CRA-D-162-DB IN THE HIGH COURT Shankar @ Rinku State of Haryana CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. Appellant – sentence dated while holding him IPC sentenced to undergo Rs.2000/-. 2. The matter arises out of Station City Hansi, under Section 302 IPC motion pursuant to receipt of Hansi regarding Balwant Singh having been brought dead to the hospital at 9.30 AM. reached at General Hospital, Hansi DB-2005 (O&M) ( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH CRA Date of Decision: Shankar @ Rinku Versus Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate (Amicus Curiae), for the appellant. Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, Addl. AG, Haryana. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. – Shankar assails judgment dated sentence dated 30.04.2004, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, while holding him guilty of having committed sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life a . The matter arises out of FIR No.299 dated 01.07.2001 registered at Police Station City Hansi, under Section 302 IPC motion pursuant to receipt of information from the General Hospital, regarding Balwant Singh having been brought dead to the hospital at 9.30 AM. On receipt of said information, Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu reached at General Hospital, Hansi and recorded the statement of FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH A-D-162-DB-2005 (O&M) ate of Decision: 30.01.2025 ……Appellant …...Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate (Amicus Curiae), Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, Addl. AG, Haryana. dated 29.04.2004 and order of learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, guilty of having committed offence under Section 302 imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of FIR No.299 dated 01.07.2001 registered at Police Station City Hansi, under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution was set in information from the General Hospital, regarding Balwant Singh having been brought dead to the hospital On receipt of said information, Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu and recorded the statement of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB Ashutosh (Ex.P8) Ashutosh stated that on playing in Daddal Park, he saw consuming liquor and they were accompanied by complainant’s uncle Balwant and Sohan Lal Balwant and were hurling abuses. Upon seeing them quarreling, the complainant asked his uncle to accompany him home, but his uncle replied that Naresh had consumed a pouch of liquor and was quarreling with him and that he will return home after settling the matter. complainant consequently left from the said place. On the next morning, the complainant appri aforesaid incident and thereafter he and his uncle Daddal Park lying naked while his clothes were lying nearby and he was gasping for breath in an unconscious state. Injuries were noticed on his head and forehead from which blood w (Daya Nand) immediately shifted Balwant to General Hospital, but his uncle could not survive. 3. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the matter was investigated by the police during the course of which inquest report was examination visited the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan. Blood stained soil and a black coloured shoe were lifted from the place of occurrence. were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. DB-2005 (O&M) ( 2 ) (Ex.P8) on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P9) was Ashutosh stated that on 30.06.2001 at about playing in Daddal Park, he saw that Naresh and Rajinder Kumar consuming liquor and they were accompanied by complainant’s uncle Balwant and Sohan Lal. The said persons were, however, quarreling with Balwant and were hurling abuses. Upon seeing them quarreling, the complainant asked his uncle to accompany him home, but his uncle that Naresh had consumed a pouch of liquor and was quarreling h him and that he will return home after settling the matter. complainant consequently left from the said place. On the next morning, the complainant apprised another of his uncle Daya Nand aforesaid incident and thereafter he and his uncle Daddal Park at about 6.00 AM where they found his uncle (Balwant) lying naked while his clothes were lying nearby and he was gasping for breath in an unconscious state. Injuries were noticed on his head and forehead from which blood was oozing. The complainant and his uncle (Daya Nand) immediately shifted Balwant to General Hospital, but his uncle could not survive. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the matter was investigated by the police during the course of which inquest report was examination was got conducted on the dead body of Balwant visited the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan. Blood stained soil and a black coloured shoe were lifted from the place of occurrence. Statements of the witnesses including were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P9) was lodged. at about 10.00 PM, when he was Naresh and Rajinder Kumar were consuming liquor and they were accompanied by complainant’s uncle . The said persons were, however, quarreling with Balwant and were hurling abuses. Upon seeing them quarreling, the complainant asked his uncle to accompany him home, but his uncle that Naresh had consumed a pouch of liquor and was quarreling h him and that he will return home after settling the matter. The complainant consequently left from the said place. On the next morning, ed another of his uncle Daya Nand about the aforesaid incident and thereafter he and his uncle (Daya Nand) went to where they found his uncle (Balwant) lying naked while his clothes were lying nearby and he was gasping for breath in an unconscious state. Injuries were noticed on his head and as oozing. The complainant and his uncle (Daya Nand) immediately shifted Balwant to General Hospital, but his Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the matter was investigated by the police during the course of which inquest report was prepared. The post-mortem was got conducted on the dead body of Balwant. The police visited the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan. Blood stained soil and a black coloured shoe were lifted from the place of including that of one Mahender were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mahender in his statement VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB stated that he had seen Balwant (deceased) in the company of Shankar on the night intervening 30.06.2001 and 01.07.2001. 4. It is further the case of prosecution that the accused had made extra judicial confession before Prem Singh, Ex Saini Pura Hansi after his arrest on (Ex.P12) to the effect that he had given a stone like piece of concrete) the same in the bushes in Daddal Park, Hansi and could get the same recovered. like object made of further the case of the prosecution that the accused also got recovered his one shoe and clothes i.e. one vest of blue from his house. 5. Upon conclusion of investigation, accused in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi on 18.08.2001, who dated 11.09.2001 the accused on IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as witnesses. The hereinunder: DB-2005 (O&M) ( 3 ) stated that he had seen Balwant (deceased) in the company of Shankar on the night intervening 30.06.2001 and 01.07.2001. It is further the case of prosecution that the accused had made extra judicial confession before Prem Singh, Ex Saini Pura Hansi. It is also the case of prosecution that upon interrogation after his arrest on 03.07.2001, the accused suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that he had given a piece of concrete) to the deceased on his head and had thrown the same in the bushes in Daddal Park, Hansi and could get the same Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, accused got a like object made of cement recovered from the disclosed place. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused also got recovered his one shoe and clothes i.e. one vest of blue colour, one blood stained pant, from his house. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against the in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi on 18.08.2001, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions 11.09.2001. Learned Sessions Judge, Hisar the accused on 09.10.2001 for an offence to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as . The gist of their testimonies is being briefly referred to hereinunder:- stated that he had seen Balwant (deceased) in the company of Shankar on the night intervening 30.06.2001 and 01.07.2001. It is further the case of prosecution that the accused had made extra judicial confession before Prem Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat prosecution that upon interrogation suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that he had given a blow with cement ‘rora’ (a to the deceased on his head and had thrown the same in the bushes in Daddal Park, Hansi and could get the same Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, accused got a stone recovered from the disclosed place. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused also got recovered his colour, one blood stained pant, challan was presented against the in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi on to the Court of Sessions vide order Learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, framed charges against for an offence punishable under Section 302 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 11 testimonies is being briefly referred to VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB PW-1 Dr. Dharambir Lamba, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hansi stated that he had conducted post dead body of Balwant on the dead body of Balwant his opinion was due to injurie death in the ordinary course of nature. PW-2 Raju, Draftsman, who had prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, proved the same as Ex.P6. PW-3 HC Ved Pal deposed that on MHC sealed parcels parcels on parcels to EHC Piara Singh, who further deposited the same in the office of DFSL, Madhuban on as long as parcels remained in his possession, the same tampered with. PW-4 SI Mohinder Singh stated that on as Sub Inspector at P.S. City Hansi, he received the statement of Ashutosh (Ex.P8) which PW-5 UGC Kishan Ex.P10 in evidence, wherein he deposed that on was posted at P.S. City Hansi and that on the said day, after the post of Balwant, underwear of deceased alongwith another parcel containing his hair, which he further handed over to the SHO on the same day and that as long as the said parcels remained in his possession, the same were DB-2005 (O&M) ( 4 ) Dr. Dharambir Lamba, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hansi stated that he had conducted post dead body of Balwant on 01.07.2001 and had found 11 injuries the dead body of Balwant. He opined that the cause of death in his opinion was due to haemorrhage and shock injuries sustained by the deceased, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Raju, Draftsman, who had prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, proved the same as Ex.P6. HC Ved Pal tendered his affidavit Ex.P7 in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 01.07.2001, he was posted in P.S. City Hansi as MHC and that Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu had deposited sealed parcels with him on 01.07.2001 and parcels on 03.07.2001 and that he had handed over the said sealed parcels to EHC Piara Singh, who further deposited the same in the office of DFSL, Madhuban on 19.07.2001. He further stated that as long as parcels remained in his possession, the same tampered with. SI Mohinder Singh stated that on 01.07.2001 while he was posted as Sub Inspector at P.S. City Hansi, he received the statement of Ashutosh (Ex.P8) through Constable Anil Kumar on the basis of which he recorded formal FIR (Ex.P9). UGC Kishan Chand is a formal witness Ex.P10 in evidence, wherein he deposed that on was posted at P.S. City Hansi and that on the said day, after the post-mortem examination had been conducted on the dead body of Balwant, the Doctor concerned handed over a parcel containing underwear of deceased alongwith another parcel containing his hair, which he further handed over to the SHO on the same day and that as long as the said parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. Dr. Dharambir Lamba, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hansi, stated that he had conducted post-mortem examination on the 01.07.2001 and had found 11 injuries on . He opined that the cause of death in haemorrhage and shock on account of s sustained by the deceased, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Raju, Draftsman, who had prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, proved the same as Ex.P6. tendered his affidavit Ex.P7 in evidence, wherein he 01.07.2001, he was posted in P.S. City Hansi as Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu had deposited 3 01.07.2001 and another 3 sealed and that he had handed over the said sealed parcels to EHC Piara Singh, who further deposited the same in the 19.07.2001. He further stated that as long as parcels remained in his possession, the same were not 01.07.2001 while he was posted as Sub Inspector at P.S. City Hansi, he received the statement of through Constable Anil Kumar on the basis of he recorded formal FIR (Ex.P9). is a formal witness who tendered his affidavit Ex.P10 in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 01.07.2001, he was posted at P.S. City Hansi and that on the said day, after the been conducted on the dead body Doctor concerned handed over a parcel containing underwear of deceased alongwith another parcel containing his hair, which he further handed over to the SHO on the same day and that as long as the said parcels remained in his possession, the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB PW-6 EHC Pyara Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.P11 in evidence, wherein he deposed that on over 3 sealed parcels to him, which he delivered in the office of DFSL, Madhuban parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. PW-7 Mohinder Kumar when he was proceeding from Hisar to Hansi, he had seen Balwant (deceased) and Shankar in having liquor and were grappling with each other not stop inebriated PW-8 ASI Ram Avtar interrogated Shankar in his presence and also in the presence of PW Tara Chand and that during the course of interrogation, he (Shankar) thrown come off and pant and his right shoe in a box lying in his room. stated that pursuant to led the police party to articles recovered, which were taken into possession by the police vide separate recovery memos. PW-9 Prem Singh Pura Hansi Hansi since his birth. He stated that on Shankar Balwant Singh and that thereafter, he produced the accused before the Police on the same day i.e. PW-10 Sumer Singh party, but he DB-2005 (O&M) ( 5 ) EHC Pyara Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.P11 in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 19.07.2001, HC Ved Pal had handed over 3 sealed parcels to him, which he delivered in the office of DFSL, Madhuban on the same day and that as l parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. Mohinder Kumar stated that on 30.06.2001 when he was proceeding from Hisar to Hansi, he had seen Balwant (deceased) and Shankar in having liquor and were grappling with each other not stop them as he thought that they were quarrelling being ebriated state. ASI Ram Avtar stated that on 03.07.2001, Inspector Desh Bandhu interrogated Shankar in his presence and also in the presence of PW Tara Chand and that during the course of interrogation, he (Shankar) made a disclosure statement (Ex.P12) as regards having thrown a stone in bushes in the park and that his come off and fallen in the park and that he had concealed pant and his right shoe in a box lying in his room. stated