Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     67     OF     2008   

Jagroop Singh         .....……..Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab ………Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

Dipak     Misra,     J.   

This appeal preferred by special leave under Article 136 of  

the Constitution of India calls in question the judgment of  

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Division Bench of  

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.  

199/DB of 1997 whereby the High Court has affirmed the  

conviction and confirmed the sentence passed by the learned  

Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 1992  

wherein he had found that the appellant along with one Bikkar  

Singh was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302

Page 2

2

read with Section 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for  

short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced the accused persons to suffer  

rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in  

default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous  

imprisonment for two months each on the first count and  

rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of  

Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for  

one month each on the second score with the stipulation that  

both the substantive sentences shall be concurrent.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the trial is that about 3.15  

p.m. on 2.4.1991, when Sukhdev Singh, PW-8, was feeding  

fodder to his cattle at his house, accused Jagsir Singh came to  

his house and asked his son, Jagjit Singh @ Jagga, to accompany  

him for plucking flowers from the field.  Jagjit Singh, a 10 year  

old boy, accompanied him.  As the boy did not return home till  

evening, the complainant went to the house of Jagroop Singh,  

Uncle of Jagsir Singh, to enquire about his son. As the doors  

were not opened and there was no response he searched for his  

son in the village but could not find him.  On the next day, in the  

morning he proceeded with the co-villagers to search for the boy  

in the fields.  After he reached the fields of Santosh Singh, he

Page 3

3

found some freshly dug earth near a heap of sticks. Being  

suspicious, all of them dug out the earth and found the dead  

body of Jagjit Singh lying buried over there having injury marks  

on the head.  Sukhdev Singh left his brother Gurmail Singh there  

for guarding the body and proceeded towards the police station.  

On the way near the bus stand he met ASI Surjit Singh who  

recorded his statement and accompanied him to the fields of  

Jagroop Singh. The investigating officer prepared the inquest  

report, recovered the blood stained weapon of offence and sample  

of earth smeared with blood, prepared two distinct sealed parcels  

thereof, Exhibits P-1 and P-2, and sent the dead body for post  

mortem. In the FIR, it was stated that the deceased had been  

murdered by Jagsir Singh with the aid and assistance of other  

persons and they had buried the dead body.   

3. As the factual narration would reveal, on 21.4.1992,  

Jagroop Singh and Jagsir Singh made an extra judicial  

confession before Natha Singh, PW 14, and accused Bikkar Singh  

made an extra-judicial confession before Zora Singh, PW-2, and  

both Natha Singh and Zora Singh produced the accused persons  

before the police.  After being arrested, they led to the discovery  

of one `Kassi’  (spade) which was buried under the ground near

Page 4

4

the place wherefrom the dead body was recovered.  The seized  

weapon was sent for chemical analysis examination in the  

forensic science laboratory and after completing the investigation,  

the investigating officer placed the charge-sheet before the  

concerned Magistrate, who committed the matter to the Court of  

Session for trial of offences under Section 302 read with Section  

34 and 201 of IPC.  Be it noted, in the course of investigation, it  

was found that Jagsir Singh was a juvenile and was produced  

before the appropriate forum at Bhatinda.   

4. Both the accused persons denied the charge and pleaded  

false implication due to animosity.

5. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined Dr. Devinder  

Mittal, the autopsy surgeon as PW-1, Zora Singh, PW-2, Sukhdev  

Singh, PW-8, Gurdev Singh, PW-10, Natha Singh, PW-14,  

Balwinder Singh, PW-17 and ASI Surjit Singh, PW-18, as  

principal witnesses.  The rest of the witnesses are formal  

witnesses.  The reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory and  

many other documents were brought on record and marked as  

exhibits.

6. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence.  

Page 5

5

7. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence  

brought on record, came to hold that the death of the deceased  

Jagjit Singh was homicidal in nature; that the deceased was last  

seen with the accused persons; that the accused had made extra-

judicial confessions admitting the guilt; that the dead body of the  

deceased was recovered from the field of the father of accused  

Jagroop Singh; that the weapon used in the crime was recovered  

on the basis of the disclosure statement made by accused  

Jagroop Singh; that as per the report of Forensic Science  

Laboratory, the weapon used, spade, was found stained with  

human blood; and that the doctor who had conducted the post  

mortem had clearly stated that the injuries found on the body of  

the deceased could be caused by the seized weapon.  On the  

aforesaid basis, he came to hold that the prosecution had been  

able to prove the case against the accused persons beyond  

reasonable doubt and accordingly recorded the conviction and  

imposed the sentence.

