2011 Supreme(SC) 659

2011 (5) Supreme 66
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Asok Kumar Ganguly and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen — Appellant
versus
State of Rajasthan — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1327 of 2008
with
Criminal Appeal No.1369/2008; and
Criminal Appeal No.1370/2008
Decided on : 13-07-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
With regard to Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material objects and its use in the commission of the offence.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 302/34 and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act -Prosecution of appellant accused persons for causing death of deceased by inflicting injuries on his person with sword and knife-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal –Dismissed-Appeals thereagainst- Omissions on part of all three witnesses to state certain material facts in the course of making their statements before the police, which they had categorically admitted in their depositions - Several discrepancies appeared in their evidence- P.W.8 was absolutely an hearsay witness which was borne out from their evidence- Similarly evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 not established intention on the part of accused to murder deceased- - The AB blood group which was found on clothes of deceased not by itself established the guilt of Appellants unless same was connected with the murder of deceased by Appellants- None of the witnesses examined by prosecution could establish that fact- The blood found on the sword recovered at the instance of the appellant 1 was not sufficient for test as the same had already disintegrated-Recovery of weapons on disclosure of Appellants itself was doubtful- The conduct of prosecution appeared to be extremely doubtful and rendered the case as concocted, to falsely implicate Appellants- Recovery Memos also reflected that there were overwriting on the same which had not been explained by P.W.16 Investigating Officer- Hence held not safe and proper to hold Appellants guilty for commission of offence-Impugned judgment and order of conviction as recorded by Trial Court and confirmed by High Court being unsustainable set aside-Appeals allowed. (Paras 21 to 24)

        Circumstantial Evidence- It is too well settled in law that where the 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- No doubt, it is true that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be decided on the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence, which has been well settled by law by this Court (Para 25)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by inflicting injuries on his person with sword and knife. Trial Court convicted accused persons. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present appeals have been filed against said orders of conviction and sentence.

       Findings of the Court :

        The Court held that there were Omissions on part of all three witnesses to state certain material facts in the course of making their statements before the police, which they had categorically admitted in their depositions. Several discrepancies appeared in their evidence. P.W.8 was absolutely an hearsay witness which was borne out from their evidence. Similarly evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 not established intention on the part of accused to murder deceased. The AB blood group which was found on clothes of deceased not by itself established the guilt of Appellants unless same was connected with the murder of deceased by Appellants. None of the witnesses examined by prosecution could establish that fact. The blood found on the sword recovered at the instance of the appellant 1 was not sufficient for test as the same had already disintegrated. Recovery of weapons on disclosure of Appellants itself was doubtful. The conduct of prosecution appeared to be extremely doubtful and rendered the case as concocted, to falsely implicate Appellants. Recovery Memos also reflected that there were overwriting on the same which had not been explained by P.W.16 Investigating Officer. Hence held not safe and proper to hold Appellants guilty for commission of offence. Impugned judgment and order of conviction as recorded by Trial Court and confirmed by High Court being unsustainable was set aside. Appeals were allowed.