Important Points
Disclosure of material objects alone would not form basis for conviction.
Suspicion, however strong, cannot take character of proof.

Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 27—Disclosure statement—Evidentiary value—What is important is discovery of material object at disclosure of accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to conclusion that offence was also committed by accused—Thereafter, burden lies on prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of material object and its use in commission of the offence—What is admissible under Section 27 is information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by prosecution— Suspicion, however strong, cannot take character of proof. (Para 16)
       (2008) 1 SCR 228 ; (2011) 14 SCC 117 ; (2011) 11 SCC 724—Relied.
       (B) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/34 and 392/34—Murder and robbery—Circumstantial evidence—There are no eye-witnesses in present case and case of prosecution is completely based on circumstantial evidence—Recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statement made by accused not connecting them with offence—It would be risky to convict appellants solely on the basis of alleged disclosure which recovery is also shrouded with elements of doubts—There is no other circumstance which relate these two appellants to commission of offence—It is a case of blind murder—There are no eyewitnesses—Not only chain of events is incomplete, it becomes somewhat difficult to convict appellant only on the basis of recoveries—Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 4, 11, 12, 13 and 17)
       (C) Criminal Law—Appreciation of evidence—Circumstantial evidence—Complete chain of events has to be established pointing out culpability of accused person—Chain should be such that no other conclusion except guilt of accused person is discernible without any doubt. (Para 13)
       Facts of Case—Appeals arise out of concurrent order of conviction passed by courts below convicting these two appellants along with third accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing all of them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000.
       Findings of Court—Except so-called recoveries, there is no other circumstances worth name which has been proved against these two appellants. It is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. Not only chain of events is incomplete, it becomes somewhat difficult to convict appellant only on the basis of recoveries.

Judgment

A.K. Sikri, J.

These two appeals arise out of concurrent order of conviction passed by the courts below convicting these two appellants, viz. Vijay Thakur and Surjeet Khachi, along with third accused, namely, Rajinder Thakur under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing all of them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000, etc. The appellants are also convicted for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC and are given the sentence of five years and fine of Rs. 2,000 each with a default clause in case fine is not paid.

2. As correctness of the narration of this prosecution case recorded by the High Court is not in dispute, we may state the prosecution version by borrowing from the said judgment. It is as under:

(a) Deceased Santosh Kumar, son of Bir Chand (PW-1), was employed as a driver by Ganga Ram (PW-2) to drive his Maruti van, which he had purchased only few days prior to the date of occurrence, i.e. August 21, 2004. The van had yet not been registered with the Registration Authority, though application for registration had been moved. On August 21, 2004, all the three appellants were looking for a taxi as they wanted to escort a truck carrying timber. They got lift in a truck at Narkanda for going to Sainj to hire a taxi. The truck by which they went to Sainj was being driven by Rajesh Kumar (PW-30). It was carrying merchandise belonging to PW-30. At Sainj, the appellants hired Maruti van of PW-2 on which the deceased had been engaged as a driver. The van started from Sainj for Narkanda late in the evening. On the way, deceased Dharam Pal, an electrician working at Kingar, was approached by the deceased to accompany him. Dharam Pal too boarded the van. Thereafter, the deceased, along with his van, went missing. PW-2, who is the owner of the van, started searching for him.

(b) On August 25, 2004, PW-2 met PW-1 at Luhri and asked him if the deceased had visited his house. PW-1 replied him in the negative. PW-1 and PW-2 started searching for the deceased and the van. A report was lodged on August 24, 2004, with the Police Station, Kumarsain by PW-2 about deceased having gone missing along with Maruti van. An entry was made in the Rojnamcha and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW-47/A.

(c) On August 26, 2004, one Shano Devi (PW-18) spotted two dead bodies in Thachru Nallah, which falls by the side of the road connecting to Sainj with Narkanda. She informed her co-villagers. Police was informed telephonically. Entry regarding telephonic information was made in the Daily Diary and marked as Exhibit PW-37/A. ASI Sada Nand (PW-49) went to the spot accompanied by PW-1, PW-2 and one Talru Ram (PW-3), who is the father of deceased Dharam Pal. Dead bodies were identified to be those of Santosh Kumar and Dharam Pal. Both of them had been strangulated, one by means of a string of jacket's hood and another by means of a handkerchief. Also, there were injuries on their heads. A danda (Exhibit P-1) was also found lying on the spot.

(d) PW-1 made a statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short. 'Cr.P.C.') to PW-49, which is exhibited as Ex.PW-49/A. It was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case, where FIR (Exhibit PW-48/A) was recorded by ASI Rattan Chand (PW-48). Inquest was conducted by PW-49 and Forms (Exhibits PW-1/A, 1/B and 1/C) were filled in. Dead bodies were sent to Community Health Centre, Kumarsain, where post-mortem examination was conducted by a team of doctors, consisting of Dr. Ramesh Chand Guleria (PW32), Dr. N.K. Mehta (PW-33) and Dr. Sumeet Attri (PW-43). The doctors found injuries on the heads of both the dead bodies and also that the necks of the deceased had been tightened with a string of jacket's hood and a handkerchief. They gave the opinion that the case of death, in both the cases, was head injuries and asphyxia caused by strangulation. Post-mortem reports are exhibited as Exhibits PW-32/B and P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 692

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAA.K. SIKRI, J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.VIJAY THAKUR – APPELLANTVERSUSSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – RESPONDENTCRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 632 & 633 OF 2011Decided on: 19-09-2014

Important Points Disclosure of material objects alone would not form basis for conviction.Suspicion, however strong, cannot take character of proof.

Cases Referred (3)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
VIJAY THAKUR – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 632 & 633 OF 2011
Decided on: 19-09-2014

Important Points
Disclosure of material objects alone would not form basis for conviction.
Suspicion, however strong, cannot take character of proof.