8. On an appeal being preferred, the High Court reappreciated  

the evidence and came to hold that the circumstantial evidence  

from all spectrums led to the only conclusion that the accused

Page 6

6

persons had committed the crime and concurred with the view  

expressed by the learned trial Judge.

9. We have heard Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel for the  

appellant, and Mr. Jayant K. Sood, learned Additional Advocate  

General for the respondent-State.   

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the  

following contentions: -

(a) The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court has not  

appreciated the evidence brought on record in proper  

perspective keeping in view the parameters laid down by  

this Court in various authorities relating to restriction of  

conviction on circumstantial evidence and hence, the  

judgments are unsustainable in law.

(b) The circumstances which have weighed with the Courts,  

namely, last seen with the deceased, the extra-judicial  

confession made by the accused before Zora Singh, PW-2,  

and Natha Singh, PW-14, and recovery of spade and body of  

the deceased near the field of the father of the accused-

appellant at his instance are unacceptable inasmuch as the

Page 7

7

testimony of witnesses are replete with improvement,  

embellishment and contradiction.

(c)  The time gap between the point of time when the accused  

was last seen with the deceased and when the deceased was  

found dead is of long duration and, therefore, the said  

circumstance is to be ignored.

(d) The reliance on extra-judicial confession before Zora Singh,  

PW-2 and Natha Singh, PW-14 is unacceptable inasmuch  

as the confession was made after 18 days which makes it  

absolutely dented.  There is no earthly reason that the  

appellant would confess before Zora Singh, PW-2, since  

there was prior enmity between the informant and the  

appellant and Zora Singh, PW-2, is a close relation of the  

father of the deceased.  That apart, there are improvements  

in the course of examination in court and the same makes  

the extra-judicial confession, a weak piece of evidence,  

wholly unreliable.

(e) The circumstance pertaining to recovery of the weapon is  

not to be given any credence.  There is incurable  

discrepancy with regard to the place of recovery.  Further,

Page 8

8

though the seized earth and the weapon were sent for  

examination, the report is silent as regards the matching of  

blood group with that of the deceased and such lack of  

corroboration makes the said circumstance hollowed and  

that makes the judgment of conviction  sensitively  

vulnerable.       

11. The learned counsel for the respondent combated the  

aforesaid proponements.  The learned counsel has advanced the  

following submissions:-

(i) The attack on the last seen circumstance on the foundation  

that there is a long duration between the last seen and  

when the dead body was found is totally untenable  

inasmuch as the opinion in the post mortem report is that  

the death had occurred within twenty four hours.  That  

apart, the testimony of PW 10 and 17 is unimpeachable  

since they have stood embedded in their stand.   

(ii) The circumstance of extra-judicial confession cannot be  

disregarded despite some improvements in the version of  

Natha Singh, PW 14, as there is no suggestion that his  

version is tainted.  Quite apart from that, after abscondance

Page 9

9

of the accused Bikkar Singh, he came and confessed before  

Zora Singh and the present appellant along with Jagsir  

Singh before Natha Singh who produced them before the  

Police and there is nothing on record to state that either  

Zora Singh, PW-2, or Natha Singh, PW-14, applied any  

force.   

(iii) There is no reason to doubt the disclosure statement and  

leading to recovery on the ground that the weapon was  

recovered in the nearby field but not in the field of the  

appellant and there has been no matching of blood stains  

with that of the appellant’s blood.  

(iv) Both the High Court and the trial court have kept  

themselves alive to the parameters of circumstances and  

there can be no trace of doubt that all the circumstances  

cumulatively prove the guilt of the accused beyond  

reasonable doubt, for there are no such flaws which would  

compel a court of law to disregard the vital circumstance  

and entertain pleas artificially grafted by imagination.  

12. As is evincible, the entire case rests on circumstantial  

evidence.  Before we analyse and appreciate the circumstances

Page 10

10

that have weighed with the trial Court and the High Court, we  

think it apposite to refer to certain authorities pertaining to  

delineation of cases that hinge on circumstantial evidence.

13. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1, a  

three-Judge Bench has laid down five golden principles which  

constitute the “panchsheel”  in respect of a case based on  

circumstantial evidence.  Referring to the decision in Shivaji  

Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra2, it was opined that  

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. Thereafter, the Bench  

proceeded to lay down that 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; that the  

circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;  

that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the  

one to be proved; and that there must be a chain of evidence so  

complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the  

1 AIR 1984 SC 1622 2 AIR 1973 SC 2622 = (1973) 2 SCC 793

Page 11

11

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.”

14. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and  

others3, this Court held that when a case rests upon  

circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be satisfied:  

(SCC pp. 710-11, para 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.”

3  1989 Supp (2) SCC 706 : 1991 SCC (CRI) 407

Page 12

12

The similar view has been reiterated in Ramreddy Rajesh  

Khanna Reddy and another v. State of A.P.4.   

15. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab5, it has been laid  

down that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt  

is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances  

must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the  

crime.  All the links in the chain of events must be established  

beyond reasonable doubt and the established circumstances  

should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the  

accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.  In a case  

based on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be on its  

guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place  

of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being  

swayed by emotional considerations, however strong they may  

be, to take the place of proof.

16. In Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of  

Maharashtra6, while dealing with the validity of inferences to be  

drawn from circumstantial evidence, it has been emphasised that  

where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the  4 (2006) 10 SCC 172 5 AIR 1996 SC 607

6 AIR 2007 SC 2957

Page 13

13

inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating  

facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the  

innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person and  

further the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt  

of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable  

doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the  

principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.   

17. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava7, emphasis  

has been laid that it is the duty of the Court to take care while  

evaluating circumstantial evidence.  If the evidence adduced by  

the prosecution is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one  

in favour of the accused must be accepted.  That apart, the  

circumstances relied upon must be established and the  

cumulative effect of the established facts must lead to a singular  

hypothesis that the accused is guilty.

18. In Ram Singh v. Sonia and Ors.8, while referring to the  

settled proof pertaining to circumstantial evidence, this Court  

reiterated the principles about the caution to be kept in mind by  

Court.  It has been stated therein that in a case depending  

7 AIR 1992 SCW 640 = AIR 1992 SC 840 8 AIR 2007 SC 1218

Page 14

14

largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger  

that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof.  

The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the  

chain of events have been established clearly and such  

completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a  

reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused.  It has also  

been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of  

circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot  

in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all  

reasonable doubts.   

19. In Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab9, after referring to the  

aforesaid principles pertaining to the evaluation of circumstantial  

evidence, this Court stated that it must nonetheless be  

emphasised that whether a chain is complete or not would  

depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence  

and no universal yardstick should ever be attempted.

20. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we shall presently  

proceed to scrutinize and evaluate the circumstances whether  

the said circumstances establish the guilt of the accused beyond  

reasonable doubt.  First, we shall advert to the reliability and  

9 (2007) 13 SCC 90

Page 15

15

credibility of the ‘last seen’  theory as propounded by the  

prosecution.  The testimony of PWs-8, 10 and 17 are relevant to  

be seen for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion whether the  

circumstance of ‘last seen’  has been established.  PW-8 is the  

father of the deceased.  He has stated that Jagsir Singh, who was  

residing with Jagroop Singh, his maternal uncle, came to his  

house and asked Jagjit Singh to accompany him to pluck Genda  

(marigold) flowers in the field.  Jagjit accompanied him.  PW-10,  

Gurdev Singh, has deposed that about 4.00 p.m. when he was  

going from village Jita Singh Wala to village Mari Mustafa to see  

his daughter, near a turning outside village Jita Singh Wala, he  

found that Roop Singh, Bikkar Singh and Jagsir Singh along  

with deceased Jagjit Singh were proceeding towards the fields.  

In the cross-examination, he has stated that the road by which  

the three accused were taking the deceased was known to him as  

he had earlier gone on that passage and at that time he did not  

suspect anything.  The learned counsel for the appellant has  

submitted that there is a material contradiction in the statement  

of Gurdev Singh, PW-10, and that of Sukhdev Singh, PW-8,  

inasmuch as Gurdev Singh had stated that for the first time he  

made a disclosure about seeing the deceased in the company of

Page 16

16

the accused persons whereas Sukhdev Singh had stated that  

while he was searching for Jagjit Singh, Gurdev Singh told him  

that he had seen the accused going together with the deceased.  

