J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The law is well-settled that in a criminal case irrespective of the gravity and nature of charges, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the guilt of the accused by leading evidence which is convincing and links the accused with the crime beyond all manner of reasonable doubt. In a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN D 18a :t 1e 6: :2 20 62 It5 S. T0h2.07e chain of circumstances beyond all manner of doubt. The law Reason:

in respect of the same has been crystallized in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, [(1984) 4 SCC 116.] wherein it was held that:-

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(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 [(1973) 2 SCC 793] 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 not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

(emphasis supplied)

3. Keeping in view the above principles, we shall now advert to the facts of the case at hand. The appellant i.e., Gambhir Singh2 has been convicted and sentenced to death in relation to a ghastly incident involving murder of his own brother3, sister-in-law4 and their four innocent children5. The incident took place in the house of the deceased persons at village Turkiya on the intervening night of 8th and 9th May, 2012.

4. The case of prosecution in a nutshell is that on 9th May, 2012 at about 6:30 am, Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), being the brother of deceased Pushpa, received shocking information that his sister, brother-in-law, nephew and nieces had been hacked to death. On receiving this information, Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), his family members, along with other villagers reached village Turkiya, where his sister used to reside along with her husband and four children. They proceeded to the house and saw that all the six members of the family had been killed in a heinous manner with blows of sharp and blunt weapons.

2 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘appellant-accused’.

3 The brother, namely “Satyabhan”.

4 The sister-in-law, namely “Pushpa”.

5 The children, namely Aarti, Mahla, Gudia and Kanhaiya.

5. Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), the informant lodged a written report6 with Station House Officer, Police Station Achhnera, District Agra alleging inter alia that the marriage of his sister Pushpa had been solemnized about 12 years ago with Satyabhan, son of Shiv Singh, resident of village Turkiya. From their wedlock a son and three daughters were born. The appellant-accused, younger brother of Satyabhan, bore enmity with them due to a land dispute. On 8th May, 2012, the appellant-accused was staying with his friend Abhishek at the house of