1  

REPORTABLE  

      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 OF 2009  

 GANPAT SINGH                                                                  .....APPELLANT            

 Versus  

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                        .....RESPONDENT  

J U D G M E N T  

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J    

1 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya  

Pradesh High Court in its bench at Indore, rendered on 22 March 2007. The High  

Court affirmed the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian  

Penal Code (“IPC”).   

2  

2 Shantabai was a widow. Her husband Mangilal had died about a decade  

earlier. She resided together with her son Rakesh, who was a minor. The  

prosecution alleges that the Appellant would visit her frequently.   

3 The case of the prosecution is that on 8 July 1996, the police station at  

Doraha received information of a dead body being found in a dry well. A ‘missing  

report’ had been lodged by Rakesh. Rakesh had alleged that the Appellant used  

to frequently visit the house where Shantabai resided and had started to live  

there. Rakesh informed the police that a few days earlier, the Appellant had come  

to the house and had left the next morning with his mother for Sihore soon  

thereafter. On the next day, when the Appellant returned alone, Rakesh enquired  

of the whereabouts of his mother. The Appellant allegedly informed him that she  

had stayed back at the home of Rakesh’s maternal aunt. A First Information  

Report was registered. A post-mortem was conducted on the body which had  

been recovered from the dry well, which was identified to be that of Shantabai.  

The body was decomposed and there was a piece of cloth loosely tied around the  

neck. The period of death was estimated to be between two to four weeks prior to  

the recovery of the dead body. The Appellant is stated to have absconded  

immediately after the incident. He was arrested on 12 December 1997. The  

appellant was tried on the charge of murder.    

4 The prosecution examined fifteen eye-witnesses. Among them were  

Rakesh- PW4 and Rekha-PW5, the married daughter of the deceased. PW1-

Kamlabai and PW2-Dhankunwarbai deposed that Shantabai had visited their

3  

homes with a request to lend certain silver ornaments to her since she intended  

to arrange the engagement of her son, PW4- Rakesh. The evidence of these two  

witnesses was sought to be buttressed by a recovery of silver ornaments from the  

house of the Appellant. PW3- Phool Singh was a witness for the prosecution in  

support of the seizure memo. PW4- Rakesh deposed that the Appellant had  

taken his mother along with him under the pretext of getting Rakesh engaged.  

PW4 stated that on the next day, when the Appellant returned alone, he enquired  

about the whereabouts of his mother when the Appellant informed him that she  

had stayed back with her sister. PW4 stated that he made inquiries with his  

maternal aunt who informed him that his mother had not visited her.   

5 The Additional Sessions Judge by a judgment dated 23 June 1998 found  

the Appellant guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced  

him to imprisonment for life. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.  

The circumstances which weighed with the trial court were that : (i) the deceased  

was last seen accompanying the Appellant; (ii) the deceased had taken with her  

the  jewellery of PW1 and PW2 which was recovered from the Appellant; and (iii)  

the Appellant had no explanation of how the articles were found in his  

possession.   

6 In appeal, the High Court by its judgment dated 22 March 2007,  

disbelieved the case of the prosecution on the recovery of the silver ornaments  

from the house of the Appellant. The High Court noticed that only three silver  

ornaments had been recovered which were identified by Rekha, PW5 who was

4  

the daughter of the deceased. Significantly, as the High Court noted, the  

prosecution had no explanation as to why there was no identification of the silver  

ornaments by PW1-Kamlabai and PW2- Dhankunwarbai who were alleged to  

have lent their ornaments to the deceased. The ornaments had no special marks  

of identification and were commonly available in the market. The High Court  

observed that Rekha, PW5 had no occasion to observe the ornaments since her  

mother had only visited briefly. PW5, in the course of her deposition, stated for  

the first time that one of the ornaments belonged to her but then changed her  

statement and stated that it belonged to her mother. The High Court noticed a  

clear contradiction with her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC. The  

recovery of the ornaments from the house of the Appellant has hence been  

disbelieved. The High Court also noted in the course of the judgment that  

Rakesh, PW4 had exaggerated what he claimed to know, in the course of his  

deposition. PW4 stated that the Appellant had admitted to him that he had killed  

Shantabai but no such statement was made under Section 161 of the CrPC.   

7 In the above background, the High Court did not rely upon the alleged  

recovery of the silver ornaments which was a material circumstance which the  

Additional Sessions Judge had found to link the Appellant with the murder of  

Shantabai. Nonetheless, three circumstances weighed with the High Court in  

affirming the conviction of the Appellant. These are summarized in the following  

extracts of the judgment of the High Court :  

“Thus, to summarize the facts :-  

(i) The deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.

5  

(ii) The accused made false statement to the son of the deceased  

Rakesh (PW-4) that her mother had gone to the maternal aunt.  

(iii) That the body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the  

accused.”  