Keeping the appreciation and analysis of this evidence in  

abeyance, it is apt to scan the testimony of PW-17.  Balwinder  

Singh, PW-17, has testified that on 2.4.1991, about 4.00 p.m., he  

was going to the bus-stand of village Kotla Raika.  When he  

reached the house of Jagroop Singh, he saw all the three accused  

along with the deceased going towards the field of Jagroop Singh  

who was carrying a spade with him.  He had enquired from Jagjit  

Singh why he was accompanying the accused with whom they  

were not on good terms, to which he replied that he had no  

hostility with his companions and he was going to pluck the  

flowers.  Thereafter, Jagroop Singh told why he was talking ill of  

them.  The learned counsel for the appellant has criticised the  

evidence of this witness on the ground that he has been  

convicted of murder of the appellant’s brother and he had made  

two improvements in his statement recorded under Section 161  

Cr.P.C. inasmuch as when he has deposed, he had stated before  

the police that the accused and deceased were going towards the

Page 17

17

field of Jagroop Singh and further he has stated before the police  

that the accused had told him why he was talking ill.

21. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant  

basically is that there are omissions and improvements in the  

versions of the witnesses and of such magnitude that they affect  

the prosecution case.  In State Rep. by Inspector of Police v.  

Saravanan and anr.10, it has been stated that the  

contradictions/omissions must be of such nature which  

materially affect the trial.  Minor contradictions, inconsistencies,  

embellishments or improvements which do not affect the core of  

the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the  

evidence of the witness in entirety.  In Sunil Kumar  

Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others v. State of  

Maharashtra11, it has been laid down that the omissions which  

amount to contradictions in material particulars, i.e., go to the  

root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the  

prosecution case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be  

discredited.  Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, when the  

evidence of these three witnesses are scrutinized, we find that  

PW 8, the father of the deceased, has categorically stated that his  

10 AIR 2009 SC 152 11 (2010) 13 SCC 657

Page 18

18

son had accompanied the accused Jagsir.  There is nothing on  

record to disbelieve the said testimony.  As regards the testimony  

of PW-17, the omissions and the improvements which have been  

highlighted are absolutely minor.  In fact, to appreciate the same,  

we have anxiously perused the statement recorded under Section  

161 of the Cr.P.C. and the deposition in Court.  We find that this  

witness has clearly stated that all of them were going towards the  

field.   The only omission is that he had not stated that they were  

going to the field of Jagroop.   As regards the improvement he  

has made that the accused persons had told him why he was  

speaking ill of them, in our considered view, these aspects do not  

affect the core of the prosecution case. The evidence of PW-10,  

Gurdev Singh, is criticised on the base that he had stated before  

the police that he had seen the accused persons and not before  

anyone else whereas the complainant had stated the he had said  

so before him.  The aforesaid discrepancy cannot be regarded to  

have created any dent in the prosecution story.   

22. Quite apart from the above, what is argued is that there is a  

long gap between the last seen and recovery of the dead body of  

the deceased.  As per the material on record, the informant  

searched for his son in the village in the late evening and next

Page 19

19

day in the morning, he went to the fields and the dead body was  

found.  The post-mortem report indicates that the death had  

occurred within 24 hours.  Thus, the duration is not so long as  

to defeat or frustrate the version of the prosecution.  Therefore,  

there can be no trace of doubt that the deceased was last seen in  

the company of the accused persons.   

23. The second circumstance pertains to extra- judicial  

confession.  Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the appellant, has  

vehemently criticized the extra-judicial confession on the ground  

that such confession was made after 18 days of the occurrence.  

That apart,  it is submitted that the father of Natha Singh and  

grand-father of the deceased are real brothers and, therefore, he  

is an interested witness and to overcome the same, he has  

deposed in Court that he has strained relationship with the  

informant, though he had not stated so in the statement  

recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC.   

