JAGROOP SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB
Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,DIPAK MISRA
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000067-000067 / 2008
Diary number: 5806 / 2006
Advocates: SHEELA GOEL Vs
KULDIP SINGH
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
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.