The main legal point established is the reliance on circumstantial evidence and the requirement for a complete chain of evidence consistent only with the guilt of the accused.

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Prithvi Singh and Parbat Singh, two old aged neighbours were found beheaded in the morning of October 5, 2001, Police Station Pagaria was approached and in the course of investigation the police came to the conclusion that it was Kalu Singh (herein after described as ‘accused’) who had committed the crime. The accused was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3 Jhalawar in Sessions case No. 74/2003. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated August 7, 2003 convicted and sentenced the accused as under:

Under Section 302 IPC:

To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer Six Months Simple

Imprisonment. Under Section 459 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Five Years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer One

Month Simple Imprisonment. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. It is the prosecution case that Prithvi Singh had five daughters, therefore he took the accused in adoption. On the pursuation of Prithvi Singh, accused left the house of his original father and came with his wife to the house of Prithvi Singh and started residing there. Soon the dreams of Prithvi Singh broke into pieces and he ousted the accused from the house and demanded the adoption deed back. Thereafter on October 5, 2001 Prithvi Singh and Parbat Singh found dead. Madan Singh son of Parbat Singh lodged the report with the Police Station Pagaria camp Kholkheri. A case under Sections 302, 34 and 460 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead bodies were performed. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Marks of foot-prints were lifted. The accused was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jhalawar. charges under Sections 302 and 459 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 24 witnesses and got exhibited 34 documents. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated herein above.

3. We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and weighed the material on record.

4. Since there were no eye witnesses to the occurrence, the prosecution relied on the following

circumstances in support of its case: i) Motive. ii) Foot prints on the scene of occurrence matched with the foot prints of the accused. iii) Recovery of knife stained with human blood, at the instance of the accused. iv) Recovery of adoption deed at the instance of the accused.

5. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343, laid down the principles relating to circumstantial evidence thus: Para 10)

“It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”

MOTIVE:

6. It is well settled that motive which is not capable of precise proof if proved may lend additional support to strengthen the probability of commission of the offence by the accused. Coming to the facts