8 During the course of the hearing of the appeal, it has been submitted on  

behalf of the Appellant that the third circumstance noted above reveals a clear  

error by the High Court since the body of the deceased was recovered on 8 July  

1996 whereas the Appellant was arrested on 12 December 1997. This aspect  

has not been disputed by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the  

respondent-state. Hence, there is a manifest error on the part of the High Court in  

holding that the body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the  

Appellant. The Appellant was arrested several months after the recovery of the  

body. Hence, the recovery of the body could not have been (and was not) at his  

instance. That essentially leaves the court only with the first two circumstances  

which have been relied upon by the High Court.   

9 There are no eye-witnesses to the crime. In a case which rests on  

circumstantial evidence, the law postulates a two-fold requirement. First, every  

link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused  

must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Second, all  

the circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The  

principle has been consistently formulated thus :   

“The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is  

that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to  

be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those  

circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing  

towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken

6  

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 they should be incapable of  

explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the  

accused and inconsistent with his innocence”.1  

10 Evidence that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased  

assumes significance when the lapse of time between the point when the  

accused and the deceased were seen together and when the deceased is found  

dead is so minimal as to exclude the possibility of a supervening event involving  

the death at the hands of another. The settled formulation of law is as follows :  

“The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between  

the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last  

alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility  

of any person other than the accused being the author of crime  

becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively  

establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when  

there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in  

between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to  

conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together, it  

would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases”. 2    

11 The case of the prosecution is riddled with unexplained contradictions,  

PW1-Kamlabai and PW2-Dhankunwarbai were crucial to the case of the  

prosecution for establishing that the deceased had visited them and that they had  

lent her silver ornaments ostensibly because she intended to arrange the  

                                                             1  See  Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116; Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy  

v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 10 SCC 172; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC  681; Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 8 SCC 456; Sanjay Kumar Jain v. State of Delhi, (2011) 11 SCC  733; Madhu v. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399; Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya v. State of  Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 174; Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 12 SCC 439.”    2  See Bodh Raj @ Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45; Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab  

(2005) 12 SCC 438; Tipparam Prabhakar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 13 SCC 534; Rishi Pal v. State of  Uttarakhand, (2013) 12 SCC 551; Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 279; Kiriti Pal v. State of  West Bengal, (2015) 11 SCC 178; State of Karnataka v. Chand Basha, (2016) 1 SCC 501; Rambraksh v. State  of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251; Anjan Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam, 2017 (6) SCALE 556.”   

7  

engagement of her son Rakesh-PW4. Admittedly, neither PW1 nor PW2 were  

called upon to identify the jewellery alleged to have been recovered from the  

house of the Appellant. PW1 stated that the jewellery which she had lent weighed  

more than half a kg. PW2 deposed that the ornaments which she had lent  

weighed about 1.25 kgs. In the course of her cross-examination, PW1 stated that  

it was true that the ornaments which she had lent were commonly worn by  

women in the villages.  PW2 also admitted that there were no identification marks  

on the ornaments and they were of a nature that is commonly used. PW5-Rekha,  

the daughter of the deceased, had (as the High Court observed) no opportunity  

to observe the ornaments on the person of the deceased. The ornaments had no  

special marks of identification. PW5 materially improved upon her version during  

the course of the examination. On this state of the evidence, the recovery of the  

silver ornaments (which was an important link in the chain of circumstances  

relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge) has been correctly disbelieved by  

the High Court.   

12 An important circumstance which weighed with the High Court was that the  

body of the deceased was recovered at the behest of the Appellant. There is a  

manifest error on the part of the High Court in arriving at this conclusion since the  

record would indicate that the body of the deceased was recovered several  

months before the arrest of the Appellant. The mere circumstance that the  

Appellant was last seen with the deceased is an unsafe hypothesis to found a  

conviction on a charge of murder in this case. The lapse of time between the  

point when the Appellant was last seen with the deceased and the time of death

8  

is not minimal. The time of death was estimated to be between two to four weeks  

prior to the recovery of the body.   

13 We must also place in balance the testimony of PW4 that when he  

enquired regarding whereabouts of his mother, the Appellant informed him that  

she had stayed back at the house of her sister. This, coupled with the fact that  

the Appellant had absconded after the date of the incident is a pointer to a strong  

suspicion that the Appellant was responsible for the death of Shantabai.  

However, a strong suspicion in itself is not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that  

the guilt of the Appellant stands established beyond reasonable doubt. There are  

material contradictions in the case of the prosecution. These have been noticed  

in the earlier part of its judgment and are sufficient in our view to entitle the  

Appellant to the benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to establish a complete  

chain of circumstances and to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of  

the Appellant.   

14 We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction of the  

Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant is on bail.  His bail bonds  

are discharged.    

                                                            ……........................................J  

                         [N V RAMANA]     

                                                     ................................................J                       [Dr D Y  CHANDRACHUD]    New Delhi;  September 19, 2017