NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1682 OF 2012

Ramesh Dasu Chauhan and Another ..... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra .....RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

SURYA KANT, J.

The Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide judgment and order dated 26 th

February, 2003 convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with

Section  34  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (for  brevity,  “the  I.P.C.”)  and

sentenced to undergo life imprisonment besides a fine of  Rs.1,500/-

each and in  default  thereof they were directed to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment  for  six  months.   They  were  further  convicted  under

Section 392 read with Section 34,  I.P.C.  and sentenced to  undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-

each and in  default  thereof they were directed to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for three months.

1

2. The appellants’ conviction and sentence was upheld by a Division

Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in

Criminal  Appeal  No.  272/2003,  decided on 11.04.2008.   Both  these

judgments are under challenge in this 2nd Appeal.

BRIEF FACTS:  

3. Deceased Kamlesh Kumari Trivedi, aged about 79 years used to

reside  along  with  her  daughter  Rani  Trivedi  and  grand  daughter

Purnima Trivedi in Rajnigandha Apartments, Ambazari, Nagpur.  Rani

Trivedi  was a school  teacher  and used to leave home for  her  work

around 7.20 a.m. and return back in the evening.  Purnima Trivedi was

studying in M.A. in a college and she too used to leave for her classes

at  about  10.00  a.m.  and  return  by  afternoon.   Deceased  Kamlesh

Kumari Trivedi, thus, would remain alone in the house during the afore

stated period.

4. On the fateful day, i.e., 28th August, 2001, both Rani Trivedi and

Purnima  Trivedi  left  for  their  respective  destinations  while  Kamlesh

Kumari Trivedi was all by herself in the house. When Purnima Trivedi

returned from College around 1.30 p.m., she found her grandmother

(Kamlesh Kumari Trivedi) lying dead in the drawing room with visible

signs of strangulation.  The Onida T.V. set kept in the drawing room

was  found  missing.  Purnima  Trivedi  immediately  rushed  to  her

2

neighbours  Raisaheb  Chourasiya  and  Baliram  Fulari  and  informed

them about the incident.  Both of  them accompanied Purnima to the

apartment.  Baliram Fulari, on the request of Chourasiya, informed the

police control room about the incident.

5. Raisaheb Chourasiya, noticed on the date of occurrence that two

young boys had come on a red coloured motorcycle; stopped it in front

of Rajnigandha Apartments; entered the apartment building and after

some time vanished from the spot.  Mr. Sevakram Thaokar, Inspector of

Crime  Branch,  Nagpur  rushed  to  the  spot  and  on  the  basis  of  the

information  divulged  by  the  neighbours,  he  carried  out  search

operations and apprehended the appellants from near the Gupta Hotel

in village Hingna.  On personal search of one of the suspect,  some

cash amount and a silver coin was recovered; their motor cycle was

seized and Onida T.V. was also then got recovered at the instance of

first  appellant  (Ramesh).   Crime  No.  246/2001  under  Section  302,

392/34 was registered.  On consideration of the chargesheet, charges

under Sections 302, 392/34, I.P.C. were framed to which the appellants

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution, in all, examined eleven witnesses to establish

the charge, but none by the defence.  The appellants in their statement

under  Section  313,  Cr.PC,  as  well  as  in  the  cross-examination  of

3

prosecution witnesses, pleaded absolute denial and claimed to have

been made a scapegoat by the police in order to cool the public rage

down against the heinous crime.

7. Three points fell for consideration of the Learned Sessions Judge,

namely,

(i) Whether  deceased  Kamlesh  Kumari  Trivedi  died  homicidal

death?

(ii) Whether the prosecution was able to prove that accused Nos. 1

and 2 in furtherance of their common intention committed murder

of Kamlesh Kumari Trivedi?

(iii) Whether the prosecution had further succeeded in proving that

accused Nos. 1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention,

committed  robbery  of  taking  away  Onida  T.V.,  silver  coin  and

cash amount of Rs.200/- from the custody of deceased Kamlesh

Kumari Trivedi?

8.    The Trial Court was alive to the situation that in order to prove a

criminal charge by means of circumstantial evidence, it was imperative

on  the  prosecution  to  establish  beyond  any  doubt  that  –  (i)  the

circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must

be fully established; (ii) the facts so established should be consistent

4

only  with  the  hypothesis  of  the  guilt  of  the  accused;  (iii)  the

circumstances should be of conclusive nature and they should exclude

any possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (iv) the chain

of evidence should be complete leaving no reasonable ground for the

conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

9. The Trial Court thereafter scrutinised the entire evidence within

the  framework  of  cited  parameters  and  after  an  elaborate

confabulation, it came to the conclusion that Kamlesh Kumari Trivedi

died  a  homicidal  death;  the  appellants  were  duly  seen  entering

Rajnigandha  Apartments  at  the  most  relevant  time  by  Raisaheb

Chourasiya (P.W.9), the recovery of Onida T.V., silver coin and a part of

currency from the appellants was also a strong circumstance to nail

them,  who  were  consequently  held  guilty  of  the  offence(s)  under

Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced

accordingly.  

10. The High Court re-evaluated the prosecution evidence in its entirety

and  banking  upon  the  statement  of  the  star  witness,  Raisaheb

Chourasiya  (P.W.9)  coupled  with  the  deposition  made by  Sevakram

Thaokar, Police Inspector, Crime Branch (P.W.11), it concurred with the

Trial Court and dimissed the appeal.

11. We  have  heard  Mr.  Ekansh  Bansal,  Learned  Counsel  for  the

5

appellants  and  Mr.  Nishant  R.  Katneshwarkar,  Learned  Counsel  on

behalf of the State and gone through the record with their assistance.

12. It  was  vehemently  urged  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  that  no

Identification Test Parade was conducted before the Court to establish

the presence of appellants at the place of crime, even though the star

prosecution witness,  Raisaheb Chourasiya (P.W.9)  has acknowleged

that the two young persons who came on the red coloured motorcycle

had  covered  their  faces  with  mufflers.  The  version  of  Raisaheb

Chourasiya (P.W.9) was sought to be discredited on the plea that the

appellants being in the age group of  30s,  could not  be roped in as

young boys of 20-25 who were allegedly noticed entering Rajnigandha

Apartments around the time when the occurrence took place.  Learned

Counsel further argued that the appellants were never confronted with

the alleged stolen items for  identification,  more so  when the  panch

witnesses of alleged recovery have resiled and declared hostile.  He

thus, urged that crucial links in the formation of chain of circumstantial

evidence are conspicuously missing so as to link the appellants with

the offence.  The prosecution has, therefore, failed to establish its case

beyond reasonable doubt.  Counsel for the State contrarily, maintained

that its a proven case against the appellants and this Court need not re-

appraise the concurrent findings returned by the two Courts.

6

13. We find  that  the  question  which  falls  for  consideration  of  this

Court is whether the circumstantial evidence led in the instant case is

so unimpeachable that it establishes the guilt of the appellants beyond

the shadow of doubt.

14. The expression `circumstantial  evidence’ has  been the  subject

matter of consideration in a catena of decisions wherein it  has been

precisely defined as a combination of such facts that there is no escape

for the accused because the facts taken as a whole do not admit to any

inference but of his guilt.  It has also been coined as a Complete Chain

Link  Theory,  putting  onus  on  the  prosecution  to  prove  beyond

reasonable  doubt,  the  chain  of  events  which  lead  to  only  one

conclusion, namely, the culpability of the accused.

