important point
Where prosecution was unable to prove complete chain of circumstances to held accused guilty, then in that case conviction of accused could not be sustained of.

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. —

1.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the conviction of accused appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).

2.The trial Court i.e. learned Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.586/89 found the accused guilty of the aforesaid offences and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and 5 years respectively with default stipulation.

3.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

“On 1.7.1989 Dwarkabai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) had gone to her field alongwith Sulbha (PW-2). As the latter was fasting as it happened to be a Monday, she was asked by the deceased to return home. Her son (PW-1) and his brother had gone out for some other work. When they returned they did not find their mother around 6.00 p.m. and therefore PW-1 asked his wife (PW-2) as to where their mother was. She replied that deceased had asked her to return home. Then PW-1 and others searched for his mother but did not find her that day and on the next two days and on 4.7.1989 he went to his sister’s house and returned on 5.7.1989 when the FIR was lodged of accidental death. Subsequently, on 6.7.89 the accused was arrested and recoveries of sickle, the weapon of assault and some ornaments were made on the basis of the alleged disclosure made by the appellant.

After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and the accused faced trial. There was a motive indicated for the commission of the crime i.e. threat given by the accused to teach the deceased a lesson for not paying his dues. Certain circumstances were highlighted by the prosecution to substantiate its accusations. The trial Court found the circumstances to be sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused and accordingly the conviction was recorded.

4.In appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence as afore-noted.

5.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that there was no evidence to link the accused with the crime. Recovery of the sickle was discarded by the High Court. As the blood group of the deceased and that of the accused was same, mere presence of blood on the clothes of the accused was not sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused.

6.Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that not only the recovery of sickle made but also the accused and the deceased were last seen together around 12.30 p.m. Thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive. According to him, circumstances highlighted by the trial Court were sufficient to hold the accused guilty. The circumstances highlighted by the trial Court are as follows:

(i)Deceased Dwarkabai has met with a homicidal death and the ornaments which she was wearing on her person at the time of her death were stolen and found missing when her dead body was discovered.

(ii)The accused had left his job with Dwarkabai on 27th June, 1989 but he was found present in her field on 1st July, 1989 at 13.00 hours when Dwarkabai was alone in the field and Dwarkabai was not seen alone any time after 1.7.1989.

(iii)The accused shirt is having the blood stains of blood group of deceased.

(iv)The recovery of the ornaments belonging to deceased Dwarkabai at the instance of accused and they were tied in the piece of cloth having blood stains of the blood group of the deceased as per the Chemical Analyser’s report at Exh. 36.

(v)The accused had demanded Rs. 3,000/- on 27.6.89 and on refusal to pay the said amount by Dwarkabai and P.W. 1-Dnyanadeo, the accused had threatened them that he would see how they did not pay the same and they would come to know about the same within four days.

7.Before analysing factual aspects it may be stated that for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examinin