IMPORTANT POINT
Where inference of guilt of an accused is to be drawn from circumstantial evidence only those circumstances must in first place be cogently established and then these circumstances should be of definite tendency pointing towards guilt of accused.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Trial – Conviction on circumstantial evidence Principle of law where inference of guilt is to be drawn from circumstantial evidence - Circumstances must be cogently established – Such circumstances should be of a definite, tendency pointing towards guilt of accused Suspicion howsoever strong cannot be allowed to take place of proof - Chain of established circumstances must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of accused. (paras 11 to 14)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302/34 - Conviction of two appellants for offence based upon circumstantial evidence - Circumstance that two days prior to recovery of dead body of deceased, there was verbal altercation /between accused and deceased even otherwise incapable of connecting accused with offence found not proved by reliable evidence - Evidence also did not establish that deceased was lastly seen with accused before he was found injured - Recovery of iron rod at instance of an accused which was allegedly used in crime - Recovery not proved by cogent evidence - No explanation in regard to two injuries on the body were post - mortem - Two other ante - mortem injuries were caused by sharp object, not possible by iron rod - Spleen of deceased was found ruptured but there was no corresponding injury by forceful blow - Detection of blood stains on clothes which accused was alleged wearing at the time of commission of offence was of no help as recovery of clothes from accused was not established Conviction was unsustainable.(paras 16 to 35)
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

M.R. Verma, J. - Since both these appeals arise out of the single judgment dated December 9, 1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Chamba whereby the accused/appellants (hereafter referred to as the 'accused') have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian. Penal Code.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on July 22. 1997 at about 3.15 a.m. telephonic information was received from one Mr. Uttam Chand, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chamera Project Banikhet, in the Police Station. Dalhousie to the effect that one dead -body had been brought from the side of Bagdhar in the Chamera Hospital Banikhet, On receipt of this information, Officer – in - charge of Police Station Dalhouise PW-22 Rajinder Sharma reached Chamera Hospital. After inspection of the body, he prepared the inquest report Ext. PM, got the dead -body photographed and sent the dead -body for post - mortem to Civil Hospital, Dalhousie. The post - mortem of the dead – body, which was of one Puran Chand, Wireless Messenger, resident of Bagdhar. Tehsil Dalhousie, was conducted by PW-18 Dr. P.K. Ahluwalia and the post - mortem report is Ext. PN wherein it has been opined that:

"the cause of death in this case is due to hoemorrhage and shock which is irreversible. Exact opinion will be given after the report of Chemical Examiner. Abdominal cavity full of blood due to rupture of spleen. Sufficient to cause death. Injury No. 1 and 2nd are with sharp object and are ante -mortem in nature. Injury No. 3 and 4th caused by blunt object. Post - mortem in nature. Injury No. 5th caused by blunt object. Ante - mortem I in nature."

The detailed description of the injuries as given in the post - mortem report reads as follows:

1. Incised wound Rt. frontal region above three fingers from Rt. eye brow lat 1/ 3rd region 4 cms x 2 cms x 1 cm. Blood oozing, margins clear elliplical shape. Ante - mortem in nature.

2. Incised wound It. half of chin 5 cms x 2 cms?, 1 cm elliplical in shape margins clear blood oozing. Ante - mortem.

3. Rounded bruise 1 cm in diameter, laceration on margins at 1°c to 3°c positions in infra memory region, Reddish blue in colour. One rounded bruise 2 mm in diameter over left nipple in mid clavicular region three fingers above left nipple, Reddish blue in colour. Post - mortem in nature.

4. Multiple bruises and abrasions right knee right arm, middle 1/3rd region both lower legs. Right scapula region bluish colouration. No oozing. These are post-mortem injuries on opening abdominal cavity full of blood.

5. 7 bruises of variable size 4 cms. to 15 cms. breadth 2 cms. linear in shape. bluish reddish in colour in left scapular and infra scapular region. Ante - mortem in nature."

3. PW-22 Rajinder Sharma. Sub -Inspector then proceeded to Bagdhar to inquire into the matter. He recorded the statement of PW -1 Mohinder Singh under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Ext. PA whereupon First Information Report Ext. PO was recorded at Police Station. Dalhousie. PW-1 Mohinder Singh had stated that he was sure that Puran was beaten up by the accused with some fatal weapon with the intention to kill him. The reason being that two days before the occurrence accused Kewal Kumar had a quarrel with the deceased. During the course of investigation it' was found that two days before the occurrence there was some verbal altercation between the deceased and accused Kewal Kumar because accused Kewal Kumar had thrown Coca Cola on Puran Chand. On July 21, 1997, there was again altercation between the two about the earlier incident in which PW-3 Ajit Singh and PW-7 Pritam Chand had intervened and pacified them. It was also found that on July 21. 1997 accused Kewal Kumar, who is a truck driver had brought sand loaded in the truck HP 470228 from Kheri to Bagdhar. He was accompanied by accused Vyas Dev, PW5 Roshan Lal and PW-6 Naresh Kumar. Since the dispute between the deceased and accused Kewal Kumar had been patch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTWhere inference of guilt of an accused is to be drawn from circumstantial evidence only those circumstances must in first place be cogently established and then these circumstances should be of definite tendency pointing towards guilt of accused.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where inference of guilt of an accused is to be drawn from circumstantial evidence only those circumstances must in first place be cogently established and then these circumstances should be of definite tendency pointing towards guilt of accused.