24. The issue that emanates for appreciation is whether such  

confessional statement should be given any credence or thrown  

overboard.  In this context, we may refer with profit to the  

authority in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan12 wherein, after  12 (2001 ) 2 SCC 205

Page 20

20

referring to the decisions in  Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of  

Vindhya Pradesh13, Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab14, Narayan  

Siingh V. State of M.P.15,  Kishore Chand v. State of H.P.16 and  

Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana17, it has been opined that it is the  

settled position of law that extra judicial confession, if true and  

voluntary, can be relied upon by the court to convict the accused  

for the commission of the crime alleged.  Despite inherent  

weakness of extra-judicial confession as an item of evidence, it  

cannot be ignored when shown that such confession was made  

before a person who has no reason to state falsely and his  

evidence is credible.  The evidence in the form of extra-judicial  

confession made by the accused before the witness cannot be  

always termed to be tainted evidence.  Corroboration of such  

evidence is required only by way of abundant caution.  If the  

court believes the witness before whom the confession is made  

and is satisfied that it was true and voluntarily made, then the  

conviction can be founded on such evidence alone.  The aspects  

which have to be taken care of are the nature of the  

circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the  

13 AIR 1954 SC 322 14 AIR 1975 SC 1320  15 AIR 1985 SC 1678 16 AIR 1990 SC 2140 17 AIR 1991 SC 37

Page 21

21

credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a confession.  

That apart, before relying on the confession, the court has to be  

satisfied that it is voluntary and it is not the result of  

inducement, threat or promise as envisaged under Section 24 of  

the Act or brought about in suspicious circumstances to  

circumvent Sections 25 and 26.   

25. Recently, in Sahadevan & Another v. State of Tamil  

Nadu18, after referring to the rulings in Sk. Yusuf v. State of  

W.B.19 and Pancho v. State of Haryana20,  a two-Judge Bench  

has laid down that the extra-judicial confession is a weak  

evidence by itself and it has to be examined by the court with  

greater care and caution; that it should be made voluntarily and  

should be truthful; that it should  inspire confidence; that an  

extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and  

evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent  

circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution  

evidence; that for an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of  

conviction, it should  not suffer from any material discrepancies  

18  2012 AIR SCW 3206 19 (2011) 11 SCC 754  20  (2011) 10 SCC 165 : AIR 2012 SC 523

Page 22

22

and inherent improbabilities; and that such statement essentially  

has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.  

 26. Keeping in view the aforesaid parameters, the criticism  

advanced against the evidence of Natha Singh, PW-14, and  

acceptance thereof  have to appreciated.  There is no dispute that  

the confession was made before Natha Singh after 18 days.  The  

fact remains that Natha Singh was not in the village and three  

days after his arrival in the village, the confession was made  

before him. He has clearly deposed that Jagsir Singh and Roop  

Singh alias Jagroop Singh had confessed before him.  The  

appellant Jagroop Singh had confessed about the crime and he  

had produced them before the ASI.  True it is, he has improved  

his version in the cross-examination that he has strained  

relationship with the complainant which he had not stated in his  

statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C but the same cannot make  

the testimony tainted.   Barring that, there is nothing in the  

cross-examination to discredit his testimony.  That apart, there  

is no suggestion that he had not produced the appellant before  

the police.  There may be some relationship between the  

informant and this witness but the evidence is totally clear and  

the confessional statement is voluntary and, in no way, appears

Page 23

23

to be induced and gets further strengthened by the fact that he  

produced them before the police.  There is no suggestion  

whatsoever that he had applied any kind of force.  It is borne out  

from that record that Bikkar Singh, another accused, had  

absconded and the present appellant along with Jagsir Singh  

came to Natha Singh and confessed and Bikkar Singh confessed  

before Gurdev Singh, PW-10.  In the confessional statement, he  

has stated about the place where the spade was hidden and led  

to the recovery to which Natha Singh is a witness.  Appreciated  

from these angles, we are of the considered opinion that the said  

confessional statement inspires confidence as the same is totally  

voluntary and by no means tainted.   

27. The next circumstance is leading to recovery of the weapon  

as is seen from the evidence.   The accused led to recovery of the  

spade from the wheat field near the heap of sticks.  The  

disclosure statement has been signed by Natha Singh and  

another witness, namely, Lal Chand.  The procedure followed for  

discovery is absolutely in accord with law and has not been  

challenged.  The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted  

that the recovery of the weapon does not aid and assist the  

prosecution version.  It is urged that though human blood is

Page 24

24

found on the spade, yet the blood group was not matched.  In  

support of the said stand, he has commended us to the decision  

in Sattatiya Alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of  

Maharashtra21.  In the said case, the occurrence had taken  

place on 1.10.1994 and the accused was arrested on 3.10.1994.  