15. This  Court  in  Sharad Birdhi  Chand Sharda v.  The State  of

Maharashtra1  elaborately  considered  the  standard  of  proof

necessitated for recording a conviction on the basis of circumstantial

evidence and laid down the five golden principles of standard of proof

required to be established in such a case, which are paraphrased as

follows:-

i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of  guilt  is  to  be

drawn should be fully established;

1(1984) 4 SCC 116

7

ii) The  facts  so  established  should  be  consistent  only  with  the

hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, these should

not  be  explainable  on  any  other  hypothesis  except  that  the

accused is guilty;

iii) The circumstances should be conclusive in nature and tendency;

iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to

be proved; and

v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave

any  reasonable  ground  for  the  conclusion  consistent  with  the

innocence  of  the  accused  and  must  show  that  in  all  human

probability the acts must have been committed by the accused.

16. These precepts have been unvaryingly reiterated by this Court

from  time  to  time  including  recently  in  Manoj  Kumar  v.  State  of

Uttarakhand2.

17. Let  us  now examine whether  the prosecution has successfully

established these well-known parameters in the case in hand?

18. The  prosecution  case  foremostly  hinges  upon  the  version  of

Raisaheb  Chourasiya  (P.W.9).   He  earlier  made  a  statement  under

Section 164, Cr.PC on 16.10.2001 and consistent with thereto he has

2(2019) 5 SCC 663

8

unequivocally deposed that on 28.08.2001 at  around 11.45 a.m.,  he

was drying his hair  in his apartment when two boys came on a red

coloured motorcycle of Hero Honda make, which they parked in front of

his  neighbour  Nag  Devi’s  apartment.   The  two  boys  went  in  the

direction of Plot No. 94-95 and he thought that they might have come to

see the house which was under construction.  He, however, noticed

that the two boys opened the front gate of Rajnigandha Apartments and

went inside.  Meanwhile, Raisaheb Chourasiya got a call on phone and

after attending to it for about 20 minutes, when he again looked for the

Hero Honda Motorcycle, it was not there.  Both the boys were in plain

apparels and had put mufflers on their faces.  He thereafter went to see

one of the neighbours and sat in the verandah of the later’s house.

After some time, Purnima Trivedi came crying and informed that her

grandmother was not speaking and she was lying in a pool of blood.

She also informed that someone had stolen their T.V. set.  P.W.9 along

with Purnima and one Baliram Fulari  went inside the apartment and

found that the grandmother of Purnima was lying dead and blood was

oozing out of her nose.  He asked Purnima not to touch anything and

let  the  police  come  and  make  the  enquiry.   He  then  asked  his

neighbour, Baliram Fulari to inform the police about the incident. On the

same day at about 5.30 p.m., the police brought the two boys with the

9

motorcycle  to  his  house  and  he  identified  them  as  well  as  the

motorcycle, for there were five stickers of `sindoor’ on the mudguard of

the  motorcycle  and  he  also  remembered  its  Registration  Number.

Raisaheb Chourasiya (P.W.9)  identified both the boys in  Court-room

also, namely, the appellants.  Pertinently, there is not even a suggestion

to the witness in his cross-examination that he was not present in his

apartment  or  that  he  did  not  see  the  appellants  entering  the

Rajnigandha Apartments.   The only question put to the witness was

apparently to remind him that he could not recognize the boys as they

had  covered  their  faces  with  mufflers,  which  he  has  categorically

denied.  The witness very emphatically says in his cross-examination

that, “Incorrect to state that I have idedntified the accused except they

are before  the Court”.   The defence has indeed miserably  failed to

cause any dent in the veracity or the capability of the witness to identify

the two boys who came on the motorcycle and entered the front gate of

Rajnigandha  Apartments  or  his  assertion  that  those  two  boys  were

none else than the appellants.

