IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecution must complete the chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 09.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein.

2. Brief facts:

(a) The present appeal pertains to the death of one Ashabai, resident of Chanda Taluk, Karjat District, Ahmednagar. She was married to one Nitin Tulshiram Suryawanshi-Accused No. 3 herein (special leave petition with respect to this accused has already been dismissed on 02.11.2007). Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi (A-1) and Sindhubai Suryawanshi (A-2) are the parents of A-3. At the relevant time, A-3 was working as a driver.

(b) Sampat Madhavrao Suryawanshi (PW-2) is the relative of Kisan Bhanudas Sule (PW-1)-the father of the deceased and was the mediator of the said marriage. On 28.02.2003, the dead body of Ashabai was found to be floating in the well of one Sarjerao Suryawanshi with both the legs and hands tied by means of the border of a Saree. PW-2 lodged a complaint against the appellants herein with regard to the above incident with the Karjat P.S., Ahmednagar, alleging the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased in order to fulfill the demand of Rs. 50,000/- for the purchase of a Jeep.

(c) On 28.02.2003, on the basis of the said complaint, Accidental Death No. 3 of 2003 and, after investigation, Crime No. 24 of 2003 was registered at the said police station.

(d) After filing of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions Case No. 102 of 2004. On 03.08.2004, the 5th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, framed charges against the appellants under Sections 302, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’). Again, on 28.09.2004, an additional charge of Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC was also framed against the appellants.

(e) By order dated 10.01.2005, the 5th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, convicted all the accused persons and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment under various heads mentioned above including life sentence and all the sentences were to run concurrently.

(f) Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2005 before the High Court of Bombay. By impugned order dated 09.04.2007, the Division Bench of the High Court while confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein.

(g) Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellants herein have filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

3. Heard Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, learned amicus curiae for the appellants-accused and Mr. Shankar Chillarge, learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent-State.

4. It is not in dispute that the conviction of the appellants A-1 and A- 2 is based on circumstantial evidence, hence, we have to see how far the prosecution has established the chain and able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial Evidence:

5. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, this Court after referring to various earlier decisions, formulated the following conditions to be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established based on circumstantial evidence:-

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and