Holding

The Court upheld the conviction, finding that the chain of unexplained circumstantial evidence and the presumption under Section 114 established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary

The appellant Ganesh Lal was convicted for raping, murdering and stealing from an 11‑year‑old girl. The prosecution relied on a series of circumstantial facts: the recovery of the victim's silver ornaments (kuralias) and a blood‑stained axe at the accused's direction, possession of blood‑ and semen‑stained clothes hidden in an earthen pot, and injuries on his body. The Court held that the recovery and seizure of the items, although sealed at the police station, were reliable, and that the unexplained possession of stolen property created a presumption of guilt under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The accused’s failure to explain these circumstances, as required by Section 313 of the CrPC, was treated as an inculpatory link, completing a chain of evidence that proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Sections 376(2)(f), 302 and 404 IPC.

Issues considered

The adequacy of circumstantial evidence, including possession of stolen property, to sustain convictions for rape, murder and theft.
Whether the recovery and seizure of evidence sealed at the police station is admissible and reliable.
Applicability of the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act to infer participation in multiple offences forming a single transaction.
Whether the accused's silence or failure to explain incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the CrPC can be treated as an inculpatory circumstance.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 114
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 376(2)(f), s. 404

Subjects

circumstantial evidencepresumptionSection 114Section 313rapemurdertheftchain of evidencepossession of stolen propertyIndian Penal Codeevidence law

Judgment

GANESH LAL A
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN

OCTOBER 31, 2001

[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] B

Criminal Trial :

Appreciation of Evidence-Circumstantial Evidence~Incriminating cir-
cumstances-No explanation offered by accused for such circumstances- c
Held, they can be used as inculpatory circumstances-Such circumstances form
a complete chain and silence of accused supplies 'missing link' if any-On
facts, held, accused guilty of offence charged-Code of Criminal Procedure,
I973-Section 3I3.

Indian Evidence Act, I 872-Section 1I4-Presumption-More than one D
offence taking place as part of one transaction-Recovery of recently stolen
property from possession of accused-Possession unexplained-Other unex-
plained incriminating circumstances also available-Held, presumption arises
against accused in respect of commission of other offences also .forming part of
same transaction-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 376(2) (f) and E
404.

J• The body of deceased, a young girl of 11 years, was found near the
field belonging to her father. Her neck was found broken, there was injury
marks on the neck, blood was oozing out from neck and private parts of
F
the body, her both legs were chopped off from near the ankles and kuralias,
silver ornament worn by deceased, one in each leg, were found missing.
Prosecution alleged that appellant accused had raped the girl and then
killed her by throttling. Trial Court convicted accused of offences punish·
able under Sections 376(2)(0, 302 and 404, IPC which was upheld by the
High Court. Hence the present appeal. G

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of recovery
and seizure. The seals thereon were affixed at the police station. It was H
619
\
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A . rainy season. It had also rained on that night. The fields were wet and had
water -lo~ging ~t some places. The recovery and seizure had taken place .in
the wee hours and the only means of light available was a torch carried by
the police. In such situation, merely because the articles were not sealed at
the place of seizure but were sealed at the police station, the recovery and
' '
B ·seizure do not become doubtful. [625-B-C]

