Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI. - The appellant, Prem Thakur, was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to death for the former offence. The conviction and sentence having been upheld by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.

2. The charge against the appellant is that he committed the murder of five co-labourers on the night between the 8th and 9th Nov., 1980 in the village of Rolu Majra. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant came to India from Nepal in search of work along with his companion workers and a few others. They worked with one Mohinder Singh for about 14 days for which they were paid a sum of Rs. 2,900/-. The appellant and his co-workers spent a sum of Rs. 800/- therefrom and the balance of Rs. 2,100/- was kept with Rama Nand who was one of the five co-workers of the appellant. The appellant and his companions thereafter went to the village of Rolu Majra where they worked in the field of Ujjagar Singh. On the evening of the day following Diwali, Ujjagar Singh saw the accused cooking meals for himself and his five companions. When Ujjagar Singh went to the field next morning at 8.00 a. m., he noticed that smoke was coming out of the pit of his tubewell. When he peeped into the well he saw five dead bodies smouldring. Ujjagar Singh lodged information of the offence with A. S. I. Jarnail Singh. The post-mortem examination on the five dead bodies revealed several ante-mortem injuries, most of which were in the nature of lacerated wounds.

3. Since Ujjagar Singh had seen the appellant in the company of five deceased persons and the appellant was not to be seen anywhere, the suspicion of the police naturally fell upon him. The case of the prosecution is that on Dec. 1, 1980, the appellant was arrested while he was working near the tubewell of Sohan Singh.

4. There is no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the five murders. In support, of the charges levelled against him, the prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence which consisted of : (i) motive for the offence; (ii) the fact that the appellant was seen last in the company of the deceased on the evening preceding the discovery of the dead bodies; (iii) the fact that the accused has absconded; (iv) the extra-judicial confession of the appellant; (v) the recovery of a Tangli in pursuance of the statement made by the appellant; (vi) the recovery of the dead bodies from the pit near the tubewell of Ujjagar Singh; and (vii) a false statement made by the appellant to Ram Ishar, the son of one of the deceased, Rama Nand, that the latter would return to the village after Puran Mashi.

5. The learned Sessions Judge accepted some of these circumstances as proved and convicted the appellant for the five murders on the basis of those circumstances. The High Court has relied upon three circumstances, namely, (i) motive, (ii) the fact that the appellant was seen last in the company of the deceased, and (iii) the conduct of the appellant after the occurrence.

6. As regards motive, the High Court observes in its judgment that since no money was found, on the dead bodies, theft as obviously the motive for the crime. That may be so, but we are unable to understand how the fact that theft was the motive for the crime can connect the appellant with the crime. It is quite likely that whosoever committed the five murders robbed the victims of the money which they had on their person, but that cannot necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is the appellant who robbed the deceased of their money. The fact that a fairly large, sum was paid to the appellant and his co-workers by way of their wages would be known to others apart from the appellant and his companions. No part of the money was traced to the appellant and therefore, we are unable to accept that the accused can be connected with the crime merely because the motive for the crime was