IMPORTANT POINT
Defective investigation cannot be made a basis for acquitting the accused if despite such defects and failures of the investigation, a case is made out against all the accused or anyone of them.

JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.-Roop Devi, daughter of Bhagwan Sahai (PW1) was married to Shyam Mohan, respondent No.2 herein on 6.6.1973. Respondent No.1 Hari Mohan is the elder brother of respondent No.2. The other respondents are the relations/friends of Shyam Mohan.

2. After receiving the letter on 18.3.1977 which is stated to have been written by Roop Devi, Bhagwan Sahai (PW1), her father, came to village Kurrja Kalan on 19.3.1977 to inquire about his daughter. He was told by respondent No.1 Hari Mohan that Roop Devi had died due to Cholera on 15.3.1977. Apprehending some foul play PW1 lodged the FIR at Police Station Kanth on 20.3.1977 at about 1.30 p.m. On 22.3.1977 the dead body of Roop Devi, bundled in a gunny bag was found floating in a pond in Village Sahwapur, away from the house of the accused-respondents. On opening the gunny bag it was found that dead body was tied in a saree and wrapped in a bad sheet. It also bore gun shot injuries. Post mortem was conducted on 23.3.1977 and the doctor opined that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as result of the ante mortem injuries noticed on her body.

3. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur convicted respondent No. 1 under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. All other respondents were convicted under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment.

4. Not satisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the respondents preferred an appeal in the High Court which was allowed vide the judgment impugned in this appeal. The accused were acquitted on the assumption that "the possibility of a suicide of Smt. Roop Devi in the house also cannot be denied". As the occurrence was found to be that of a suicide, the conviction of all the accused persons under Section 201 IPC was held to be not maintainable.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the whole record including the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution and the defence.

6. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence connecting any of the accused with the commission of the crime. The case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. It is often said that witnesses may lie but the circumstances cannot. To convict a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be clearly established. The proved circumstances must be such as would reasonably exclude the possibility of innocence of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. The chain of circumstances, furnished by the prosecution, should be so complete as not to lead any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Medical evidence in such a case may be an important circumstance giving assurance to the existence of the other circumstances alleged against the culprit. This Court has consistently held that when the evidence against the accused, particularly when he is charged with grave offence like murder consists of only circumstances, it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty; not fantastic possibilities nor freak inferences but rational deductions which reasonable minds make from the probative force of facts and circumstances.

7. While appreciating the ocular testimony of witnesses and the circumstantial evidence in a criminal case, the criminal courts are expected to keep in mind the observations of this Court in State of Punjab v. Jagbir Singh, Baljit Singh and Karam Singh1 wherein it was held :

"A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give fight to one s imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real