Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2011

VIJAY THAKUR .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH .....RESPONDENT(S)

W I T H

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 633 OF 2011

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

These  two  appeals  arise  out  of  concurrent  order  of  

conviction  passed  by  the  courts  below  convicting  these  two  

appellants, viz. Vijay Thakur and Surjeet Khachi, along with third  

accused, namely, Rajinder Thakur under Section 302 read with  

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing all of  

them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of  ₹5,000,  

etc.   The  appellants  are  also  convicted  for  the  offence  under  

Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC and are given the sentence  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 1 of 19

Page 2

of five years and fine of ₹2,000 each with a default clause in case  

fine is not paid.

2) As correctness of the narration of this prosecution case recorded  

by the High Court is not in dispute, we may state the prosecution  

version by borrowing from the said judgment.  It is as under:

(a) Deceased  Santosh  Kumar,  son  of  Bir  Chand  (PW-1),  was  

employed as a driver by Ganga Ram (PW-2) to drive his Maruti  

van, which he had purchased only few days prior to the date of  

occurrence,  i.e.  August  21,  2004.   The  van  had  yet  not  been  

registered with the Registration Authority, though application for  

registration had been moved.  On August 21, 2004, all the three  

appellants were looking for a taxi as they wanted to escort a truck  

carrying timber.  They got lift in a truck at Narkanda for going to  

Sainj to hire a taxi.  The truck by which they went to Sainj was  

being  driven  by  Rajesh  Kumar  (PW-30).   It  was  carrying  

merchandise belonging to PW-30.  At Sainj, the appellants hired  

Maruti van of PW-2 on which the deceased had been engaged as  

a  driver.   The van started from Sainj  for  Narkanda late  in  the  

evening.   On  the  way,  deceased  Dharam  Pal,  an  electrician  

working  at  Kingar,  was  approached  by  the  deceased  to  

accompany him.  Dharam Pal too boarded the van.  Thereafter,  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 2 of 19

Page 3

the deceased, along with his van, went missing.  PW-2, who is the  

owner of the van, started searching for him.

(b) On August 25, 2004, PW-2 met PW-1 at Luhri and asked him if  

the deceased had visited his  house.   PW-1 replied him in the  

negative.   PW-1 and PW-2 started searching for the deceased  

and the van.  A report was lodged on August 24, 2004, with the  

Police Station, Kumarsain by PW-2 about deceased having gone  

missing  along  with  Maruti  van.   An  entry  was  made  in  the  

Rojnamcha and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW-47/A.

(c) On August 26, 2004, one Shano Devi (PW-18) spotted two dead  

bodies  in  Thachru  Nallah,  which  falls  by  the  side  of  the  road  

connecting to Sainj with Narkanda.  She informed her co-villagers.  

Police  was informed telephonically.   Entry regarding telephonic  

information was made in the Daily Diary and marked as Exhibit  

PW-37/A.  ASI Sada Nand (PW-49) went to the spot accompanied  

by PW-1, PW-2 and one Talru Ram (PW-3), who is the father of  

deceased Dharam Pal.  Dead bodies were identified to be those  

of  Santosh  Kumar  and  Dharam Pal.   Both  of  them had  been  

strangulated,  one  by  means  of  a  string  of  jacket's  hood  and  

another by means of a handkerchief.  Also, there were injuries on  

their heads.  A danda (Exhibit P-1) was also found lying on the  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 3 of 19

Page 4

spot.

(d) PW-1  made  a  statement  under  Section  154  of  the  Code  of  

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short. 'Cr.P.C.') to PW-49, which is  

exhibited as Ex.PW-49/A.  It  was sent to the Police Station for  

registration  of  the  case,  where  FIR  (Exhibit  PW-48/A)  was  

recorded by ASI Rattan Chand (PW-48).  Inquest was conducted  

by PW-49 and Forms (Exhibits PW-1/A, 1/B and 1/C) were filled  

in.   Dead  bodies  were  sent  to  Community  Health  Centre,  

Kumarsain, where post-mortem examination was conducted by a  

team of doctors, consisting of Dr. Ramesh Chand Guleria (PW-

32), Dr. N.K. Mehta (PW-33) and Dr. Sumeet Attri (PW-43).  The  

doctors found injuries on the heads of both the dead bodies and  

also that the necks of the deceased had been tightened with a  

string of jacket's hood and a handkerchief.  They gave the opinion  

that the case of death, in both the cases, was head injuries and  

asphyxia  caused  by  strangulation.   Post-mortem  reports  are  

exhibited as Exhibits PW-32/B and PW-32/D.

