BAIJU KUMAR SONI & ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

                       [2019] 10 S.C.R. 1111                            1111


                  BAIJU KUMAR SONI & ANR.                               A
                                  v.
                    STATE OF JHARKHAND
                  (Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2018)
                         AUGUST 01, 2019                                B
     [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
      Penal Code, 1860:
      ss. 364A, 201 and 302/34 – Prosecution under – Reliance
on circumstantial evidence – Conviction by courts below – Appeal        C
to Supreme Court – Held: In a case based on circumstantial
evidence, every circumstance must be fully proved and all the
circumstances must form a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude
every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused – The
circumstances relied on in the present case do not form a chain so
                                                                        D
complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt or exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to be proved – The circumstances
are also not sufficient and adequate to hold that the prosecution
had established its case beyond any reasonable doubt – Thus, the
prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused –
Therefore, the accused are acquitted – Evidence – Circumstantial        E
Evidence.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, every
circumstance must be fully proved and all the circumstances must
form a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude every                F
hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.[Para 14] [1116-E]
      Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
      (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Nizam and
      Another v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 1 SCC 550 :
      [2015] 10 SCR 786 – relied on.                                    G

      2. From the facts and circumstances it is evident: that a)
Though PW7 stated that two calls were made from his STD Booth
on 12.01.2006 at about 1327 Hours and 1338 Hours to specified
mobile numbers, nothing has been brought on record that those
two mobile numbers either belonged to PW4 and PW10 or were              H
                             1111
1112            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 10 S.C.R.


 A     in any way under their control. In order to establish as a
       circumstance that on the relevant day threatening calls were
       received by the said PWs 4 and 10 from the appellants, the
       important fact which ought to have been established was that
       those two mobile numbers either belonged to or were under the
       control of said PWs 4 and 10. Even if it is accepted that said PW7
 B
       had identified the appellants to be the ones who had made two
       calls, that does not lead to infer that the calls must have been
       made to PWs4 and 10. This circumstance has not been fully
       established which could be read against the appellants.b) Though
       drawing book had been received from the house of appellant No.1
 C     and it was the case of the prosecution that the threatening letter
       (Exhibit-II) was written on a piece of paper from said drawing
       book, no attempts were made either to have any forensic analysis
       or examine handwriting expert to establish that the writing in
       the threatening letter was either of the appellants or could be
       associated with them. [Para 16] [1119-B-F]
 D
              3. The dead body was found ten days later on 18.01.2006.
       The post mortem, conducted thereafter, indicated time of death
       to be between 3 to 7 days. Even if the outer margin is considered
       to be the limit, the circumstance by itself does not fit in, assuming
       it to be completely against the appellants. [Para 17] [1119-G-H]
 E
             4. The circumstances viz. recovery of scarf and chocolate
       wrappers and biscuits and recovery of dead body in the rexin
       bag, do not form a chain so complete as not to leave any
       reasonable doubt or exclude every possible hypothesis except
       the one to be proved, nor are the circumstances sufficient and
 F     adequate to hold that the prosecution had established its case
       beyond any reasonable doubt. [Para 18] [1119-G; 1120-A-B]
                              Case Law Reference
             [1985] 1 SCR 88             relied on            Para 14
 G           [2015] 10 SCR 786           relied on            Para 15
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
       No. 42 of 2018
             From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2017 of the High Court
       of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 887 of 2009
 H
   BAIJU KUMAR SONI & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                               1113


      Shree Prakash Sinha, Rakesh Mishra, Ms. Mohua Sinha,                     A
Ms. Jagrati Bharti, Shekhar Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants.
      Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.                                                     B
       1. This appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated
14.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dismissing
Criminal Appeal No.887 of 2009 preferred by the appellants herein and
thereby affirming their conviction as recorded by the Trial Court in respect
of offence punishable under Sections 364-A, 201, 302 read with 34 IPC.         C
       2. According to the prosecution, a minor girl aged about 3½ years
went missing on 08.01.2006 while she was playing in front of her house.
PW10 Anil Prasad Soni, father of the girl searched for the girl on the
first day and thereafter lodged an information vide Sanha No.142/06
dated 09.01.2006 at 9.00 a.m. with the Officer In-charge of Bhurkunda          D
Police Station, based on which a crime was registered vide FIR No.11/
06 dated 13.01.2006 under Sections 364 and 365 IPC with Police Station
Bhurkunda, S. Div. Ramgarh, District Hazaribagh.
       3. According to the prosecution, a call was received by said PW10
on 11.01.2006 at about 1236 Hours, from Ramgarh STD Booth, from an
                                                                               E
unknown person threatening him that his brother was getting smarter
for which said PW10 may have to pay the price. The caller told PW10
that his daughter would reach by the evening and told him not to tell the
administration.
       4. On the next day i.e. on 12.01.2006 at about 1335 Hours, PW10
                                                                               F
again received a call from another STD booth i.e. from Patratu STD
Booth, but it was a missed call. It appears that around the same time,
another call was received by PW4 Uday Soni, brother of said PW10.
The caller threatened said PW4 and told him that the caller had kidnapped
his niece. When the caller was asked about the proof of the fact, the
caller stated that PW4 could get the proof on the roof of the temple near      G
their house. Thereafter, a poly bag was found on the roof of the temple
in which there was one red top and slippers of the girl as well as a
threatening letter (Exhibit-II with Mark X – Written Paper of a copy for
Identification)
                                                                               H
1114            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 10 S.C.R.


 A           5. It appears that a dead body of the girl was recovered in a black
       coloured rexin bag from the Dam on or about 18.01.2006 by Khelari
       Police Station.
             Postmortem Report indicated:
             “Nylon cloth (make like rassi), red in colour, is tied around the
 B           neck. The knot is present on left side of neck which is a fixed
             knot. After removing the ligature material there is a ligature mark
             ½ cm width situated around the neck. It is transverse and continues
             with contusion of soft tissue underneath.
             Opinion-(1) Above noted ligature mark is ante-mortem.
 C
             (2) Death is due to Asphyxia as a result of strangulation.
             (3) Time of Death – Between 3 days to 7 days.”
             The dead body of the girl was identified to be that of the daughter
       of PW10 and thereafter Sections 302 and 201 IPC were also added in
 D     respect of the crime already registered.
              6. During the course of the investigation, the appellants were
       arrested. It is not clear from the record how and by whom the role of
       the appellants in the crime was suspected to cause their arrest. The
       appellants were neither named in the FIR nor any person had named
 E     them in any statement to the police. Pertinently, the FIR had named
       somebody else as suspect. Soon after their arrest, the confessional
       statements of the appellants were recorded by the police pursuant to
       which following items were recovered:
             (i) A Scarf of the girl was recovered from the house of appellant
 F                no.2;
             (ii) A drawing book was recovered from the house of appellant
                  no.1 from which a piece of paper was torn on which
                  threatening letter (Exhibit II) was stated to have been written.
             7. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offences
 G     punishable under Sections 364-A, 201, 302 read with 34 IPC was
       submitted against the appellants and they were tried for having committed
       said offences.
             8. The evidence unfolded by the prosecution mainly comprised
       of:
 H
   BAIJU KUMAR SONI & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                            1115
              [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      (i) PW10, his brother PW4 who deposed having received telephone       A
           calls but the witnesses could not identify the caller from the
           voice;
      (ii) The prosecution also placed reliance on the testimony of PW7
           Vikas Kumar who used to run Vikas STD Booth at Patratu
           produced two bills (Exhibit-I) indicating that on 12.01.2006     B
           two calls were made from his STD booth at 1327 Hours and
           1338 Hours to two Mobile Nos.9934152854 and 9431336988
           respectively. PW7 identified the appellants to be the persons
           who had come to his STD Booth on the relevant date and
           made those two calls.
                                                                            C
      (iii) PW5 Uttam Kumar Kharbar deposed that on 09.01.2006,
            when he boarded a train from Bhurkunda Railway Station,
            he had seen the appellants carrying a stuffed rexin bag which
            they had carried along with them. According to the
            prosecution, it was that rexin bag in which the dead body of
            the girl was ultimately found in the Dam.                       D

      9. The following circumstances were thus relied upon by the
prosecution:
      (1) On 12.01.2006 PW7 who was running the STD Booth had
          seen both the appellants at his telephone booth and two calls     E
          were made by them to mobile numbers indicated above at
          1327 Hours and 1338 hours.
      (2) A Scarf was found in the house of the second appellant.
      (3) A drawing book was found in the house of first appellant which
           could be associated with the threatening letter (Exhibit II).    F
      (4) PW5 had seen both the appellants with a stuffed rexin bag on
           09.01.2016 boarding a train at Bhurkunda Railway Station.
      (5) The dead body of the girl was ultimately found in a rexin bag
           at a distance about 50 kms. from the house of PW10.
                                                                            G
      (6) Some wrappers of Chocolates and Biscuits were found near
           the house of the appellants.
       10. On the basis of these circumstances, the prosecution contended
that the offences in question were established against the appellants.
                                                                            H
1116                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 10 S.C.R.


 A     The case of the prosecution was accepted by the Trial Court, which by
       its judgment and order dated 17-20.04.2009 convicted both the appellants
       and sentenced them to suffer 10 years of imprisonment for the offence
       under Section 364-A IPC and to suffer life imprisonment for the offence
       under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Though convicted, no
       separate order of sentence was recorded in respect of offence under
 B
       Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. All the sentences were directed
       to run concurrently.
             11. The appellants being aggrieved approached the High Court of
       Jharkhand at Ranchi by filing Criminal Appeal No.887 of 2009, which
       came to be rejected by the High Court.
 C
             12. According to the High Court, the recovery of the Scarf of the
       deceased, recovery of the drawing book, pages of which were used for
       writing threatening letter as well as the fact that PW5 had seen the
       appellants with the same rexin bag in which dead body was found, were
       circumstances sufficient to convict the appellants.
 D
              13. In this appeal, we heard learned counsel for the appellants as
       well as the learned counsel for the respondent-State and with their
       assistance, we have gone through the entire record.
              14. The law on the point is very well settled that in a case based
 E     on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must be fully proved
       and all the circumstances must form a chain of evidence so complete as
       to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. It was
       stated by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
       Maharashtra 1:

 F               “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 the conclusion of guilt is to
                         be drawn should be fully established.
 G               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
 H     1
           (1984) 4 SCC 116
       BAIJU KUMAR SONI & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                            1117
                  [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

          Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, where the following                    A
          observations were made:
          “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.”                                   B
          (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            C
          tendency,
          (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one
          to be proved, and
          (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave     D
          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.”
      15. In Nizam and Another vs. State of Rajasthan2, the law on the
point was reiterated while acquitting the accused of the charges under
                                                                                E
Sections 302 read with 201 IPC. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision
were:-
          “9. The principle of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated
          by this Court in a plethora of cases. In Bodhraj v. State of J&K
          (2002) 8 SCC 45, wherein this Court quoted a number of judgments
                                                                                F
          and held as under: (SCC pp. 55-56, paras 10-11)
          10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a
          case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of
          guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and
          circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence
          of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam           G
          Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1977) 2 SCC 99, Eradu v. State of
          Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316, Earabhadrappa v. State of
          Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330, State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi (1985)

2
    (2016) 1 SCC 550                                                            H
1118     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 10 S.C.R.


 A     Supp SCC 79, Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1987) 1
       SCC 1 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (1989)
       Supp (1) SCC 560). The circumstances from which an inference
       as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond
       reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected
       with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those
 B
       circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR (1954)
       SC 621, it was laid down that where the case depends upon the
       conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of
       the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of
       the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable
 C     doubt.
          11. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court
          in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193,
          wherein it has been observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07, para 21)
          ‘21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled
 D        law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of
          guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances
          must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances
          should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain
          of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be
 E        consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
          and totally inconsistent with his innocence.’”
       10. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006)
       10 SCC 681, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 689, para 12)
          “12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the
 F        occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on
          circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based
          on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from
          which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be
          cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should
 G        be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt
          of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively
          should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from
          the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
          committed by the accused and they should be incapable of

 H
   BAIJU KUMAR SONI & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                                 1119
              [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

           explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the     A
           accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”
       The same principles were reiterated in Sunil Clifford Daniel v.
       State of Punjab (2012) 11 SCC 205, Sampath Kumar v. Inspector
       of Police (2012) 4 SCC 124 and Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of
       Delhi) (2011) 13 SCC 621 and a number of other decisions.”                B
      16. In the light of these settled principles, from the facts and
circumstances it is evident:
      a)   Though PW7 stated that two calls were made from his STD
            Booth on 12.01.2006 at about 1327 Hours and 1338 Hours
            to specified mobile numbers, nothing has been brought on             C
            record that those two mobile numbers either belonged to PW4
            and PW10 or were in any way under their control. In order
            to establish as a circumstance that on the relevant day
            threatening calls were received by the said PWs 4 and 10
            from the appellants, the important fact which ought to have          D
            been established was that those two mobile numbers either
            belonged to or were under the control of said PWs 4 and 10.
            Even if we accept the theory that said PW7 had identified
            the appellants to be the ones who had made two calls, that
            does not lead us to infer that the calls must have been made
            to PWs4 and 10. This circumstance has not been fully                 E
            established which could be read against the appellants.
      b)   Though drawing book had been received from the house of
            appellant no.1 and it was the case of the prosecution that the
            threatening letter (Exhibit-II) was written on a piece of paper
            from said drawing book, no attempts were made either to              F
            have any forensic analysis or examine handwriting expert to
            establish that the writing in the threatening letter was either
            of the appellants or could be associated with them.
       17. Circumstance No.4 as stated above suggests that the dead
body of the deceased was carried by the accused in a rexin bag on the            G
day after the girl went missing. The dead body was found ten days later
on 18.01.2006. The post mortem, conducted thereafter, indicated time
of death to be between 3 to 7 days. Even if the outer margin is considered
to be the limit, the circumstance by itself does not fit in, assuming it to be
completely against the appellants.
                                                                                 H
1120             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 10 S.C.R.


 A            18. We are then left with circumstances at Serial Nos.2, 5 and 6.
       These circumstances do not form a chain so complete as not to leave
       any reasonable doubt or exclude every possible hypothesis except the
       one to be proved, nor are the circumstances sufficient and adequate to
       hold that the prosecution had established its case beyond any reasonable
       doubt.
 B
              19. Considering the totality of the circumstances, in our view, the
       prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellants.
       Consequently, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. We,
       therefore, allow this appeal and acquit the appellants of the charges
       levelled against them.
 C
               The appellants be released immediately, unless their custody is
       required in connection with any other offence.


       Kalpana K. Tripathy                                         Appeal allowed.
 D




 E




 F




 G




 H