that pursuant to the said disclosure statement led the police party to disclosed place and got the aforesaid articles recovered, which were taken into possession by the police vide separate recovery memos. Prem Singh stated that he is Ex-sarpanch Pura Hansi and had been residing in the area of Hansi since his birth. He stated that on Shankar had come to his house and had Balwant Singh and that thereafter, he produced the accused before the Police on the same day i.e. 03.07.2001. Sumer Singh stated that on 01.07.2001, he had party, but he had not handed over any blood stained shirt to the EHC Pyara Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.P11 in evidence, 19.07.2001, HC Ved Pal had handed over 3 sealed parcels to him, which he delivered in the office of on the same day and that as long as the said parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered 30.06.2001 at about 12 mid night, when he was proceeding from Hisar to Hansi, he had seen Balwant (deceased) and Shankar in Daddal Park, who were having liquor and were grappling with each other and that he did as he thought that they were quarrelling being in 03.07.2001, Inspector Desh Bandhu interrogated Shankar in his presence and also in the presence of PW Tara Chand and that during the course of interrogation, he made a disclosure statement (Ex.P12) as regards having a stone in bushes in the park and that his left shoe had also fallen in the park and that he had concealed his vest, pant and his right shoe in a box lying in his room. He further the said disclosure statement, the accused disclosed place and got the aforesaid articles recovered, which were taken into possession by the police sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Saini been residing in the area of Daddal Park, Hansi since his birth. He stated that on 03.07.2001, accused – had come to his house and had confessed having killed Balwant Singh and that thereafter, he produced the accused before 03.07.2001. 01.07.2001, he had joined the police had not handed over any blood stained shirt to the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB police nor the police had lifted anything in his presence. witness was declared hostile and the prosecution was permi cross PW-11 DSP Desh Bandhu Inspector/SHO at P.S. City Hansi and that pursuant to receipt of ruqa Ex.P21 body of Balwant, he the General Hospital, Hansi (complainant) the police station for registration of a case. He stated in detail with regard to the investiga preparation of inquest report, getting the post examination conducted, visit to the place of occurrence, preparation of site plan under Section 161 Cr.P.C., ar making of disclosure statement by the accused and the consequential recovered effected thereafter. 7. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C evidence against same, but the accused therein that he and Mohinder Singh because he was a supporter of the sitting MLA Shri Subhash Goel, whereas they were Attar Singh Saini elections, altercation had also taken place amongst him and Pr 8. The accused in his defence examined brought the original statement of Mohinder Kumar recorded in terms of DB-2005 (O&M) ( 6 ) police nor the police had lifted anything in his presence. witness was declared hostile and the prosecution was permi cross-examine the said witness. DSP Desh Bandhu stated that on Inspector/SHO at P.S. City Hansi and that pursuant to receipt of ruqa Ex.P21 from the General Hospital, Hansi regarding dead body of Balwant, he alongwith other police officials proceeded to the General Hospital, Hansi (complainant), who got his statement recorded, which he sent to the police station for registration of a case. He stated in detail with regard to the investigation preparation of inquest report, getting the post examination conducted, visit to the place of occurrence, preparation of site plan, recording of statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., arrest and interro making of disclosure statement by the accused and the consequential recovered effected thereafter. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C evidence against the accused was put to him same, but the accused pleaded false implication therein that he had been implicated falsely at the instance of Prem Singh inder Singh because he was a supporter of the sitting MLA Shri Subhash Goel, whereas they were supporting Attar Singh Saini, who was also MLA from Hansi and that during elections, altercation had also taken place amongst him and Pr The accused in his defence examined DW- brought the original statement of Mohinder Kumar recorded in terms of police nor the police had lifted anything in his presence. The said witness was declared hostile and the prosecution was permitted to stated that on 01.07.2001, he was posted as Inspector/SHO at P.S. City Hansi and that pursuant to receipt of from the General Hospital, Hansi regarding dead alongwith other police officials proceeded to where he met Ashutosh , who got his statement recorded, which he sent to the police station for registration of a case. He stated in detail conducted by him including preparation of inquest report, getting the post-mortem examination conducted, visit to the place of occurrence, recording of statements of the witnesses and interrogation of the accused, making of disclosure statement by the accused and the consequential recovered effected thereafter. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein entire incriminating him to enable them to explain the pleaded false implication. The accused pleaded implicated falsely at the instance of Prem Singh inder Singh because he was a supporter of the sitting MLA Shri supporting the former Minister Shri , who was also MLA from Hansi and that during elections, altercation had also taken place amongst him and Prem Singh. -1 ASI Jagdish Singh, who had brought the original statement of Mohinder Kumar recorded in terms of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Officer, FSL, Madhuban report, it was opined that although blood was collected from the place of occurrence clothes were subjected to examination of blood Benzidine, detected either worn by them determined. 9. The learned trial Court, upon Shankar had inflicted injuries to the deceased leading to his death and consequently, held him guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC vide impugned judgment, which is 10. Learned counsel for the appellant judgment, broadly made the following submissions: (i) that the entire case of the prosecution falls to ground inasmuch complainant (Ashutosh) has not been (ii) that there is no direct which circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution is far from convincing so as to (iii) that the alleged extra judicial confession stated to have been made by the accused before Prem Singh is a result of previous enmity between the accused and Prem Singh supporting the rival candidate DB-2005 (O&M) ( 7 ) Section 161 Cr.P.C. and DW-2 Dr. S.S.Chandna, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Madhuban, who proved his report Ex.DX. In the said report, it was opined that although blood was collected from the place of and all the suspects were joined and their nail crevices and clothes were subjected to examination of blood Benzidine, but despite best efforts of the team, the blood could not detected either in the crevices of the nails of the suspects worn by them and as such, the identity of the accused could not be . The learned trial Court, upon considering Shankar had inflicted injuries to the deceased leading to his death and consequently, held him guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC vide impugned judgment, which is earned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned broadly made the following submissions: hat the entire case of the prosecution falls to ground inasmuch complainant (Ashutosh) has not been there is no direct evidence to establish the case of prosecution which is based on circumstantial evidence and that the circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution is far from convincing so as to hold the accused guilty hat the alleged extra judicial confession stated to have been made by the accused before Prem Singh is a result of previous enmity between the accused and Prem Singh supporting the rival candidates during elections Dr. S.S.Chandna, Senior Scientific , who proved his report Ex.DX. In the said report, it was opined that although blood was collected from the place of were joined and their nail crevices and clothes were subjected to examination of blood through application of but despite best efforts of the team, the blood could not be in the crevices of the nails of the suspects or the clothes and as such, the identity of the accused could not be considering the entire evidence, held that Shankar had inflicted injuries to the deceased leading to his death and consequently, held him guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC vide impugned judgment, which is assailed before this Court. while assailing the impugned broadly made the following submissions: hat the entire case of the prosecution falls to ground inasmuch the complainant (Ashutosh) has not been examined by the prosecution; evidence to establish the case of prosecution, is based on circumstantial evidence and that the circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution is far hold the accused guilty; hat the alleged extra judicial confession stated to have been made by the accused before Prem Singh is a result of previous enmity between the accused and Prem Singh as both of them had been s during elections; VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB (iv) that in the absence of examination of complainant, the ‘last seen’ evidence led by the prosecution in the shape of testimony of Mohinder Kumar the spot is rather doubtful (v) that the disclosure statement allegedly made by the accused (Ex.P12) prove the same has been examined (vi) that the recoveries alleged to have been effected at the instance of the accused pursuant to independent accused was left in the park and that he had hidden in his room does not appeal to reason (vii) that although the police had got the scene of crime inspected from the experts, who had lifted some blood could neither be matched with the blood of the deceased be matched 11. Learned counse convincing evidence so as to establish all the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence liable to be set aside. 12. On the other hand, learned submitted that circumstantial evidence, but the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case forms a complete chain of circumstances one inference that it is the accused, who had murdered the deceased. DB-2005 (O&M) ( 8 ) hat in the absence of examination of complainant, the ‘last seen’ evidence led by the prosecution in the shape of testimony of Mohinder Kumar does not inspire confidence and his presence at the spot is rather doubtful; hat the disclosure statement allegedly made by the accused (Ex.P12) can hardly be relied upon as no independent witness to prove the same has been examined; hat the recoveries alleged to have been effected at the instance of the accused pursuant to his disclosure statement a independent corroboration and that the story that one shoe of the accused was left in the park and that he had hidden in his room does not appeal to reason although the police had got the scene of crime inspected from the experts, who had lifted some blood could neither be matched with the blood of the deceased be matched with those of the accused Learned counsel for the appellant, thus, submitted that convincing evidence so as to establish all the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the impugned judgment could not sustain and is liable to be set aside. n the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that although the case of the prosecution is mainly based on circumstantial evidence, but the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case forms a complete chain of circumstances one inference that it is the accused, who had murdered the deceased. hat in the absence of examination of complainant, the ‘last seen’ evidence led by the prosecution in the shape of testimony of PW-7 does not inspire confidence and his presence at hat the disclosure statement allegedly made by the accused can hardly be relied upon as no independent witness to hat the recoveries alleged to have been effected at the instance of his disclosure statement are bereft of any corroboration and that the story that one shoe of the accused was left in the park and that he had hidden the other shoe in his room does not appeal to reason; although the police had got the scene of crime inspected from the experts, who had lifted some blood stained article, but the same could neither be matched with the blood of the deceased nor could with those of the accused. l for the appellant, thus, submitted that in the absence of convincing evidence so as to establish all the links in the chain of the impugned judgment could not sustain and is State counsel, while opposing the appeal, although the case of the prosecution is mainly based on circumstantial evidence, but the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case forms a complete chain of circumstances, which lead to only one inference that it is the accused, who had murdered the deceased. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB 13. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. 14. Since it is a case of ho the medical evidence led by the prosecution prosecution has examined PW conducted the post found the following injuries: “1. 4 side of the mid line of the scalp. 2. 1.5 x side of the mid line. 3 cm posterior to injury No.1. 3. 2 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on occipital area in the mid line. 4. 1 cm x ½ cm lacerated wound on top of sca 5. 1 cm x ½ cm lacerated wound on forehead just above the mid line end of the right eyebrow. 6. 1 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on the latera eyebrow. 7. 1 cm x ½ cm of nasal bone was present. 8. 4 cm x 1 cm bone deep incised wound on forehead just above the left eyebrow. 9. 3 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound bone deep, fracture of cm lateral to injury No.8. 10. 4 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on left parietal area of scalp going bone deep. 11. 2 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on the frontal area of scalp. 15. PW-1 Dr. Dharambir Lamba opined that the cause of death was on account of haemorrhage and shock on account of injuries sustained by the DB-2005 (O&M) ( 9 ) We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the Since it is a case of homicidal death, it is apposite to the medical evidence led by the prosecution prosecution has examined PW-1 Dr. Dharambir Lamba, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Balwant found the following injuries: 4 x 1 cm incised wound bone deep on occipital area on the right side of the mid line of the scalp. 1.5 x 5 cm lacerated wound on the occipital area on the right side of the mid line. 3 cm posterior to injury No.1. 2 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on occipital area in the mid line. 1 cm x ½ cm lacerated wound on top of sca 1 cm x ½ cm lacerated wound on forehead just above the mid line end of the right eyebrow. 1 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on the latera eyebrow. 1 cm x ½ cm lacerated wound on nose. On dissection, fracture of nasal bone was present. 4 cm x 1 cm bone deep incised wound on forehead just above the left eyebrow. 3 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound bone deep, fracture of cm lateral to injury No.8. 4 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on left parietal area of scalp going bone deep. 2 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on the frontal area of scalp. 