IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence provided it passes the tests by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down as far back as in 1952.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The accused faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 376 or in the alternative 376/511 IPC. However, he was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari, as noted above and the appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Balwinder Kaur alias Rani (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was the daughter of Lal Singh. Both the deceased and the present appellant accused belonged to the same village. On 20.3.1993 at about 4 PM, deceased went to the fields to serve tea to her parents who were working in the fields as labourers. Around 5 PM deceased left for her home. Her parents reached home at around 6PM and found that their daughter had not returned till then. Therefore, Lal Singh (PW 12), his wife left for the fields to look for their daughter. They found Dolu (steel container), glasses (tumblers) and chappals of their daughter in the field. They sent Parsa Ram who was with them to ask for a tractor. Around mid night, in the tractor head light they found the body of their daughter in the fields of one Sheo Ram with her salwar removed. One part of the salwar was around her neck and the other was stuffed to her mouth. At about 2 pm in the night First Information Report (in short the ‘FIR’) was registered at the Radaur Police Station. According to the appellant he was apprehended on 21.3.1993, whereas the prosecution claimed that he was arrested on 24.3.1993. On 24.3.1993 accused is stated to have made extra judicial confession to Ram Dia (PW11) and Punnu Ram ex Sarpanch of the village who was not examined as witness. On the same day he was produced before the police by PW11 and Punnu Ram at the Police Station, Radaur. Medical examination of the accused was conducted by the Doctor PW3. On 10.6.1993 the accused was sent for trial. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. It is to be noted the accused’s father Sher Singh was sent up for trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Since the accused’s case was not one of direct evidence and rested on circumstantial evidence, the trial court analysed various circumstances and held the appellant guilty as noted above and the appeal before the High Court did not bring any relief.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court and the High Court found that; (1) the rape was not proved; (2) extra judicial confession was not proved;(3) last seen evidence as projected by prosecution through the evidence of Inder Raj (PW9) was not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. But having so held, the trial court found the presence of injuries on the accused to be sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. Thus it is submitted that it is by no stretch of imagination the determinative factor to hold the appellant guilty.

4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment.

5. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that 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. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan,1 (AIR 1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad,2 (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka,3 (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors.,4 (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab,5 (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.,6 (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be pro