2007 Supreme(SC) 334

2007(5) Supreme 130
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Geejaganda Somaiah —Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Cr1.)No. 6301of 2006)
Decided on : 12-03-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V. Ramasubramanian, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Sanjay R. Hedge, Anil K. Mishra and Vikrant Yadav, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where prosecution case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts & circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Conviction of appellant based on circumstantial evidence — Accused & deceased were related & family owned property — Deceased was cleaning equitable partition & share in family land which was opposed by accused — on 23-9-1995 deceased left his house informing his wife PW1 that he was going to meet Revenue Inspector & was wearing wrist watch, gold ring & gold Chain & Rs.2500/- - Next day PW1 while going to coffee land to attend work saw dead body of her husband lying by road side — Appellant & co-accused acquitted by trial court were arrested — Pursuant to disclosure by appellant gold chain & ring belonging to deceased & weapon used in crime were recovered from house of accused — Blood stained clothes of accused were also seized — High court found circumstances i.e. motive, last seen together, recovery of gold ornaments & absence of explanation by accused conclusive to prove guilt of accused — Appeal — Where case was based on circumstantial evidence inference of guilt could be justified when all incriminating facts & circumstances were found to be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person — Great care to be taken while evaluating circumstantial evidence — Circumstances found proved against accused formed a complete chain & conviction called for no interference.

       Held : It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all· the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible With the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Raiasthan (AIR 1977 SC 1063), Eradu v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316), Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446), State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi (AIR 1985 SC 1224), Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350) and Ashok Kumar Chatteriee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Puniab (AIR 1954 SC 621) it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.

       (Para 11)

       Held : Some of the circumstances which need to be highlighted are recovery of the gold ornaments of the deceased as well as the weapon used in the crime. The bloodstained clothes of the appellant were also seized. Prosecution has relied on the evidence of PWs 6 and 12 to establish its stand about the recovery. PW-6, the goldsmith who was called for testing and weighing gold ornaments. He admitted that he accompanied police officer for recovery of the ornaments from the accused but resiled from certain parts of the statement made during investigation. PW -12 specifically stated that the appellant led the police and the mahazar witness for discovery of the articles namely, gold chain MO 10, bloodstained clothes i.e. MO 14 of the accused. These are along with clothes were sent for forensic examination. The evidence of FSL Officer and his report equally established that the bloodstains were there. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘Evidence - Act’) has also application. As held by this Court in J.P. Anand v. D.G. Baffna (AIR 2002 SC 141) and Ezhil and Ors. v. State or-Tamil Nadu (AIR 2002 SC 2017) in the absence of explanation of the accused as to legitimate or origin of their possession of articles belonging to the deceased, keeping in view of the time within which the murder was supposed to have been committed and the body found and the articles recovered from the possession of the accused an inference can be can be safely drawn that not only the accused was in possessions of those articles belonging to the deceased but also committed murder of the deceased. The articles belonging to the deceased were in possession of the accused who had voluntarily disclosed and as such presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act was clearly applicable.

       (Para 18)

       Held : The most important circumstance for the prosecution in the case is the disclosure statements of the accused persons and recoveries of the stolen property, blood stained shirt and weapon of offence consequent upon such statements. The admissibility of the statements made by the accused persons to the police is challenged on twin grounds, i.e., (i) factually no such statement was made, and (ii) the statement made was inadmissible in evidence.

       (Para 19)

       Held : In the instant case also, the disclosure statements were made by the accused persons on the next day of the commission of the offence and the property of the deceased was recovered at their instance from the places where they had kept such properties, on the same day. In the same affect are the judgments in Mukund Alias Kundu Mishra & Anr. v. State of M.P. AIR 1997 SC 2622 and Ronny Alias Ronald James Alwaris & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 1251.

       (Para 28)

       Held : Above being the position, the appeal is clearly without merit, deserves dismissal which we direct.

       (Para 30)

       (ii) Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Confession by accused wrote in police custody cannot be proved against him — Exception cared out be Section 27 of Act — So much of such information whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to fact there by discovered credibility of evidence by police as provision was vulnerable to abuse — Expression fact discovered includes not only physical object produced but also place from which it is produced 7 knowledge of accused as to that — Besides section 27 of the Act, Court can draw presumption u/s. 114 of the Act.

       As the Section is alleged to be frequently misused by the police, the courts are required to be vigilant about its application. The court, must ensure the credibility of evidence by police because this provision is vulnerable to abuse. It does not, however, mean that any statement made in terms of the aforesaid section should be seen with suspicion and it cannot be discarded only on the ground that it was made to a police officer during investigation. The court has to be cautious that no effort is made by the prosecution to make out a statement of accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact in order to attract the provisions of Section 27 the Evidence Act.

       (Para 20 & 21)