be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence,  

and the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain  

without giving any chance of surmise or conjecture and must  

also be consistent with the guilt of the accused. None of the  

circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by  

the  High  Court  can  be  said  to  be  the  probability  of  the  

appellants’ guilt or involvement in the commission of the crime.  

18. Therefore,  for  the  reasons  recorded  hereinabove,  the  

judgment and order of the High Court is set aside; the appeals  

are  allowed  and  the  accused  are  acquitted  forthwith.  The  

appellant in Criminal Appeal No.703/2011 is already out on bail  

2

Page 25

granted  by  this  Court;  the  appellant  in  Criminal  Appeal  

No.1410/2010 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not  

required in any other case.  

…………………………………..J.           (Chandramauli Kr.  

Prasad)

…………………………………..J.           (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)  

New Delhi;             May 9, 2014.

2

Page 26

2