(e) On  August  27,  2004,  the  Maruti  van  in  question  was  found  

abandoned at Saproon on Solan-Subathu road.  It was taken into  

possession  by  ASI  Sukhdarshan  Singh  (PW-36),  In-charge  of  

Police Post Saproon.  Later on, the van was handed over to SI  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 4 of 19

Page 5

Rupinder  Singh  (PW-50),  who  was  associated  with  the  

investigation of the case.

(f) When no perceptible progress was achieved in the investigation  

of  the  case,  a  special  team  of  police  was  constituted  by  

Superintendent of Police, Shimla, vide order Exhibit -52/A.  Vijay  

Kumar  (PW-50)  was  one  of  the  members  of  that  team,  who  

arrested the present appellants and Rajinder Thakur on February  

20, 2005.

(g) During  the  course  of  their  interrogation,  the  accused  persons  

made disclosure statements.  The appellant Surjeet Khachi, in his  

disclosure statement marked as Exhibit PW-11/B, stated that he  

had thrown one Chunni and one ribbon, which were there in the  

van, at a place called Nanni, falling in the area of Matiana.  On the  

basis of this disclosure statement, Chunni (Exhibit P-2) and ribbon  

(Exhibit  P-3)  were  recovered  and  taken  into  possession  vide  

Memo (Exhibit PW-2/B).  PW-2 identified the said Chunni and the  

ribbon  to  be  the  same  which  he  had  kept  in  the  Maruti  van.  

Surjeet  Khachi  also  made  a  disclosure  that  wrist  watch  of  

Rajinder Thakur had been pledged with a shopkeeper of Kuthar in  

Solan District for payment of price of 1½ litres of petrol, which had  

been  purchased  from  him,  when  the  fuel  in  the  Maruti  Van  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 5 of 19

Page 6

completely ran dry.   On the basis of  this disclosure statement,  

wrist  watch (Exhibit  P-4)  was recovered from one Gian Chand  

(PW-16)  of  village  Kuthar.   House  of  Rajinder  Thakur  was  

searched and two vouchers  (Exhibits  PW-54/O and PW-54/P),  

with  regard  to  purchase  of  wrist  watch,  were  recovered  vide  

memo Exhibit PW-24/A.

(h) Appellant Vijay Thakur made a disclosure statement, which led to  

the recovery of Jacket (Exhibit P-5) from his house.  The string of  

Jacket's hood was found missing and it appeared that it was the  

same string  by  which  the  neck  of  deceased Dharam Pal  was  

found tightened.

(i) During the course of investigation, it also came to light that the  

appellants and Rajinder Thakur went with the Maruti van to some  

remote area of Patiala District in Punjab and tried to sell it, but  

they could not find any buyer.  Then they came back and on the  

way, when the fuel ran dry completely, they purchased 1½ litres of  

petrol from PW-16.  After the fuel was consumed, they abandoned  

the vehicle at Saproon on Solan-Subathu road.  Rajinder Thakur  

then tried to sell the Maruti van to a transporter of Dhalli, namely,  

Vikas Verma (PW-8).  PW-8 introduced Rajinder Thakur to one  

Sneh Bhagat (PW-42), who accompanied by Rajinder Thakur and  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 6 of 19

Page 7

Dharmender (PW-10), a driver, went to Saproon.  But by that time  

the  Maruti  van  had  already  been  seized  by  the  Police  under  

section 102 of Cr.P.C. and taken to Police Post Saproon.