19. Baliram  Fulari  (P.W.3)  has  testified  that  on  28 th August,  2001

around 1.30 p.m. one of his neighbours Raisaheb Chourasiya (P.W.9)

came to his house and informed about the murder of the mother of

Rani Trivedi (P.W.1) and the theft  of some articles.  Purnima Trivedi

10

(P.W.4) was also accompanying Raisaheb Chourasiya.  He informed

the  police  about  the  incident  on  the  request  made  by  Raisaheb

Chourasiya  and  also  gave  registered  number  of  the  red  coloured

motorcycle  to  the  police.   Baliram  Fulari  (P.W.3)  has  specifically

deposed that he informed Shri Kangle, D.C.P. of Crime Branch about

the incident.   The only suggestion given in the cross-examination to

Baliram Fulari,  (P.W.3) is that  no information was passed on to him

either by Raisaheb Chourasiya or Purnima Trivedi.  As against it, the

witness has further clarified in his cross-examination that on the same

day at about 5.30 p.m., the police brought the suspects to the place of

incident.   He  thus  fully  corroborates  the  testimony  of  Raisaheb

Chourasiya (P.W.9) and Purnima Trivedi (P.W.4) to the extent that the

police brought two boys at the place of occurrence and both of them

were seen by P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.9.      

20. According to Rani Trivedi (P.W.1), she got an emergency phone

call from her daughter around 2.30 p.m. about her mother having been

assaulted and the incident of theft in their house. She immediately left

for home and saw the bloodstains on the floor; that her mother was

throttled and strangulated with her own sari and the police was present

on  the  scene.   She  found  that  the  cupboards  in  the  room of  their

apartment were broken and the items were scattered.  A silver coin of

11

`Goddess Lakshmi’ along with cash amount of Rs.200/- besides Onida

T.V. were missing.   The thieves, however, could not break open the

Godrej  almirah  in  which  valuables  were  kept.   She  has  indubitably

deposed that the police brought two persons in the evening to their flat

and she identified them who were present in Court as accused Nos. 1

and 2. Her statement too is totally unruffled in the cross-examination.

Rather, she has well-explained that Raisaheb Chourasiya (P.W.9) lives

in the third house in row from her house.

21. Purnima  Trivedi  (P.W.4),  grand  daughter  of  the  deceased

chronically  narrated  the  events  which  she  saw  after  returning  from

college at about 1.15 p.m.  She has deposed that on reaching the flat,

she kept ringing the bell but got no response, therefore, she tried to

open the main door and pushed it due to which the pelmet fell down.

She found on entering the flat that her grandmother was lying in a pool

of blood in the drawing room.  She sprinkled water on her face thinking

she might  be  alive.   While  she  was looking  around she  found that

Onida T.V. was missing.  She found that cash amount of Rs.200/- and a

silver coin were also missing from the cubboard.  She immediately ran

to  inform  her  neighbours  and  rushed  to  the  house  of  Raisaheb

Chourasiya (P.W.9), who stayed two houses away from their apartment.

She told him about the incident.  No meaningful question was asked to

12

her  in  the  cross-examination  to  indicate  any  overcolouring  in  her

version.

22. We  may  now  turn  to  the  statement  of  Sevakram  Thaokar

(P.W.11), the Investigating Officer-cum-Inspector of Crime Branch.  He

along with the staff immediately reached at the spot i.e. Rajnigandha

Apartments  on  receipt  of  the  wireless  message  and  learnt  through

Raisaheb  Chourasiya  (P.W.9)  about  two  persons  coming  on  a  red

coloured motorcycle.  He started searching for the suspects without any

loss of time and reached upto village Hingna where he found a red

coloured motorcycle in front of Gupta Hotel. There were two persons

with the motorcycle, who were brought to Gupta Hotel and he called

two Panchas so as to interrogate the suspects in their presence.  The

two suspects, namely, the appellants were eventually arrested and a

sum of Rs.231/- and one HMT wrist watch was seized from appellant

No. 1 (Ramesh).  Another sum of Rs. 142/- with silver coin and one

goggle  was  recovered  from appellant  No.  2  (Kamlesh).  Their  Hero

Honda Motorcycle was seized vide Ext. P-27.  Appellant No. 1 also got

recovered Onida T.V. from his residence at Wana Dongri vide recovery

Ext. P-25.

