2008 Supreme(SC) 1105

2008(5) Supreme 633
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu — Appellant
versus
Balaprasanna — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3814 of 2006)
Decided on : 21-07-08

Important Point
1.Law is well settled that when prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence, all the links in the chain of circumstances must be complete and should be proved through cogent evidence
2.Law is well settled that the prosecution while relying upon the confessional statement leading to discovery ofarticles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, has to prove through cogent evidence that the statement has been made voluntarily and leads to discovery of the relevant facts.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 392 read with Section 397 – Prosecution of accused for causing death of deceased a Sri Lankan student – Prosecution case that alleged motive of murder was that accused urgently wanted money with a view to increase his marks in Mathematics and, therefore, accused had stolen articles belonging to deceased – Conviction by Trial Court relying upon only circumstantial evidence, namely, confessional statements of the accused leading to recovery of various incriminating materials – Appeal – Allowed by High Court acquitting accused – Appeal – Law is well settled that when prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence, all the links in the chain of circumstances must be complete and should be proved through cogent evidence – Alleged statement made by accused led to discovery of knife, bloodstained clothes, rope, etc. – Unfortunately, for the prosecution there was no evidence to show that in fact wearing apparels containing bloodstains belonged to accused, save and except alleged confessional statement – No witness spoke that those clothes were worn by accused at any time far less at or about time of occurrence – However since articles were recovered from house of P.W.3 and at the initial stage of investigation, P.W.3 himself was one of suspected person and he was arrested – Therefore, statement of P.W.3 and his mother that those articles were brought by accused and left in the upstairs room was to be considered with a pinch of salt – Moreover, nothing to indicate that in fact bloodstained clothes and rope had tallied with the blood grouping of deceased – The knife not contained any bloodstain – Hence aspect relating to recovery of articles from house of P.W.3 and his mother could not be considered as a link to complete chain of circumstantial evidence – Since golden jewellery had been molten and were recovered in shape of ingots, it was very hazardous to come to conclusion that in fact golden jewellery belonged to Deceased – Again if the accused had killed deceased and stolen those golden jewellery, there was no reason as to why he had also not taken ear rings from deceased – Impugned judgment of High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 25 to 33)

       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 guilt of accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with 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 9)

       (1977 SC 1063); (AIR 1956 SC 316); (AIR 1983 SC 446); (AIR 1985 SC 1224); (AIR 1987 SC 350); (AIR 1989 SC 1890, (AIR 1954 SC 621) – 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 12)

       (1992 Crl. L.J. 1104) – Relied upon.

       Facts of the Case :

       1.Accused was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased a Sri Lankan student. Prosecution case that alleged motive of murder was that accused urgently wanted money with a view to increase his marks in Mathematics and, therefore, accused had stolen articles belonging to deceased. Trial Court convicted accused relying upon only circumstantial evidence, namely, confessional statements of the accused leading to recovery of various incriminating materials. Appeal thereagainst was allowed by High Court acquitting accused.

       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       Alleged statement made by accused led to discovery of knife, bloodstained clothes, rope, etc.Unfortunately, for the prosecution there was no evidence to show that in fact wearing apparels containing bloodstains belonged to accused, save and except alleged confessional statement. No witness spoke that those clothes were worn by accused at any time far less at or about time of occurrence. However since articles were recovered from house of P.W.3 and at the initial stage of investigation, P.W.3 himself was one of suspected person and he was arrested. Therefore, statement of P.W.3 and his mother that those articles were brought by accused and left in the upstairs room was to be considered with a pinch of salt.Moreover, nothing to indicate that in fact bloodstained clothes and rope had tallied with the blood grouping of deceased. The knife not contained any bloodstain. Hence aspect relating to recovery of articles from house of P.W.3 and his mother could not be considered as a link to complete chain of circumstantial evidence. Since golden jewellery had been molten and were recovered in shape of ingots, it was very hazardous to come to conclusion that in fact golden jewellery belonged to Deceased. Again if the accused had killed deceased and stolen those golden jewellery, there was no reason as to why he had also not taken ear rings from deceased. Impugned judgment of High Court not suffered from any infirmity so as to warrant interference.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.