3) After  the  completion  of  investigation,  charge  sheet  was  filed,  

whereby all  the three accused persons were challaned.   Case  

was  committed  by  the  concerned  Judicial  Magistrate  to  the  

Sessions  Court  after  complying  with  the  requisite  procedural  

formalities.  Charges were framed by the Sessions Court and the  

matter went for trial as all the three accused persons pleaded 'Not  

Guilty'.   Prosecution  examined  various  witnesses  and  the  

deposition of some of the material witnesses examined.  After the  

conclusion  of  prosecution  evidence,  the  statements  of  the  

accused  persons  under  Section  313  of  Cr.P.C.  was  recorded.  

The appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances/material  

put to them and depositions of the various prosecution witnesses  

as well as documents placed on record.  The accused persons  

specifically  denied  that  they  had  hired  Maruti  van,  which  was  

driven by the deceased or that they have travelled by that van on  

or about August 21, 2012.  They also denied having taken lift in  

the truck of PW-30 from Narkanda to Sainj.  Similarly, there was a  

denial by them that they took the van to an area in Patiala District,  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 7 of 19

Page 8

Punjab or to Kuthar or to Solan District in Himachal Pradesh or  

attempted  to  sell  the  van.   They  also  pleaded  that  no  such  

disclosure  statements  leading  to  the  alleged  discovered  were  

made by them.

4) After recording his analysis of the evidence on record, in light of  

the arguments submitted by the counsel for the prosecution as  

well  as  defence  counsel,  the  learned  trial  court  came  to  the  

conclusion that  prosecution was able to successfully  prove the  

guilt of all the three accused persons.  It is the accepted position  

that there are no eye-witnesses in the present case and the case  

of  prosecution is  completely  based on circumstantial  evidence.  

The Sessions Court arrived at the finding that the circumstances  

which were proved by the prosecution made a complete chain,  

thereby leading to the hypothesis that all the persons were guilty.  

On the basis of this conviction, sentences followed, as aforesaid.

5) All the three accused persons challenged the verdict of the trial  

court by preferring common appeal, which has been dismissed by  

the High Court, affirming the decision of the Sessions Court.  The  

High  Court  has  recapitulated  seven  circumstances  which,  

according to it, formed a complete chain leading to the irresistible  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 8 of 19

Page 9

conclusion  of  the  guilt  of  the  appellants  in  murdering  the  two  

deceased persons and robbing deceased Santosh Kumar of the  

Maruti  van  which  he  was  driving.   These  circumstances  are  

mentioned in para 15 of the impugned judgment, which read as  

under:

“a) On 21st August, 2004, appellants took lift in  a truck which was being driven by PW-30 Rajesh  Kumar and in which PW-39 Raj Kumar Tayagi was  present  in  the  capacity  of  owner  of  the  goods,  which  were  being  carried  in  that  truck,  and they  (appellants) de-boarded the truck at Sainj.

b) Deceased  Santosh  Kumar  had  two  passengers, who wanted to travel to village Dalash  by  his  taxi,  but  in  the  meanwhile,  he  was  approached by some other passengers for  being  taken to Narkanda and, so, he approached PW-7  Sanjay Kumar, another taxi driver, to carry the two  passengers to Dalash.

c) Appellant Rajinder made an attempt to sell  a Maruti Van to PW-44 Kartar Singh resident of a  village in Patiala District.

d) Appellants ran out of fuel at Kuthar in Solan  District  on 24th August,  2004 and they purchased  1½  litres  of  petrol  from  PW-16  Gian  Chand,  a  shopkeeper  and  being  short  of  money,  they  pledged  the  wrist-watch  Ext.  P4  of  appellant  Rajinder Thakur with said Gian Chand (PW16).

e) On  27th August,  2004,  appellant  Rajinder  Thakur went to PW-8 Vikas Verma and asked him  to help him sell the Maruti Van, who (the witness)  then introduced him to  PW-42 Sneh Bhagat  and  Sneh  Bhagat  accompanied  by  driver  PW-10  Dharmender Singh and appellant Rajinder went to  Saproon, where the van was stated to be parked,  but the van was not there as the same had been  sized by Solan Police, before that, under Section  102 Cr.P.C.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 9 of 19

Page 10

f) Appellant Surjeet Khachi made a disclosure  statement, leading to the discovery of Chunni Ext.  P-2 and ribbon P-3, which PW-2 Ganga Ram had  kept in the Maruti Van.

g) Appellant  Vijay  Kumar  made  a  disclosure  statement, leading to the discovery of Jacket Ext.  P-5, the hood string of which was missing.”