1 Dr. Dharambir Lamba opined that the cause of death was on of haemorrhage and shock on account of injuries sustained by the We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the micidal death, it is apposite to first of all examine the medical evidence led by the prosecution in this regard. The Dharambir Lamba, who had mortem examination on the dead body of Balwant and 1 cm incised wound bone deep on occipital area on the right 5 cm lacerated wound on the occipital area on the right side of the mid line. 3 cm posterior to injury No.1. 2 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on occipital area in the mid line. 1 cm x ½ cm lacerated wound on top of scalp. 1 cm x ½ cm lacerated wound on forehead just above the mid- 1 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on the lateral end of the right lacerated wound on nose. On dissection, fracture 4 cm x 1 cm bone deep incised wound on forehead just above 3 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound bone deep, fracture of forehead 1 4 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on left parietal area of scalp 2 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on the frontal area of scalp.” 1 Dr. Dharambir Lamba opined that the cause of death was on of haemorrhage and shock on account of injuries sustained by the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB deceased, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Although the witness was briefly cross but nothing substantial could be el examination so as to Consequently, it is held that it is a case of homicidal death of the deceased. 16. Coming to the first contention raised on behalf of the appellant as regards non-examination of complainant is correct that complainant prosecution, but Ashutosh in any case of offence and as per the FIR, he ha (deceased) in who were consuming liquor at about 10.00 PM. version in the FIR, first informant Ashutosh. Under these circumstances, non complainant prosecution. 17. Since the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the trial Court has recorded its finding regarding the guilt of the accused on the same, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution discussed under (i) ‘last seen’ evidence; (ii) extra judicial confession of accused (iii) disclosure statement and recoveries effected pursuant thereto; & (iv) motive DB-2005 (O&M) ( 10 ) deceased, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Although the witness was briefly cross but nothing substantial could be elicited examination so as to either doubt his Consequently, it is held that it is a case of homicidal death of the Coming to the first contention raised on behalf of the appellant as regards examination of complainant - Ashutosh, this Court finds that while it is correct that complainant - Ashutosh has not been examined by the prosecution, but Ashutosh in any case had not witnessed the commission of offence and as per the FIR, he had merely seen his uncle (deceased) in the company of Naresh, Rajinder Kumar and Sohan Lal who were consuming liquor at about 10.00 PM. version in the FIR, the accused – Shankar was not present or seen by the first informant Ashutosh. Under these circumstances, non complainant – Ashutosh cannot be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution. Since the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the trial Court has recorded its finding regarding the guilt of the accused on the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution under the following heads: ‘last seen’ evidence; extra judicial confession of accused; disclosure statement and recoveries effected pursuant thereto; & motive deceased, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Although the witness was briefly cross-examined by the accused, icited during the course of cross- his veracity or his opinion. Consequently, it is held that it is a case of homicidal death of the Coming to the first contention raised on behalf of the appellant as regards Ashutosh, this Court finds that while it Ashutosh has not been examined by the had not witnessed the commission merely seen his uncle Balwant the company of Naresh, Rajinder Kumar and Sohan Lal, who were consuming liquor at about 10.00 PM. Further, as per the Shankar was not present or seen by the first informant Ashutosh. Under these circumstances, non-examination of Ashutosh cannot be said to be fatal to the case of Since the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the trial Court has recorded its finding regarding the guilt of the accused on the basis of the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution is being disclosure statement and recoveries effected pursuant thereto; & his opinion. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB 18. ‘Last seen’ evidence Kumar, who had seen Daddal Park on the night of that on the said day, when he was proceeding from Hisar to Hansi on 30.06.2001 at about 12 midnight having liquor and were grappling with each other however, did not think it proper to intervene as they were quarreling having consumed liquor. Though learned counsel for the appellant tried to discredit the said witness on the ground that his presence at the doubtful and al the entire statement of PW said witness is resident of the same area and has categorically stated that he knew the deceased as well as the accused be elucidated during the course of his cross presence at the spot. The fact that he morning on the next day and to be an unu park may not be visible from all corners of the park particularly when somebody is not even specifically looking for any body or article. As such, the testimony of same area and accepted to be truthful. 19. Extra Judicial Confession of PW-9 Prem Singh before whom Shankar confessed his guilt. PW DB-2005 (O&M) ( 11 ) ‘Last seen’ evidence - The prosecution has examined PW who had seen Balwant (deceased) Daddal Park on the night of 30.06.2001. PW that on the said day, when he was proceeding from Hisar to Hansi on 30.06.2001 at about 12 midnight, he had seen Balwant and Shankar iquor and were grappling with each other however, did not think it proper to intervene as they were quarreling having consumed liquor. Though learned counsel for the appellant tried to discredit the said witness on the ground that his presence at the doubtful and also referred to his cross-examination, but upon perusal of the entire statement of PW-7 Mohinder Kumar, this Court finds that the said witness is resident of the same area and has categorically stated that he knew the deceased as well as the accused be elucidated during the course of his cross- presence at the spot. The fact that he had passed through the park early morning on the next day and did not notice any dead body to be an unusual and suspicious circumstance, as park may not be visible from all corners of the park particularly when somebody is not even specifically looking for any body or article. As testimony of PW-7 Mohinder Kumar same area and knew the deceased as well as the accused, can safely be accepted to be truthful. Extra Judicial Confession – The prosecution also banks on the testimony 9 Prem Singh before whom Shankar confessed his guilt. PW-9 Prem Singh while in the witness The prosecution has examined PW-7 Mohinder ) in the company of Shankar in PW-7 Mohinder Kumar stated that on the said day, when he was proceeding from Hisar to Hansi on , he had seen Balwant and Shankar iquor and were grappling with each other. He stated that he, however, did not think it proper to intervene as they were quarreling having consumed liquor. Though learned counsel for the appellant tried to discredit the said witness on the ground that his presence at the spot is examination, but upon perusal of 7 Mohinder Kumar, this Court finds that the said witness is resident of the same area and has categorically stated that he knew the deceased as well as the accused. Nothing substantial could -examination so as to doubt his had passed through the park early did not notice any dead body, cannot be said sual and suspicious circumstance, as a dead body lying in the park may not be visible from all corners of the park particularly when somebody is not even specifically looking