He had led to recovery of his blood stained clothes and that of  

the deceased and the weapon used in the crime and all the  

articles were sent for chemical examination.  The clothes of the  

deceased were found having human blood of ‘O’  group.  It was  

contended that the blood group was not matched.  This Court did  

not believe the recovery of the weapon due to various reasons.  

Further, it opined that though blood stains were found on the  

clothes and the weapon used, yet the same could not be linked  

with the blood of the deceased, and, therefore, there was serious  

lacuna that the human blood stains present on the clothes of the  

accused and the weapon were sufficient to link the accused with  

the murder.    

28.  In the case at hand, the accused persons were arrested  

after 18 days and recovery was made at that time.  The blood  

stain found on the weapon has been found in the serological  

21 (2008) 3 SCC 210

Page 25

25

report as human blood.   In the case of Sattatiya (supra), the  

recovery was doubted and additionally, non-matching of blood  

group was treated to be a lacuna.  It is worth noting that the  

clothes and the weapon were sent immediately for chemical  

examination.  Here the weapon was sent after 18 days as the  

recovery was made after that period.  The accused have not given  

explanation how human blood could be found on the spade used  

for agriculture which was recovered at their instance.  In this  

context, we may profitably reproduce a passage from John  

Pandian v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil  

Nadu 22  :-

“The discovery appears to be credible.  It has  been accepted by both the courts below and  we find no reason to discard it.  This is apart  from the fact that this weapon was sent to the  forensic science laboratory (FSL) and it has  been found stained with human blood. Though  the blood group could not be ascertained, as  the results were inconclusive, the accused had  to give some explanation as to how the human  blood came on this weapon.  He gave none.  This discovery would very positively further the  prosecution case.”  

29. Thus viewed, we do not find any substantial reason to  

disbelieve the disclosure statement and the recovery of the  

22 (2010) 14 SCC 129

Page 26

26

weapon used.  It is apt to mention here that the doctor, who has  

conducted the post mortem, has clearly opined that the injuries  

on the person of the deceased could be caused by the weapon  

(blade of such spade) and the said opinion has gone unrebutted.

30. Another aspect is to be taken note of.  Though the  

incriminating circumstances which point to the guilt of the  

accused had been put to the accused, yet he could not give any  

explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  

except choosing the mode of denial.  In State of Maharashtra v.  

Suresh23, it has been held that when the attention of the  

accused is drawn to such circumstances that inculpated him in  

the crime and he fails to offer appropriate explanation or gives a  

false answer, the same can be counted as providing a missing  

link for completing the chain of circumstances.  We may hasten  

to add that we have referred to the said decision only to highlight  

that the accused has not given any explanation whatsoever as  

regards the circumstances put to him under Section 313 of the  

Code of Criminal Procedure.

31. From the aforesaid analysis, we are of the convinced  

opinion that all the three circumstances which have been  

23 (2000) 1 SCC 471

Page 27

27

established by the prosecution complete the chain.  There can be  

no trace of doubt that the circumstances have been proven  

beyond reasonable doubt.  It is worthy to remember that in  

Sucha Singh and another v. State of Punjab24, it has been  

stated that the prosecution is not required to meet any and every  

hypothesis put forward by the accused.  A reasonable doubt is  

not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair  

doubt based upon reason and common sense.  It must grow out  

of the evidence in the case.  If a case is proved perfectly, it is  

argued that it is artificial; if a case has some inevitable flaws  

because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too  

imperfect.  The present case is one where there is no trace of  

doubt that all circumstances complete the chain and singularly  

lead to the guilt of the accused persons.

32. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons, we do not find  

any infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence  

recorded by the learned trial Judge which has been affirmed by  

the High Court and, accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of  

substance, stands dismissed.

24 (2003) 7 SCC 643

Page 28

28

……………………………….J. [K. S. Radhakrishnan]

……………………………….J. [Dipak Misra]

New Delhi; July 20, 2012.