In a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established by cogent and reliable evidence, and they must be consistent with the guilt of the accused and not capable of being explained away on any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - MOTIVE - IDENTIFICATION - FINGERPRINTS - RECOVERY OF WEAPON AND CLOTHES - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:

The prosecution alleged that the accused Hari Singh conspired with the other accused to commit the murder of Kurdaram due to a failed betrothal. The deceased was found dead with two incised wounds on his neck. The accused were seen in the company of the deceased prior to the murder, and their clothes and a knife were found stained with blood. The accused were convicted of murder under section 302 IPC.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence of motive was not convincing and that the accused had no adequate motive for committing the murder. The court also found that the evidence of the two witnesses who saw the accused in the company of the deceased was unreliable. The court further found that the evidence of fingerprints and the recovery of the weapon and clothes were not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of motive was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused? 2. Whether the evidence of the two witnesses who saw the accused in the company of the deceased was reliable? 3. Whether the evidence of fingerprints and the recovery of the weapon and clothes were sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of motive was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused because the prosecution witness who testified about the motive was not reliable and his testimony was contradicted by other evidence. 2. The court held that the evidence of the two witnesses who saw the accused in the company of the deceased was unreliable because they were chance witnesses and their testimony was not corroborated by other evidence. 3. The court held that the evidence of fingerprints and the recovery of the weapon and clothes were not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt because the evidence was circumstantial and did not exclude the possibility that the accused were innocent.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences of the accused, and acquitted them of all charges.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal by accused Hari Singh, Nihal Singh and Manphool Singh is directed against the judgment dated November 11, 1974 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, whereby he convicted them under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life.

2. Tersely speaking shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution story as disclosed at the trial is that accused Hari Singh was to be betrothed with the daughter of Jagniram, who was later on married to Kurdaram (since deceased). Hari Singh felt annoyed and conspired with other accused to commit the murder of Kurdaram.

3. Few days prior to the commission of the crime Kurdaram's sister Mst. Shanti went to her maternal uncles place. While coming back to her fathers place she inadvertently forgotten to bring her clothes. Kurdaram went to the house of his maternal uncle situated in village Gawali. After taking the clothes he started for his village. A day prior to the occurrence he was seen by PW 4 Vidhyadhar in the company of accused Hari Singh at nearly 10 a. m. on the outskirt of village Narhar. On the same day at nearly 6 p. m, PW 19 Hanuman and PW 5 Hukmi Chand saw all the three accused in the company of the deceased in the Bani of Khudiya. At that time they were drinking liquor. On the next day Kurdaram was of due lying dead at the same place. The villagers called Harlal Sarpanch, who gave a written report Ex. P/1 at the Police Station, Pilani on April 1, 1973 at 6.30 p. m. on the basis of which first information report Ex. P/2 was chalked out. After registering the case under section 302 IPC head constable Ram Singh reached the scene of occurrence. He prepared inquest report Ex. P/3, seized blood-stained earth vide Ex. P/5. A bag containing Kabja, Lahanga was also found lying near the dead body, which were also seized vide Ex. P/ 6. A blood-stained knife and a pair of shoes stained with blood were also found lying near the dead body, which were seized vide Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/8 respectively. The autopsy on the dead body was performed by PW 8 Dr. Bharat Singh on 2-4-1973. He found the following external injuries -

1. Incised wound 3"x 11/2" on the neck in front cutting the trachea on two portions. Maggots were present.

2. Incised wound on neck left side 21/2" x 1/2"x 2" just below the mandible superficial juglar vein divided into two parts.

On opening of the body he noticed that trachea was divided into two portions just above the thyroid "cartilage and the left superficial juglar vein was divided into two parts. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was asphyxia due to cutting of trachea. The injuries were antemortem and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further found that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by ordinary knife. The post-mortem report is Ex. P/12. Thereafter PW 16 Ramjiwan took charge of the case and arrested accused Hari Singh and Nihal Singh on the same day. Accused Manphool Singh was arrested on April 8, 1973. The clothes found on the person of Hari Singh at the time of his arrest were stained with blood. As such Bushshirt Art. 11 and pair of Trousers Art. 12 were seized and sealed by the police vide seizure memo Ex. P/13. Manphool Singh after his arrest expressed his desire to get the blood-stained clothes recovered from his house. The information was reduced into writing and has been marked as Ex. P/19. In consequence of this information accused Manphool Singh got a pair of trousers Art. 13 and one bush shirt Art. 14 recovered from his house. They were seized and sealed. The seizure memo is Ex P/20. On April 8, 1973 Nihal Singh also expressed his desire to get the blood stained clothes recovered from his house. The information was reduced in writing and has been marked as Ex. P/21. In consequence of that information a Pent Article 15 and a Bushshirt Art. 16 were got recovered. They were sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/22. On April 10, 197

Click Here to Read the rest of this document