IMPORTANT POINT
Absence of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence puts the Court on its guard to scrutinise the circumstances more carefully.

JUDGMENT

Nanavati, J.-This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1983. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

2. The prosecution case was that the appellant, who is the elder brother of the one Jarnal Singh, went to Ahmedabad with Ram Singh (deceased) and stayed in the residential quarter of Jarnal Singh between 24th December, 1981 and 26th December, 1981 and that during that period committed the murder of Ram Singh in the said premises.

3. There being no direct evidence the prosecution relied upon certain circumstances in order to prove its case. It relied upon the evidence of PW14 Musafir and PW2 Satnam Kaur wife of Jarnal Singh to prove that the accused and deceased had come together to the house of Jarnal Singh on 22.12.1981 at about 2.00 p.m. or 3.00 p.m. It also relied upon the evidence of PW2 Satnam Kaur for establishing that both of them stayed in the same room and that on 24.12.1981 the accused had told Satnam Kaur that the other person who had come with him had left the house and that the accused also left on 26.12.1981 in the morning. The trial Court believed this evidence. It further held that the body that was found from her house was that of Ram Singh. It also held that the deceased was killed "within 4 corners of family quarter No. 197/8". But in the opinion of the trial Court these circumstances were not sufficient to complete the chain and lead to the reasonable hypothesis that the accused alone had caused death of the deceased. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted the accused.

4. The High Court taking note of the correct legal position in case of circumstantial evidence scrutinised the evidence with care and also considered carefully the reasons given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused. The High Court found that some of the findings recorded by the trial Court were inconsistent and some were perverse. After carefully scrutinising the evidence the High Court held that it was clearly established by the prosecution that the accused and the deceased had come together to the house of Jarnal Singh on 22.12.1981 and that they had stayed together in one room in the said house. It further held that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the dead body which was found from the said room on 27th morning was that of deceased Ram Singh who had come as a guest along with the accused. The High Court also held proved that the deceased was seen alive till the evening of 24th. It further held that on 25th morning the accused returned one cup of tea by saying that his companion had gone away that the accused also left on 26th morning after talking tea. It also held that soon after the guest had left the room was locked by her and it was opened on 27th morning when foul smell started coming out of it. On the basis of the medical evidence the High Court held that the probable time of death of the deceased was between 24th evening and 26th morning. The High Court then concluded that these circumstances were sufficient to prove that it was the accused who had killed the deceased and was, therefore, guilty for committing his murder.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the view taken by the High Court firstly on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive for the accused to commit the murder. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration1, wherein it has been held that "in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes pertinent significance as existence of the motive is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning in such a case". This Court has further observed that "The absence of motive, however, puts the Court on its guard to scrutinise the circumstances more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take place of le