23. As per the post  mortem report  of  Kamlesh Kumari  Trivedi,  the

medical  officer  found  following  four  ante-mortem  wounds  given  in

13

Column 17 of the medical legal report Ext. P-17:-

“1. Ligature mark present over front of neck, below thyroid cartilage, transversely placed.  Completely encircling the neck except over nape of neck at the site of plait, on both side  of  neck  ligature  marked  6  cms  below tip  of  both mastoid  processes,  length  of  ligature  mark  30  Cms, breadth, 2.5 cm. slightly grooved, dry hard.

2.  Contused  abrasion  present  over  posterior  aspect  of right forearms 2 cm x 2 cm. reddish brown,

3. Contused abrasion present over left side of neck, 2 cm below  left  angle  of  mandible  4  cm  away  from middle, obliquely placed 2 cm. x 1 cm. Reddish Brown.

4. Contused abrasion present over left side of neck, 2 cm. Lateral to injury No. 3 size 1 cm x 1 cm reddish brown.”

24. The medical  officer  unambiguously  opined that  injury  No.  1 of

Column 17 along with internal damage was sufficient to cause death of

the victim in the ordinary course of nature.  The cause of death was

`Asphyxia’ i.e. due to ligature strangulation.

25. From the nature of ante-mortem injuries suffered by the deceased

as described in the inquest panchnama Ext. P-12 read with the post

mortem report, it can be safely believed that the death was `homicidal’

within the meaning of Section 299 I.P.C.  The medical evidence in this

regard is fully corroborated by the statement of Rani Trivedi (P.W.1),

Baliram  Fulari  (P.W.3),  Purnima  Trivedi  (P.W.4)  and  Raisaheb

Chourasiya  (P.W.9)  and  thus  there  is  no  room  for  doubt  that  the

deceased Kamlesh Kumari Trivedi died a homicidal death.

14

26. There  is  clinching  evidence  on  record  to  establish  that  the

appellants  were  seen  around  11.45  a.m.  entering  the  front  gate  of

Rajnigandha Apartments where the deceased was residing.  They left

the place after 20 minutes or so.  As per the eye-witness’s account the

appellants were lastly seen nearest to the place of occurrence before

they disappeared.

27. There is no gainsaying that confession made to a police officer

cannot be proved as against a person accused of any offence and no

confession made by a person while in police custody except made in

the immediate presence of a Magistrate, can be proved against him in

view of embargo created by Sections 25 and  26 of the Evidence Act.

Section  27  of  the  Act  nevertheless  carves  out  an  exception  as  it

provides  that  when  any  fact  is  deposed  to  as  discovered  in

consequence of  information received from a person accused of  any

offence while he is in police custody, “so much of such information”,

regardless of it being a confession or not, may be proved,  if it relates

distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.  Section 27 of the Evidence Act

thus enables the cliched use of  a custodian statement  made in the

ordinary course of events.  The statement made by an accused while in

police custody can be split in two parts and to the extent of it being a

disclosure statement which is the immediate cause of discovering new

15

facts, would be legally admissible in evidence though the remainder of

such  statement  may  be  liable  to  be  discarded.   The  Investigating

Officer,  Sevakram Thaokar  (P.W.11)  has  very  emphatically  deposed

that out of the stolen items, Onida T.V. set was got recovered at the

instance of the first appellant from his house.  Similarly, the silver coin

and  a  part  of  the  stolen  currency  was  recovered  from  the  second

appellant. This is not the appellants’ case that they were forced to make

the incriminating statements under any threat.  They have chosen to

defend themselves only on the basis of denial.  The revelation made by

the Investigating Officer to the limited extent of recovery of the stolen

items pursuant to the disclosure statements made by the appellants,

therefore, falls within the four-corners of Section 27 of the Evidence Act

and has been rightly relied upon by the Courts below.       