for any body or article. As 7 Mohinder Kumar, who is resident of the knew the deceased as well as the accused, can safely be The prosecution also banks on the testimony 9 Prem Singh before whom Shankar - accused is stated to have 9 Prem Singh while in the witness-box VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB categorically stated that on house and disclosed that on Park for stroll where he met Balw and that when he (Shankar) asked Balwant Singh to share liquor with him, Balwant (deceased) uttered filthy abuses. the accused had further disclosed to him that although he (Shankar) went home, but when he returned back to the park after taking meals for the purpose of smoking, he (Shankar) found that Balwant was still in the park and when he (Shankar) asked Balwant Singh for a ‘ Singh) again uttered filthy abuses and on acco became enraged and picked up a stone lying there and gave repeated blows on head of Balwant Singh. The witness stated that since Shankar had requested him to produce before the police, he had accordingly taken Shankar to the Poli 20. It may here be mentioned that PW the accused PW-9 had in fact produced Shankar before the police at Hansi. The Public on the said aspect, wherein the only suggestion put to the witness was that the accused had been produced at Police Station, which the witness denied being incorrect. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to assail the aforesaid testimony of PW on account of his enmity with the accu DB-2005 (O&M) ( 12 ) categorically stated that on 03.07.2001, accused house and disclosed that on 30.06.2001 he Park for stroll where he met Balwant Singh, who was consuming liquor and that when he (Shankar) asked Balwant Singh to share liquor with him, Balwant (deceased) uttered filthy abuses. the accused had further disclosed to him that although he (Shankar) went e, but when he returned back to the park after taking meals for the purpose of smoking, he (Shankar) found that Balwant was still in the park and when he (Shankar) asked Balwant Singh for a ‘ Singh) again uttered filthy abuses and on acco became enraged and picked up a stone lying there and gave repeated blows on head of Balwant Singh. The witness stated that since Shankar had requested him to produce before the police, he had accordingly taken Shankar to the Police Station on the same day itself. It may here be mentioned that PW-9 Prem Singh stated accused at Police Station, whereas the investigating officer stated that 9 had in fact produced Shankar before the police at he Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross on the said aspect, wherein the only suggestion put to the witness was that the accused had been produced at Char Kutub Gate, Hansi Police Station, which the witness denied being incorrect. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to assail the aforesaid testimony of PW-9 Prem Singh on the ground that he has deposed falsely on account of his enmity with the accused inasmuch as he (PW 03.07.2001, accused – Shankar came to his (Shankar) had gone to Daddal ant Singh, who was consuming liquor and that when he (Shankar) asked Balwant Singh to share liquor with him, Balwant (deceased) uttered filthy abuses. PW-7 Prem Singh stated that the accused had further disclosed to him that although he (Shankar) went e, but when he returned back to the park after taking meals for the purpose of smoking, he (Shankar) found that Balwant was still in the park and when he (Shankar) asked Balwant Singh for a ‘biri’, he (Balwant Singh) again uttered filthy abuses and on account of which he (Shankar) became enraged and picked up a stone lying there and gave repeated blows on head of Balwant Singh. The witness stated that since Shankar had requested him to produce before the police, he had accordingly taken ce Station on the same day itself. 9 Prem Singh stated he had produced the investigating officer stated that 9 had in fact produced Shankar before the police at Char Kutub Gate, Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine the witness on the said aspect, wherein the only suggestion put to the witness was that Char Kutub Gate, Hansi and not in the Police Station, which the witness denied being incorrect. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to assail the aforesaid 9 Prem Singh on the ground that he has deposed falsely sed inasmuch as he (PW-9 Prem VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB Singh) and the accused were having some kind of rivalry on account of politics, as both of them were supporting different candidates Learned counsel in this regard has referred to the statement of accused recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the said plea has specifically been taken by the accused. Learned counsel that contradiction was produced credibility of PW 22. This Court finds that the plea of political rivalry is a bald plea only, which was taken during the Section 313 Cr.P.C An Ex-Sarpanch can safely be said to be a respectable of the area. There is nothing to show that he ha fact that there is some discr produced by PW factum of production of the accused by the witness is otherwise borne out from the evidence on record, which was in fact shortly after the occurrence. While intervening police by PW any other evidence to show that the witness had any axe to grind agains the accused be said to be false or motivated. DB-2005 (O&M) ( 13 ) Singh) and the accused were having some kind of rivalry on account of politics, as both of them were supporting different candidates Learned counsel in this regard has referred to the statement of accused ed in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the said plea has specifically been taken by the accused. Learned counsel that contradiction in statements of PWs regarding place where the accused was produced before police by PW-9 credibility of PW-9. This Court finds that the plea of political rivalry is a bald plea only, which during the recording of statement of the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C and there is no other evidence to support the said plea. Sarpanch can safely be said to be a respectable of the area. There is nothing to show that he had any axe to grind against the accused. The fact that there is some discrepancy as regards produced by PW-9 Prem Singh, in any case factum of production of the accused by the witness is otherwise borne out from the evidence on record, which was in fact shortly after the occurrence. While the occurrence had taken place on the night intervening 30.06.2001/01.07.2001, the accused was produced before the police by PW-9 Prem Singh on 03.07.2001. As such, in the absence of any other evidence to show that the witness had any axe to grind agains the accused or any other evidence to discredit him, his testimony can be said to be false or motivated. Singh) and the accused were having some kind of rivalry on account of politics, as both of them were supporting different candidates in elections. Learned counsel in this regard has referred to the statement of accused ed in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the said plea has specifically been taken by the accused. Learned counsel further submitted regarding place where the accused 9 also casts doubt as regards This Court finds that the plea of political rivalry is a bald plea only, which statement of the accused in terms of and there is no other evidence to support the said plea. Sarpanch can safely be said to be a respectable of the area. There any axe to grind against the accused. The as regards place where the accused was 9 Prem Singh, in any case, will lose significance, as the factum of production of the accused by the witness is otherwise borne out from the evidence on record, which was in fact shortly after the the occurrence had taken place on the night 30.06.2001/01.07.2001, the accused was produced before the 03.07.2001. As such, in the absence of any other evidence to show that the witness had any axe to grind against or any other evidence to discredit him, his testimony cannot elections. and there is no other evidence to support the said plea. