Important Point
Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 449 read with Section 34 – Death by stabbing-Prosecution of accused persons three in number for causing death of deceased by stabbing – Conviction of accused persons by trial Court on basis of circumstantial evidence – Appeal – High Court while upholding conviction of appellant directed acquittal of co-accused persons – Appeal – Two circumstances highlighted by High Court while upholding conviction of appellant not presented a complete chain of circumstances which ruled out possibility of any other person being assailant and/or unerringly pointed to accused appellant as being guilty of charged offences – No evidence led by prosecution to show that prints in question came into existence at the time the alleged incident took place – Conviction as recorded by High Court held not maintainable – Appeal allowed. (Paras 13 to 15)
       Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person – The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances – Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. (Para 5)
       AIR 1977 SC 1063, AIR 1956 SC 316, AIR 1983 SC 446, AIR 1985 SC 1224, AIR 1989 SC 1890 – Relied upon.
       Circumstantial evidence – Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted – Circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. (Para 11)
       AIR 1952 SC 343 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the Case :
       1.Accused persons three in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by stabbing. Trial Court convicted accused persons on basis of circumstantial evidence. On Appeal, High Court while upholding conviction of appellant directed acquittal of co-accused persons.
       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
       Two circumstances highlighted by High Court while upholding conviction of appellant not presented a complete chain of circumstances which ruled out possibility of any other person being assailant and/or unerringly pointed to accused appellant as being guilty of charged offences. No evidence was led by prosecution to show that prints in question came into existence at the time alleged incident took place. Conviction as recorded by High Court held not maintainable. Appeal was allowed
       Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.In this appeal challenge is to the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The co-accused persons who were similarly convicted were acquitted by the High Court.

2.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

Jarnail Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) and his wife Nasib Kaur immigrated to Canada about 12 years earlier but had both returned to Kotla about two months before Jarnail Singh’s murder on April 10, 2001. Pala Singh (PW 7) was deceased’s brother in law being the husband of Nasib Kaur’s sister. He also belonged to Kotla. Jarnail Singh lived in his house in the fields, about half a kilometre from the village, on the passage leading to Baghapurana. According to Pala Singh, he and Jarnail Singh used to sleep at night at Jarnail Singh’s farm house while Nasib Kaur would sleep with her sister in Pala Singh’s house. On the evening of April 10, 2001 Nasib Kaur and Pala Singh’s son Darshan Singh had gone to visit Jarnail Singh’s sister in Bukhanwala. Pala Singh’s grand son Jaswant Singh had taken food for Jarnail Singh to his house at about 7.30 P.M. But Jarnail Singh was not there. Later at about 9 P.M. Gurnam Singh (PW 5) came to Pala Singh and told him that someone had inflicted injuries on Jarnail Singh. Gurnam Singh had learnt about this from Assa Singh, who was employed as a guard at Jarnail Singh’s house. Pala Singh alongwith Lambarder Gurmit Singh of the village went to Jarnail Singh’s house and found Jarnail Singh’s dead body lying on a cot. Assa Singh told Pala Singh that Jarnail Singh had come home at about 8 P.M. on a scooter and about half an hour later Jarnail Singh had come to him and told him that he had been stabbed. Pala Singh went to the courtyard and saw Jarnail Singh’s chappals lying there and a trail of blood from the courtyard to Assa Singh’s cot where Jarnail Singh’s dead body lay. Pala Singh immediately went to Bukanwala to fetch Nasib Kaur and his son. According to Pala Singh, Jarnail Singh was fond of drinking and would indulge even in this habit during day time. The matter was reported by Pala Singh to Inspector Joginder Singh and his statement was recorded by the Investigating officer at Rajeana bus stand at 6 A.M. on April 11, 2001. The statement was sent to the Police Station, Baghapurana, and on its basis F.I.R. was registered at 6.30 A.M. under Section 302 IPC. Special report of the case was received by Judicial Magistrate, Moga at 10 A.M. on the same day. Immediately thereafter Inspector Joginder Singh (PW 19) set out for the spot, which was inspected whereafter inquest report was prepared in the presence of Ajaib Singh and Lambardar Gurmit Singh. The statements of these two witnesses were also incorporated in the inquest report. After completion of the inquest proceedings, the dead body of Jarnail Singh was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Navraj Singh (PW4), Civil Hospital, Moga at 12.45 PM. After sending the dead body for post-mortem examination, Inspector Joginder Singh continued his investigation at the spot. He lifted bloodstained earth from the spot, blood stained quilt, mattress and bed sheet were also taken into possession from the cot on which Jarnail Singh’s dead body was lying. The Investigating officer had actually cut the blood stained portions of the above items before taking them separately into possession. A bottle containing 100 ml of liquor, which was lying up stairs, was also recovered and taken into possession. Three foot prints moulds were prepared of the foot prints found at the spot. One of these was of a right shoe and the other two were of left bare feet. Moulds were separately taken into possession. A pair of chappals was also picked up from the spot. The site plan of the place

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2008 Supreme(SC) 983

2008(4) Supreme 547Supreme Court of indiaDr. Arijit Pasayat and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.Roop Singh @ Rupa — PetitionerversusThe State of Punjab — RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 1307 of 2005Decided on : 20-06-08

Important PointGreat care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted.

Cases Referred (11)

Judicial Analysis

2008(4) Supreme 547
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.
Roop Singh @ Rupa — Petitioner
versus
The State of Punjab — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1307 of 2005
Decided on : 20-06-08

Important Point
Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted.