Holding

The chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and satisfied the standard of proof, warranting affirmation of the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Summary

Arvind @ Pappu (appellant) killed his co‑villager Ajaib Singh (deceased) by luring him with a promised job, taking him to his tailoring factory, and leaving him alone on a cutter's table where he was later found dead with a neck wound, scissors and blood stains. The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's enmity with the deceased, his presence with the victim, his subsequent disappearance for 1.5 years, and the lack of any other suspect. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, a decision affirmed by the Delhi High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence met the established standard of proof, concluding that the chain of circumstances was complete, left no reasonable doubt of innocence, and therefore upheld the conviction. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to meet the standard of proof required for conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the chain of circumstances was complete and left no reasonable ground for a conclusion of the appellant's innocence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302

Subjects

murdercircumstantial evidencestandard of proofSection 302 IPCconvictionappellate review

Judgment

ARVIND @ PAPPU A
v.
"" STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

MAY 10, 1999

[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] B

Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder-Circumstantial
evidence-Standard ofproof required-Held, the chain of evidence furnished
by the circumstances relied in support of the conviction must be so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the c
innocence of the accused-Prosecution bringing on record the different

-
circumstances pointing to the involvement of the appellant in the killing of
the deceased viz. the enmity of the deceased with the accused as a result of
their past litigation; accused giving the lure of a job to the deceased in order
to persuade the deceased to accompany him; accused taking the deceased D
to his factory and being last seen with the deceased; the conduct of the
accused in absconding and not being in the factory on the morning when
the body of the deceased was found-Held, the circumstances taken
cumulatively point to the only hypothesis of guilt of the appellant and are

...
within the parameters of the standard of proof required to convict a person
on circumstantial evidence-There is no material on record pointing towards E
the innocence of the accused-Sentence awarded to the accused for the
offence of murder by the Sessions Court as corifirmed by the High Court-
Calls for no interference.

The appellant killed the deceased, his co-villager as a result of an old
enmity between their respective families. The deceased at the material time F
was employed in a factory where another co-villager PW 8 used to work. A
day before the date of occurrence, the appellant paid a visit to the house of
PW 8 where the deceased was also putting up. The appellant persuaded the
deceased to come with him promising him a job as driver. Before leaving,
they had seen off PW 9, nephew of the deceased at the bus stand. The
G
appellant took the deceased in the business premises of a firm in which the
appellant was having business interest. He introduced the deceased to the
-;:,,r employees working on the premises as his friend. The deceased was under
the influence of liquor. With a view to make arrangement for putting him
to rest, the appellant asked the other employees to stop working and leave
the room. A temporary bed was made on the cutter's table lying in the room H
1217
1218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A and the deceased was made to sleep on it. On being asked by the appellant,
the workers left the room leaving the appellant and the deceased together
in the room. On the next morning, when PW 2 went to the room he found
the deceased lying in a pool of blood with a cut injury on his neck, a pair
of blood stained scissors and a tape· stained with blood lying near the body
B and blood stains at different places in the room. The appellant was found
missing from the premises. The appellant remained untraced for about one
and a half years after the incident when he surrendered after the case was
committed to the Sessions court and warrant was issued for his arrest.

The prosecution brought on record the different circumstances leading
C to the death of the deceased, through the workers engaged in the business
premises where the deceased was killed. Ttie Additional Sessions judge after
detailed scrutiny of the evidence found the appellflnt guilty of the offence of
murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
him. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the sentence. Hence the present
D appeal

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. The assessment of the evidence by the Courts below does
not suffer from any serious infirmity. The circumstances relied upon by the
E prosecution have been established by the evidence of the workers in the
factory where the deceased was killed and the evidence of nephew of the
deceased PW 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case the presence of
these witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time was natural.
-
They had no axe to grind against the appellant. There is no reason why they
should give false evidence against him. From their evidence the circumstances
F pointing to the involvement of the appellant in the killing of the deceased
have definitely been established. Further the appellant was untraced from the
day following the incident for about one and half years. The circumstances
taken cumulatively point to the only hypothesis of guilt of the appellant.
There is no material on record pointing towards his innocence. On such
G materials the Courts below rightly held that the prosecution had established
the case against the appellant. [1223-E-H; 1224-A]

2. The standard of proof required to convict a person of circumstantial
evidence is now well established by a series of decisions of this Court.
According to that standard the circumstances relied upon in support of the
H conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by
ARVIND @PAPPU v. STATE [MOHAPATRA, J.] 1219

those circumstances must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable A
ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The
circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn have
not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so
established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being B
explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and when
all the circumstances commutatively taken together should lead to the only
- irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime.
[1223-B-D]

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, [1984) 4 SCC C
116; Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 350; Dhananjoy
Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of West Bengal, [1994) 2 SCC 220; Laxman
Naik v. State of Orissa, [1994] 3 SCC 381 and Brijlala Pd Sinha v. State of
Bihar, [1998] 5 SSC 699, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. D
230 of 1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.90 of the Delhi High Court in Crl.
A.No. I49ofl987.

U.R. Lalit, Ms. Shailly Bhasin and R.K. Maheshwari with him for the E
Appellant.

Ms. K. Amareshwari, (Ms. Bina Gupta) and D.S. Mehra with him for the
Respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
MOHAPATRA, J. This appeal filed by the accused is directed against
the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Delhi in Sessions Case No. 1186 which was confirmed by the Delhi High Court
in Criminal Appeal No. 149/8. Both the Courts found him guilty of the offence
of murder punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced him thereunder. G

-
> The lure of a job proved fatal for Ajaib Singh the deceased. The
appellant Arvind @ Pappu and the deceased Ajaib Singh being co-villagers
were known to each other. In the year 1978 there had been some friction
between the two families and on the basis of a report lodged by father of the
appellant a criminal case was initiated against the deceased and his brother. H
1220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 2 S.C.R.

A The case, however, ended in an order of acquittal passed in the year 1982.

The deceased was employed in a factory at Sahibabad whete another
co-villager Kamlesh Kumar PW 8 used to work. On 31st March 1985 the
appellant had paid a visit to the house of Kamlesh Kumar where Ajaib Singh
was also putting up. The appellant persuaded the deceased to come with him
B to Delhi promising to get him (deceased) a job as a driver. Before leaving for
Delhi they had seen off Vijay Ranjan PW-9, nephew of the deceased, at the
bus stand.

C
The next phase of the occurrence took place on the business premises
ofM/s Rajesh Enterprises at Sultanpur Mazra, Delhi, which is a firm engaged
in tailoring business. At about 9 .00 p.m. on 31st March, 1985 the appellant
-
accompanied by the deceased arrived at that place. The appellant introduced
the deceased to the employees working on the premises as his friend. The
deceased was under the influence of liquor; therefore, with a view to make
arrangement for putting him to rest the appellant asked the other employees
. D to stop working and leave the room. A temporary bed was made on the
cutter's table lying in the room and the deceased was made to sleep on it.
On being asked by the appellant the workers left the room leaving the
appellant and the deceased together in the room. On the next morning when
Anil Kumar PW-2 went to the room he found the deceased lying in a pool
E of blood with a cut injury on his neck, a pair of blood stained scissors and
a tape stained with blood lying near the body and blood stains at different
places in the room. The appellant was found missing from the premises. It may
be stated here that the appellant remained untraced for about one and half
years after the incident, from 1.4.85 till October, 1986, when he surrendered
after the case was committed to the Session Court and warrant was issued
F for his arrest.

The police was informed. Statement of Anil Kumar (Exh.PW2/A) was
recorded. A formal FIR (Exh.PW-12/C) was registered at about 10.10 a.m. The
dead body was identified to be of Ajaib Singh by his brother Jagdish Chander
PW-7. It was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr.
G Bharat Singh PW-5. The Doctor found one irregular lacerated wound in the
front middle area 1"xl/4"xl-1/2" which had cut the common carotid artery and
jugular vein on the left side. As stated by the doctor the injury was sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and could be caused by the
scissors (Ex.P-1) found besmeared with blood at the place of occurrence. The
H doctor further opined that the probable time of death was around 2 a.m. on
ARVIND@PAPPU v. STATE [MOHAPATRA, J.] 1221

1st April 1985. A
The prosecution brought on record the different circumstances leading
to the death of the deceased, through the workers engaged in the tailoring
factory namely Jaspal PW-1, Anil Kumar PW-2, Suresh PW-3, Daulat Ram
PW-4, Ram Prasad PW-6 and Gaya Prasad PW-'18 who were present on the
premises of Mis Rajesh Enterprises on the fateful night. All of them B
consistently supported the prosecution case the gist of which has been
discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. In their testimony the witnesses have
also stated that during the night they had not heard any cry of the deceased
nor any sound of scuffle from the room in which the appellant and the
deceased were sleeping. It may be noted here that there is no material on C
record to show that there was any mark of scuffle or struggle in the room
where the body of the deceased was found lying.

When the circumstances appearing from the evidence of the witnesses
were put to him the.. appellant, while admitting that he had gone to the house
of Kamlesh Kumar arid had met the deceased, denied his involvement in any D
incident leading to the death of the later. From the cross-examination of the
prosecution witnesses it appears that initially the appellant took a false stand
that he had no concern with the tailoring business at Sultanpur Majra but
subsequently changed his stand and admitted that he had invested money
in the business. It is relevant to note that there are materials on record to E
show that he had opened a bank account with Traders Bank in the name of
Mis Rajesh Enterprises and had invested money for purchase of machinery
and other materials used for tailoring business.

The learned Addi. Sessions Judge ih a detailed scrutiny of the evidence
found the following ci.rcumstances to have been duly established by the F
prosecution :

(a) Enmity of the deceased with the acct•sed as a result of their past
.t litigation.
(b) Accused went to Sahibabad and took the deceased with him to
G
... Delhi to get him a job.
(c) The accused went with the deceased to his factory at Rajesh
Enterprises, village Sultanpur Majra in a drunken state and he
was last seen with the deceased.
(d) The conduct of the accused in absconding thereafter and not H
1222 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A being in the factory on the morning when the body of the
deteased was found; and
(e) On the next day he went to Maharban Singh despjte a sleepless
night preceding.
B The learned Trial Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for
placing reliance on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He has decided
the case on the touch-stone of the well recognised principles for proving the
prosecution case bas~d entirely on circumstantial evidence. He has also taken
into account the fact that no other person either from amongst the prosecution
witnesses or anybody else associated with the tailoring business had any t
C motive to kill the deceased. Placing reliance on the ratio of Ba/winder Singh J-
v. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 350 the trial judge held that the case fell
within the thirdly clause of section 300 of the IPC and, therefore, the accused
r
must be held guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. He
ordered accordingly.
D On appeal the High· Court on assessing the material evidence laid by
the prosecution summed up the circumstances, found against the appellant
in the following words :

"The prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and convincing. The
E appellant was having illterest in the business being run at the place _.,.
;'
,-
of occurrence. He had been visiting the factory. On March, 31, 1985,
the appellant met Ajalb Singh in the presence of Vijay Ranjan (PW-
9) and asked him to come to Delhi. He assured him a job in Delhi. Both
of them were last seen by Vijay Ranjan waiting for a bus. Thereafter
the same day at about 9.00 p.m. the appellant brought Ajaib Singh
F to his factory. Ajaib Singh was drunk. The appellant made him lie on
the cutter's table and asked all the workers to stop work and to go
to sleep. All the workers left leaving behind only the appellant and
the deceased in that room. That room had a shutter. Next morning at r,
about 8 a.m. when Anil Kumar (PW-2) opened the shutter he found
G Ajaib Singh lying dead in a pool of blood and the appellant missing.
The murder had been committed at about 2 a.m. The appellant
4
-
surrendered in court after about one year and six months. This is the
chain of events."

The High Court agreed with the conclusion drawn by the trial Court
H that the prosecution has successfully proved the case of murder punishable
ARVIND@PAPPU v. STATE [MOHAPATRA/J.] 1223

' under Section 302 IPC against the appellant and accordingly dismissed the
appeal.
A

The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial
evidence is now well established by a series of decisions of this Court
According to that standard the circumstances relied. upon in support of the
conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by B
those circumstances must be so complete a not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The
r circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn have not
only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established
should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of c
the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by any
other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and when all the circumstances
cumulatively taken together should lead to the only irresistible conclusion
that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime. To quote a few decisions
of this Court in this regard reference may be made to the case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, [1984] 4 SCC 116; Ba/winder D
Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 350; Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias
Dhana, v. State of West Bengal, [1994] 2 SCC 220; Laxman Naik v. State of .
Orissa, [1994] 3 SCC 381 and Brijla/a Pd Sinha v. State of Bihar, [1998] 5
SCC699.
Now we come to the question whether the evidence in the case on hand E
satisfies the principles and tests laid down in the aforementioned decisions.
We nave carefully perused the judgments of the Sessions Court and the High
Court confirming the same. We have also perused the evidence of the
witnesses, to satisfy ourselves that the assessment of the evidence by the
Courts below does nQt suffer from any serious infirmity. As noted earlier the F
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have been established by the
evidence of the workers in the factory including Jaspal PW-1, Anil Kumar PW-
2, Suresh PW-1, Daulat Ram PW:4, Ram Prasad PW-6, Gaya Prasad PW-18
and the nephew of the deceased Vijay Ranjan PW-9. On the facts and
circumstances of the case the presence of these witnesses at the place of
... G
occurrence at the relevant time was natural. They had no axe to grind against
the appellant. There is no reason why they should give false evidence against
him. From their evidence the circumstances pointing to the involvement of the
appellant in the ·killing of the deceased have definitely been established.
Further the appellant was untraced from the day following the incident for
about one and half years. The cir.cumstances taken cumulatively point, to the H
1224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 2 S.C.R,

A only hypothesis of guilt of the appellant. There is no material on record
pointing toward's his innocence. On such materials the Courts below rightly
•
held that. the prosecution had established the case against the appellant.. The .
judgment of the Sessions Judge as confirmed by the High Court warrants no
interference. A<:cordingly the appeal is .dismissed~

B M.P. Appeal dismissed.

"