28. True  it  is  that  the  statement  of  a  police  officer  has  to  be

scrupulously  scrutinised  and  the  Court  would  cautiously  and

suspiciously read the same for evaluating the cumulative effect of the

entire evidence on record.  If the statement of PW-11 is scanned in its

entirety, it stands out that no sooner Raisaheb Chourasiya (P.W.9) gave

the description of  two young persons who came on a  red coloured

motorcycle  or  their  entry  into  Rajnigandha  Apartments,  the  police

inspector swung into action and apprehended them within no loss of

16

time.  The two persons, namely, the appellants were brought back to

Rajnigandha Apartments  and  they  were  duly  identified  by  Raisaheb

Chourasiya (P.W.9).  Baliram Fulari  (P.W.3) and Rani Trivedi (P.W.1)

also saw and later on identified them in their depositions.  Since the

appellants have not disputed their identity in the cross-examination of

Raisaheb Chourasiya (P.W.9) or of Rani Trivedi (P.W.1), it is too late for

them to allege that no Test Identification Parade was conducted.

29. It  is  no  longer  debatable  that  the  Identification  Parade  of  the

accused before the Court is not the main substantive piece of evidence,

rather it  is corroborative in nature.  [Please see: (i)  Rafikul Alam v.

State of West Bengal (2007) SCC Online Cal. 728 or (2008) 1 CHN

685; (ii) Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police (2018)

16 SCC 161].

30. There  are  more  than  one  reasons  to  trust  P.W.9  (Raisaheb

Chourasyia).  Firstly, there is no suggestion or even a whisper of any

animosity between Raisaheb Chourasyia and the appellants.  He had

no motive to falsely implicate the appellants.  Secondly, the presence of

the appellants coming on red coloured motorcycle and their  entry to

Rajnigandha  Apartments,  as  seen   by  the  witness,  has  not  been

expressly  denied  in  his  cross-examination.   Thirdly,  P.W.9  being

resident of the same Complex, is a natural and not a `chance’ witness.

17

Fourthly, Raisaheb Chourasiya’s version has been fully corroborated by

the other prosecution witnesses like Rani Trivedi (P.W.1), Baliram Fulari

(P.W.3)  and  Purnima  Trivedi  (P.W.4).   Fifthly,  he  is  consistent

throughout, be it may his statement under Section 164, Cr.PC and/or

deposition  on  oath.  Sixthly,  the  attempt  made  on  the  character

assassination of  the witness has miserably  failed.   We thus find no

ground to suspect P.W.9 for non-existent reasons.

31. The appellants, in all probabilities, were present in Rajnigandha

Apartments at the time of occurrence.  They have failed to explain any

other reason of their presence.  They have also not questioned their

identity  by  Raisaheb  Chourasiya  (P.W.9)  and  Rani  Trivedi  (P.W.1).

They have not  doubted or condemned the police officer  (P.W.11)  of

falsely  planting any recovery on them.  Further,  all  the stolen items

recovered at the instance of the appellants have been duly identified by

Rani Trivedi (P.W.1) and Purnima Trivedi (P.W.4) as their belongings

and thus the link between the crime and the recovered items has been

conclusively established.  The appellants having been lastly seen near

the scene of  crime, their  complete silence and/or  evasive statement

under Section 313, Cr.PC, does not inspire confidence to discard the

prosecution case.

32. Both the Courts  below have weighed the evidence to  reach a

18

definite conclusion that the appellants and the appellants alone entered

the apartment of Kamlesh Kumari Trivedi and committed her murder by

strangulation with a motive to commit robbery in the house.  There is no

factual or legal infirmity in the findings returned by the Courts below,

which  may  call  for  any  interference  by  this  Court.   The  Appeal  is

accordingly dismissed.

………………………………………….. J.    (DEEPAK GUPTA)

…………………………… J. (SURYA KANT)

NEW DELHI

DATED : 04.07.2019

19