6) Thereafter,  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  proceeds  to  dilate  

upon these circumstances explaining as to how they stand proved  

and form a complete chain of events leading to the conviction of  

the accused persons.

7) These two appeals are filed by two out of  the three convicted  

persons.  Third accused, namely, Rajinder Thakur, has accepted  

the judgment of the High Court.   Therefore, our discussion in the  

instant appeals shall confine to the alleged role and culpability of  

only the two appellants before us.

8) We have already recapitulated above the circumstances which  

are held against all the three accused persons, including the two  

appellants,  who are  convicted.   We may,  therefore,  in  the first  

instance, start our discussion on the presumption that all  these  

circumstances  stand  proved  (though  we  may  mention  at  this  

stage itself  that  learned counsel for  the appellants had argued  

that there is no sufficient evidence to implicate the two appellants  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 10 of 19

Page 11

insofar as those circumstances are concerned.  We shall advert to  

that aspect at a later stage).

9) Circumstance  mentioned  at  (a)  above  would  show  that  the  

appellants  had  taken  lift  in  a  truck  from  Narkanda  and  they  

alighted from this truck at Sainj.  As per circumstance (b) above,  

at Sainj,  deceased  Santosh Kumar was present with a van of  

which  he  was  the  driver  employed  by  PW-2.   He  had  two  

passengers who wanted to travel to village Dalash.  However, he  

was approached by 'some other passengers'  for being taken to  

Narkanda.  Therefore, Santosh Kumar approached PW-7 Sanjay  

Kumar and requested him to carry the said two passengers to  

Dalash, meaning thereby, he had taken 'some other passengers'  

to Narkanda.  PW-7 has not seen those 'other passengers'.  The  

number of 'other passengers' is also not given.  In his statement,  

he does not say that he had seen the appellants and Rajinder  

Thakur, whom deceased Santosh Kumar was going to carry in his  

van.   Therefore,  at  this  stage,  insofar  as  the  appellants  are  

concerned,  the  chain  has  broken.   It  may  be  that  the  chain  

continues insofar as Rajinder Thakur is concerned, having regard  

to  circumstance  (c),  (d)  and  (e),  inasmuch  as,  those  

circumstances are attributed to accused Rajinder Thakur who was  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 11 of 19

Page 12

found in possession of the Maruti Van which was being driven by  

the deceased and he was making attempts to sell the said van.  

Likewise, it is Rajinder Thakur who had approached PW-8 Vikas  

Verma and asked him to help him sell the said van and Vikas had  

introduced  him  to  PW-42  Sneh  Bhagat.   Again,  it  is  Rajinder  

Thakur who had gone with the said van to Saproon where the van  

was stated to be parked.  Thus, it is clear that when attempt was  

made by Rajinder Thakur to sell the said Maruti Van and he was  

going from place to  place for  this  purpose,  the two appellants  

were not with him.  No doubt, reading of circumstance (d) above  

gives an impression that all the three accused persons were there  

at Kuthar in Solan District when they ran out of fuel and they had  

purchased 1½ litres of petrol from PW-16 Gian Chand.  However,  

on reading the statement of PW-16, it becomes abundantly clear  

that he has stated that “last year one boy came to my shop and   

demanded petrol from me.  I had provided him petrol about one   

and a half litres which was taken from Dinesh Kumar.  That boy   

had pledged his wrist watch with me”.  Therefore, it is clear that  

even PW-16 has mentioned that one person had gone to him to  

buy  the  petrol.   Circumstance  (d)  above,  therefore,  has  to  be  

confined to one person and in the chain of events, he appears to  

be Rajinder Thakur.  Thereafter, as per circumstances (f) and (g),  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 12 of 19

Page 13

these two appellants had made a disclosure statement which has  

led to some recoveries.  We shall  deal  with that aspect at the  

appropriate stage.  What we are emphasising at this stage is that  

if the disclosure statement is ignored for the time being, the only  

circumstance against the appellants is that they had travelled with  

Rajinder Thakur up to Sainj.  Thereafter, there is nothing against  

these two appellants.  Insofar as the appellants are concerned,  

the link is broken at that stage itself.  It is not known as to whether  

they were together or not and there is no credible evidence (or for  

that  matter,  any  evidence  at  all)  to  show that  they  were  with  

Rajinder Thakur.  On the contrary, as per the evidence coming on  

record, it is Rajinder Thakur alone who is found in possession of  

the Maruti Van which was being driven by the deceased and it is  

he who was trying to sell the said vehicle.

