SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(SC) 78

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.
Hukam Singh, Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 1971,
D/- 7-2-1977.
Criminal Appeal No. 574 of 1969,
D/- 4-8-1971 (Raj), Reversed.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Gobinda Mukhety, Advocate A. C., for Appellant; Mr. S. M. Jain, Advocate, for Respondent.

Advocates:
GOBINDA MUKHOTY, S.M.Jain

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Section 380/302 - Suffer rigorous imprisonment – Offence of murder – Injury – Court shall presently examine these three circumstances but before court do so court may refer briefly to the recovery of the gun and the pellets and gun powder as a result of the disclosure statement made by appellant - Recovery of these articles was assailed on behalf of the appellant, but for the purpose of the present discussion, we shall assume that this recovery was genuine, particularly since it has not been doubted either by the High Court or by the Sessions Court. But this recovery does not in any way help the prosecution, because the evidence of the ballistic expert was that it was not possible for him to say whether gun powder and pellets recovered from the place of occurrence or from the dead bodies of had actually been fired from gun seized as a result of disclosure by appellant - This circumstance of recovery of the gun and the pellets and gun powder was, therefore, rightly not relied upon by High Court even though it reversed the acquittal of the appellant - Only circumstances which in result require to be considered are three mentioned above – Held, Last circumstance on which reliance was placed on behalf of the prosecution was the presence of finger prints of the appellant on the mirror – Court fail to see how this circumstance can be regarded as necessarily implicating the appellant in the commission of the murders. It was admitted by that the appellant was on visiting terms with this family and it is, therefore, possible that during one of his visits, the appellant might have touched the mirror and left his finger prints on it - It is also not altogether unlikely that even when the appellant was in hutment of for the purpose of committing the theft of ornaments and other articles belonging to after the quadruple murders had been committed by some other persons, he might have touched the mirror process left his finger prints upon it - Presence of the finger prints on mirror is not such a circumstance as would necessarily lead to the inference that appellant must have committed the murders of these four members of family - It is now settled law that in case of circumstantial evidence, all incriminating facts and circumstances should be fully established by cogent and reliable evidence and the facts so established must be consistent with guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained away on any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt - In short circumstantial evidence should unmistakable point to one and one conclusion only that accused person and none other perpetrated the alleged crime - If circumstances proved in a particular case are not inconsistent with innocence of the accused and if they are susceptible of any rational explanation, no conviction can lie. Judged from this standpoint it is not possible to affirm the conviction of appellant for the offence of murder of any one or more - Three circumstances relied upon by prosecution are not incompatible with innocence of appellant in so far as murders of these four persons are concerned - Appeal allowed

Judgment

BHAGWATI, J. :- The appellant and one Gangia were tried before the Sessions Judge. Jodhpur for the offences of murder, housr trespass and robbery. The scene of the crime was a hutment situation a Jod, that is, pastureland belonging to the Government between the villages of Palasni and Kharia Khurd in Jodhpur District. One Sujan Singh, who was a forest guard, was living in the hutment with his wife Inder Kanwar, three sons Kan Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Roop Singh and his mother Lad Kanwar. On 19th October, 1967, Sujan Singh went to village Thakarise to bring his daughter and he was away from his hutment until 22nd October, 1967. Kan Singh also left the hutment for going to Bimpalur for purchase of Bajra on 21st October, 1967. When he returned to the hutment in the morning of 22nd October, 1967, he was shocked to find his mother Inder Kanwar, his two brothers Shanwar Singh and Roop Singh and his grand-mother Lad Kanwar lying murdered in the hutment. He saw a box lying outside the room and he also found that the shutters of the door of the room were unhinged and were lying inside the room and other household articles were lying scattered. He immediately ran to the village Khari and informed Kanji Panch about the incident and both of them then went to Bislapur and apprised Sarpanch Shri Kishan about what had happened. Shri Kishan asked Kan Singh to return to the hutment and he proceeded to the police station Maha Mandir for the purpose of lodging information with the police. The police arrived at the scene of the crime around midday and started investigation. The police found in the course of investigation that the death of all four persons had taken place as a result of gun-shot injuries and they also came across two articles, one a mirror Ex. 1 and the other a Dibbi Ex. 2, on which certain finger prints were noticed. These finger prints were subsequently got examined by a finger print expert and the evidence established that the finger prints on the mirror Ex. 1 were those of the appellant. It appears that at about 6.30 p.m. on the same day, that is, 22nd October, 1967, one Umed Singh, who is the brother of the appellant, produced the appellant and Gangia before Balbir Singh, Station House Officer, who was investigating into the offence. Both the appellant and Gangia were arrested and at the time of arrest, a shirt worn by the appellant was taken possession of by Balbir Singh as he suspected that there were blood stains on it. The shirt was sent to the Chemical Analyser and the Serologist and their report went to show that the shrit was stained with human blood. Balbir Singh interrogated the appellant whilst he was in custody and in consequence of disclosure alleged to have been made by him, a gun and a bag containing pellets and gun powder were recovered under a heap of sheaves of grass lying in his field known as Ramsariwala and from a heap of chaff, lying of the thrashing floor of that field, a cotton kesla, that is, a bag, containing certain articles was also recovered. The kesla was found to be blood-stained as a result of examination by the Chemical Analyser and the Serologist and the articles in the kesla included inter alia various ornaments which were all subsequently identified by Sujan Singh to be belonging to him. Gangia also made a disclosure statement in consequence of which certain recoveries were made but since the case of Gangia is not before us, it is not necessary to refer to the same. The appellant and Gangia were, on the basis of this material, put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur and the learned Sessions Judge, on a consideration of this material, held the appellant guilty of the offence of theft in respect of the articles in the kesla and convicting him under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years, but acquitted him so far as the offence of murder of Inder Kanwar, Lad Kanwar, Bhanwar Singh and Roop Singh was concerned. Gangi










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top