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB 23. Disclosure statement was produced before the Police on Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu he had concealed the stone in the bushes in the park deceased had been killed. He further disclosed that his left shoe had fallen off in the park and that he had concealed his right shoe as well as clothes in a box lying in his room. The said disclosure statement was made by the accused before Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu in the presence of PW-8 ASI Ram Avtar and also in the presence of Pursuant thereto, recoveries of blood stained ‘cement shoe from the park and also a from the house of the accused were effected Bandhu in the presence of ASI Ram Avt aforesaid Tara Chand has not been examined by the prosecution, but both Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu (PW stated consistently as regards the disclosure statement made accused and the recoveries effected thereafter at the instance of accused. While the Courts as a rule of caution corroboration, any independent corrobora would be rendered doubtful. Having regard to the consistent testimonies of PW-11 Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu and PW is no room for doubting the factum of disclosure statement (Ex.P12) by the accused and also the recoveries effected thereafter, which were taken into possession vide recovery memos Exs.P DB-2005 (O&M) ( 14 ) Disclosure statement - It is the case of prosecution that when the accused was produced before the Police on 03.07.2001, he was interrogated by Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu, during the course of which he disclosed that he had concealed the stone in the bushes in the park deceased had been killed. He further disclosed that his left shoe had in the park and that he had concealed his right shoe as well as clothes in a box lying in his room. The said disclosure statement was made by the accused before Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu in the presence ASI Ram Avtar and also in the presence of Pursuant thereto, recoveries of blood stained ‘cement from the park and also a right shoe, vest and pant of the accused from the house of the accused were effected in the presence of ASI Ram Avta aforesaid Tara Chand has not been examined by the prosecution, but both Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu (PW-11) and ASI Ram Avtar (PW stated consistently as regards the disclosure statement made accused and the recoveries effected thereafter at the instance of accused. While the Courts as a rule of caution would look for corroboration, but there is no straight jacket formula that in the absence of any independent corroboration, the testimonies of official witnesses would be rendered doubtful. Having regard to the consistent testimonies 11 Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu and PW is no room for doubting the factum of disclosure statement (Ex.P12) y the accused and also the recoveries effected thereafter, which were taken into possession vide recovery memos Exs.P It is the case of prosecution that when the accused 03.07.2001, he was interrogated by during the course of which he disclosed that he had concealed the stone in the bushes in the park, with which the deceased had been killed. He further disclosed that his left shoe had in the park and that he had concealed his right shoe as well as clothes in a box lying in his room. The said disclosure statement was made by the accused before Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu in the presence ASI Ram Avtar and also in the presence of one Tara Chand. Pursuant thereto, recoveries of blood stained ‘cement stone (rora) and left shoe, vest and pant of the accused from the house of the accused were effected by Inspector/SHO Desh ar and Tara Chand. Although aforesaid Tara Chand has not been examined by the prosecution, but both 11) and ASI Ram Avtar (PW-8) have stated consistently as regards the disclosure statement made by the accused and the recoveries effected thereafter at the instance of accused. would look for some independent jacket formula that in the absence of tion, the testimonies of official witnesses would be rendered doubtful. Having regard to the consistent testimonies 11 Inspector/SHO Desh Bandhu and PW-8 ASI Ram Avtar, there is no room for doubting the factum of disclosure statement (Ex.P12) made y the accused and also the recoveries effected thereafter, which were taken into possession vide recovery memos Exs.P-13 & P-14. one Tara Chand. accused and the recoveries effected thereafter at the instance of accused. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB 24. Motive – The existence of ‘motive’ in a case of murder would normally take a back seat, but in cases which are based o the existence of ‘motive’ the chain of evidence. As per the prosecution, the motive for causing death was that the deceased had insulted the accused sharing liquor with him and later by not sharing ‘ instead having abused the accused. The said motive the extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW Singh. As already discussed above, th could not be shattered despite lengthy cross of motive is a factor, which would vary from person to person. While some person may get enraged quickly, others may not. In the present case, the deceased some insulting remarks, which offence in question. It is not unknown that at times murders have been committed even for the pettiest of the reasons. As such, t projected by the prosecution cannot be discarded being insufficient. 25. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The law with regard to appreciation of circumstantial e the case of Court 343, wherein it was held as follows: "10. It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstance DB-2005 (O&M) ( 15 ) The existence of ‘motive’ in a case of murder would normally take a back seat, but in cases which are based o the existence of ‘motive’ is some kind of assurance and is an added link in the chain of evidence. As per the prosecution, the motive for causing was that the deceased had insulted the accused sharing liquor with him and later by not sharing ‘ instead having abused the accused. The said motive the extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW Singh. As already discussed above, the testimony could not be shattered despite lengthy cross of motive is a factor, which would vary from person to person. While some person may get enraged quickly, others may not. In the present eceased not only hurled abuses to the accused, but had made some insulting remarks, which provoked offence in question. It is not unknown that at times murders have been committed even for the pettiest of the reasons. As such, t projected by the prosecution cannot be discarded being insufficient. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The law with regard to appreciation of circumstantial evidence has been clearly enunciated in the case of Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 Supreme wherein it was held as follows: It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstance The existence of ‘motive’ in a case of murder would normally take a back seat, but in cases which are based on circumstantial evidence, is some kind of assurance and is an added link in the chain of evidence. As per the prosecution, the motive for causing was that the deceased had insulted the accused - firstly, by not sharing liquor with him and later by not sharing ‘biri’ (cigarette) and instead having abused the accused. The said motive finds mentioned in the extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW-9 Prem testimony of PW-9 Prem Singh could not be shattered despite lengthy cross-examination. The sufficiency of motive is a factor, which would vary from person to person. While some person may get enraged quickly, others may not. In the present not only hurled abuses to the accused, but had made provoked the accused to commit the offence in question. It is not unknown that at times murders have been committed even for the pettiest of the reasons. As such, the motive projected by the prosecution cannot be discarded being insufficient. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The law with regard vidence has been clearly enunciated in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 Supreme It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a concl every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 26. The aforesaid principles have consistently been followed and have been affirmed in catena of authorities. Recently Apex Court reiterated the aforesaid position of law in RCR(Criminal) 12, Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra while stating as under: “20. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumsta has very well been crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 INSC 121 "152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would DB-2005 (O&M) ( 16 ) guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." The aforesaid principles have consistently been followed and have been affirmed in catena of authorities. Recently, a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the aforesaid position of law in RCR(Criminal) 12, Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra while stating as under: The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumsta has very well been crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 INSC 121, wherein this Court held thus: "152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic deci Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656]. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case [(1952 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] : "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a usive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must The aforesaid principles have consistently been followed and have been , a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the aforesaid position of law in 2025(1) RCR(Criminal) 12, Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra, The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has very well been crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : , wherein this Court held thus: "152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 . It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] : "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB 153. DB-2005 (O&M) ( 17 ) conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which th drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] observations were made: [SCC para 1047] "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human bility the act must have been done by the accused." A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the e of a conclusive nature and tendency, they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB 154. 21. It ca circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court held that it is a primary principle that the accused `must be' and not merely `m convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between `may be proved' and `must be or should be proved'. It has been held that the facts so established should be c only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except the one where the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.” 27. In the present case, we find that circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution in the shape of ‘last seen’ disclosure statement and motive has been duly established. examined by the prosecution have remained firm on their testimonies. Nothing substantial could be examinations evidence clearly shows that on Shankar (accused) had been seen together in a park and were quarreling with each oth been abused and insulted by th DB-2005 (O&M) ( 18 ) (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court held that it is a primary principle that the accused `must be' and not merely `may be' proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between `may be proved' and `must be or should be proved'. It has been held that the facts so established should be c only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except the one where the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.” In the present case, we find that circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution in the shape of ‘last seen’ evidence, extra judicial confession, disclosure statement and motive has been duly established. examined by the prosecution have remained firm on their testimonies. Nothing substantial could be elucidated during the course of their cross examinations so as to discredit them in any manner. The aforesaid evidence clearly shows that on the given day, Balwant (deceased) and Shankar (accused) had been seen together in a park and were quarreling with each other. Later, the accused being enraged been abused and insulted by the deceased, killed him there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the ence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." n thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court held that it is a primary principle that the ay be' proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between `may be proved' and `must be or should be proved'. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except the one where the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused.” In the present case, we find that circumstantial evidence led by the evidence, extra judicial confession, disclosure statement and motive has been duly established. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have remained firm on their testimonies. during the course of their cross- so as to discredit them in any manner. The aforesaid the given day, Balwant (deceased) and Shankar (accused) had been seen together in a park and were quarreling r. Later, the accused being enraged on account of having e deceased, killed him (Balwant) with a examined by the prosecution have remained firm on their testimonies. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-162-DB stone like object blood stained the accused is an prosecution. Thus, all the pieces of complete chain accused, who has committed murder of the deceased. 28. No other argument has been addressed before this Court. 29. As a sequel of the discussion made above, the findings of guilt as recorded by the trial Court and the same are affirmed. Finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. 30. A copy of this judgment b compliance. 30.01.2025 Vimal DB-2005 (O&M) ( 19 ) stone like object (rora) by hitting the same on his he blood stained stone (rora) from the bushes in the park at the instance of the accused is an added circumstance in prosecution. Thus, all the pieces of evidence, as mentioned above, form a complete chain of facts leading to one and only one inference that it is the accused, who has committed murder of the deceased. No other argument has been addressed before this Court. As a sequel of the discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of guilt as recorded by the trial Court and the same are affirmed. Finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary compliance. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL ( Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ) by hitting the same on his head. The recoveries of from the bushes in the park at the instance of circumstance in support of the case of evidence, as mentioned above, form a of facts leading to one and only one inference that it is the accused, who has committed murder of the deceased. No other argument has been addressed before this Court. we do not find any infirmity in the findings of guilt as recorded by the trial Court and the same are affirmed. Finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is hereby e sent to the quarters concerned for necessary GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.01 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document