10) Keeping  in  mind  the  aforesaid  position,  we  now  discuss  the  

alleged disclosure statements made by the two appellants.  As  

per the prosecution, appellant Surjeet Khachi made a disclosure  

statement  leading to  the recovery  of  Chunni  (Exhibit  P-2)  and  

Ribbon (Ex. P-3), which PW-2 had kept in the Maruti Van. Alleged  

disclosure of this kind of material is somewhat intriguing. It is not  

the weapon of crime.  Chunni and Ribbon were allegedly kept in  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 13 of 19

Page 14

the Maruti Van as it was a new vehicle.  As per PW-2 (who is the  

owner of the vehicle), one  Chunni  and Ribbon were kept in the  

vehicle and appellant Surjeet Khachi had led the Police to where  

they were concealed and, accordingly, they were recovered from  

the said place and taken into possession.  One fails to understand  

as to what would be the purpose of removing the said Chunni and  

Ribbon from the vehicle and throwing them at some place.  It is  

well known that in this part of the country, Chunni and Ribbon (as  

sacred  objects  representing  blessings  of  Maa Durga)  are  tied,  

particularly when the vehicle is new.  But they were neither used  

for the commission of crime, nor any purpose could be achieved  

in removing them from the van.  Further, as per the prosecution  

case,  after  these  were  recovered,  they  were  taken  into  

possession vide Memo Exhibit PW-2/B.  A reading of Exhibit PW-

2/B would show that they were recovered from  Nallah  from the  

opposite side of the road.  This recovery was alleged made on  

26.02.2005, that is more than six months after the incident, which  

took  place  on  August  21,  2004.  If  one  presumes  that  after  

removing the said Chunni and Ribbon, the accused had thrown it  

at the aforesaid place, one fails to understand as to how the said  

two  things  were  lying  intact  at  that  open  place  for  so  many  

months.  It seems that this recovery is shown just to rope in the  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 14 of 19

Page 15

appellant Surjeet Khachi as well.

11) RE. - PETROL   

To the same effect are our observations qua the alleged recovery  

of  wrist  watch  of  Rajinder  Thakur.   It  is  shown  that  appellant  

Surjeet Khachi had made a disclosure statement wrist watch of  

Rajinder Thakur had been pledged with a shopkeeper of Kuthar in  

Solan District for payment of price of 1½ litres of petrol, which had  

been  purchased  from  him,  when  the  fuel  in  the  Maruti  Van  

completely  ran  dry.   Curiously,  as  per  the  prosecution's  own  

version, based on the testimony of PW-6 Gian Chand, from whom  

the  petrol  was  purchased,  the  said  van  was  being  driven  by  

Rajinder Thakur,  who had purchased petrol from him.  He has  

very clearly stated that it was only Rajinder Thakur in the said van  

and did not name these two appellants.  This aspect has been  

mentioned in circumstance (d) and the evidence in this respect  

has already been analysed above to show that the said evidence  

concerns only to Rajinder Thakur.  From this, it  can be clearly  

discerned  that  even  this  disclosure  statement  is  attributed  to  

appellant Surjeet Khachi just to rope him as an accused person.  

Otherwise,  for  the  reasons  stated  above,  this  disclosure  

statement does not inspire any confidence.  The High Court has  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 15 of 19

Page 16

failed to notice these important aspects which make the alleged  

disclosure statements suspectful.

12) Coming to the alleged disclosure of the appellant Vijay Kumar, a  

discovery  of  jacket  (Exhibit  P-5)  is  attributed  to  him.   This  

recovery was sought to be proved from the statement of PW-23,  

who has said that appellant Vijay Kumar had made a disclosure  

statement  that  he  had  kept  the  jacket  in  his  house  and  the  

statement  was  recorded  as  Exhibit  PW-3/C.   However,  in  his  

cross-examination, he has admitted that  document Exhibit  PW-

3/C was prepared 10-15 minutes prior to the recovery of clothes  

and he was not there when recovery was effected.  He had seen  

the clothes when they were with the Police.  Therefore, recovery  

of  jacket  on  the  disclosure  statement  made  by  accused  Vijay  

Kumar also becomes doubtful.  In such circumstances, it would  

be too risky to convict these two appellants solely on the basis of  

alleged disclosure, which recovery is also shrouded with elements  

of  doubts.   As  already  discussed  above,  there  is  no  other  

circumstance which relate these two appellants to the commission  

of the offence.

13) It  is  to  be  emphasized  at  this  stage  that  except  the  so-called  

recoveries, there is no other circumstances worth the name which  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 16 of 19

Page 17

has been proved against these two appellants.  It  is a  case of  

blind murder.  There are no eyewitnesses.  Conviction is based on  

the circumstantial evidence.  In such a case, complete chain of  

events has to be established pointing out  the culpability of  the  

accused  person.   The  chain  should  be  such  that  no  other  

conclusion, except the guilt of the accused person, is discernible  

without  any  doubt.   Insofar  as  these  two  appellants  are  

concerned, there is no circumstance attributed except that they  

were with Rajinder  Thakur  till  Sainj  and the alleged disclosure  

leading to recoveries, which appears to be doubtful.  When we  

look into all these facts in entirety in the aforesaid context, we find  

that  not  only  the  chain  of  events  is  incomplete,  it  becomes  

somewhat difficult to convict the appellant only on the basis of the  

aforesaid recoveries.

14) In  Mani  v.  State of Tamil Nadu,  (2008) 1 SCR 228, this Court  

made following pertinent observation on this very aspect:

“21.  The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and  cannot be wholly relied upon on and conviction in  such a serious matter cannot be based upon the  discovery.  Once the discovery fails, there would be  literally  nothing  which  would  support  the  prosecution case....”

15) There is a reiteration of the same sentiment in  Manthuri Laxmi  

Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 SCC 117 in the  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 17 of 19

Page 18

following manner:

“6.  It is by now well settled that in a case relating  to  circumstantial  evidence  the  chain  of  circumstances  has  to  be  spelt  out  by  the  prosecution  and  if  even  one  link  in  the  chain  is  broken the accused must get the benefit  thereof.  We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a  case of no evidence.”

16) Likewise, in Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan,   

(2011) 11 SCC 724, this Court observed as under:

“24.   In  a  most  celebrated  case  of  this  Court,  Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,  (1984)  4  SCC  116,  in  para  153,  some  cardinal  principles  regarding  the  appreciation  of  circumstantial  evidence  have  been  postulated.  Whenever  the  case  is  based  on  circumstantial  evidence the following features are required to be  complied with.  It would be beneficial to repeat the  same  salient  features  once  again  which  are  as  under: (SCC p.185)

“(i)  The  circumstances  from  which  the  conclusion  of  guilt  is  to  be  drawn  must  or  should  be  and  not  merely  'may  be'  fully  established;

(ii)  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;

(iii)  The  circumstances  should  be  of  a  conclusive 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  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 18 of 19

Page 19

innocence of the accused and must show that  in  all  human  probability  the  act  must  have  been done by the accused.”

25.  With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is  important is discovery of the material object at the  disclosure  of  the  accused  but  such  disclosure  alone  would  not  automatically  lead  to  the  conclusion that the offence was also committed by  the accused.  In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the  prosecution  to  establish  a  close  link  between  discovery of the material object and its use in the  commission  of  the  offence.   What  is  admissible  under  Section  27  of  the  Act  is  the  information  leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on  it by the prosecution.”

It is settled position of law that suspicion, however strong,  

cannot take the character of proof.

17) We, therefore, have no hesitation in allowing these appeals and  

setting aside the conviction and sentence of the two appellants  

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,  

1860.  We order accordingly.  The appellants are directed to be  

released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.

.............................................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR)

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 19, 2014.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 632 & 633 of 2011 Page 19 of 19