2. In the facts and circumstances of a given cas~ relying on· tli.e
strength of the presumption the Court may dispense with direct proof of
. certain such facts as can be safely presumed to be necessarily existing by
applying the logic and wisdom underlying ~ection 114 of the Evidence Act.
c Where. offences, more than one, have taken place as part ~f one transac-
tion, recent and unexplained possession of property belonging to-deceased
may enable a .presumption being raised against the accused that he is
guilty not only of the offence of theft or decoity but also of other offences
forming part of that transaction, on the following tests being satisfied: (i)
D The offence of criminal misappropriation, theft or dacoity. relating to the
articles recovered from the possession of the accused and such other of-
fences can reasonably he held to have been committed as an integral part
·of the same transaetion; (ii) the time lag between- the date of commission of
the offence and the date of recovery of articles from the accused is not too
E wide· as to snap the link between recovery and commission of the offence;
(iii) availability of some piece of incriminating evidence or circumstances,
other than mere recovery of the articles, connecting the accused with such
other offence; (iv) caution on the part of the Court to see that suspicion,
howsoever strong, does not take the place of proof. In ~uch cases the·
F explanation offered by the accused for his possession of the stolen property
.. assumes significance. Ordinarily the purpose of Section 313 of .Code of
Criminal Procedure is to afford the accused an opportunity of offering an
explanation of incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evi-
dence against him. it is not necessary for the accused to speak and explain.
G Ho\Yever, when the case rests on circumstantial evidence the failure of the
accused to ~ffer any satisfactory expianation for his possessio~ of the
stolen property thouglt not an incriminating circumstance by itself would
.yet enable an inference being raised against him because the fact being in
the exclusive knowledge of the accused it was for him to have offered an
H ·explanation which he failed to do so. [627-A-B; G-H; 628-A-C]
GANESH LAL v. STATE 621
Baiju v. State of M.P., [1978] 1 SCC 588; Earabhadrappa v. State of A
Karnataka, [1983] 2 SCC 330; Guiab Chand v. State of M.P., [1995] 3 SCC
574; Mukund @ Mishra & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1997) SC
2622; A. Devendran v. St(J.te of T.N., [1997] 11 SCC 720 para 20;.State of
Maharashtra v. Suresh, [2000] 1SCC47l and Shivappa v. State of Mysore,
[1970) 1sec487, relied on. B
3.1. The accused was seen near the place of occurrence a little before
the time of commission of the crime and his h~ving seen the likely victim of
the crime thereat. The recovery of kuralias worn by the dece~sed was made
at the instance of the accused and there is a time lag of just 2 days between
the offence and the recovery. An axe was recovered on an information C
given by the accused which was found to be stained with human blood. The
axe had mud, pieces of bone and shreds of flesh and fat on it at the time of
recovery. Clothes of the accused were recovered on being produced by him
from his house. The four clothes were bundled up in a piece of cloth and
kept hidden in an earthen pot. The manner in which the clothes were kept D·
is not one in which the wearing apparels are ordinarily kept in the house.
All these clothes were found to be stained with mud and huma~ blood. The
chaddi (underwear) was having stains of blood and semen-both. The ac-
cused is a bachelor. He had two injuries on his person which could have
been caused at or about the time of occurrence. The nature of injuries was
such that they cou~d have been caused either by the scratches of the victim E
resisting the act of the accused or by the accused coming in contact with
rough surface of the ground in the course of commission of the crime. All
these circumstances were put to the accused. The accused failed to offer
any explanation of such circumstances and therefore they can be used as
inculpatory circumstances against him. [629-C-G]
F
3.2. The medical evidence shows that the victim girl was raped, her
neck twisted ~nd she was throttled. The accused was in recent unexplained
possession of kuralias. These several criminal acts-rape, killing and theft.
were committed in one transaction. The availability of incriminating Cir-
cumstantial evidence and their having remained totally unexplained forge G
a. complete chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence so as to fasten:
guilt upon the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. The silence of the
accused supplies the 'missing link' if any. It is not only the recovery of
stolen property but also availability of other strong circumstances which
have fastened inescapable connectivity of the accused with the offences
H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A charged. (629-H; 630-A-B]

State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000] 1 SCC 471, relied on.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1034-
1035 of 2000.
B
i From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.2000 of the Rajasthan High
C6urt in D.B. Crl. J.A. No. 617/94 and D.B. Crl. A. No. 56 of 1995.

Seeraj Bagga (AC.) for the Appellant.

C Ranji Thomas for Javed Mahmud Rao for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, J. 'G' a young child of 11 years, daughter of PW6, the
father and PW7, the mother, resident of a village within the limits of P.S.
D Shambhupura, Distt. Chittorgarh had gone to fetch fodder from the field of
theirs at about·4 p.m. O!l 2.9.1992. She did not return back to home until 7
p.m. whereupon an extensive search was launched by the parents, associated
with the villagers, who made inquiries not only in the village but also in nearby
villages but without any result. Mohan Lal and Chhagan Lal, PW16 and PW23
found the dead body of the missing girl in the field of Udai Lal at about 7 a.m.
E on 3.9.1992. Udai Lal's field is situated near the field of PW6. They informed
the villagers whereupon they assembled in the field of Udai Lal. The dead
body was in a bad shape. The neck was broken. There were marks of injury
on the neck which appeared to have been twisted. Blood was oozing out from
neck and private parts of the body. Her both legs were chopped off from near
F the ankles and were lying separated near the body. The kuralias (silver orna-
ment worn by girls in the villages) which the deceased used to wear, one in
each leg, were missing. The dead body and the chopped off legs were picked
up from the field and brought to home. Bhanwar Lal, PW5, was sent to police
station to lodge an F.l.R. of the incident. The investigation commenced.
G Ghaghara (a garment worn by girls on the lower part of the body) which the
deceased was wearing, was found to be stained with blood oozing out from
· vagina and was seized. Post mortem was conducted. According to the facts
found and the opinion based thereon, the girl was raped and then killed by
throttling. The neck of the deceased was pressed with thumb and fingers.
· H Thumb and finger marks could be visibly seen on the neck. The death was
GANESH LAL v. STATE [LAHOTI, J.] 623
caused by asphyxia. The legs were separated from the body after her death A
by chopping off with a sharp edged· weapon.

The accused was arrested shortly after midnight of 3rd and 4th Septem-
ber, 1992. The investigation pointed out to his involvement in the crime. He
was challaned and put up for trial. The trial Court held the accused guilty of
B
the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 302 and 404 IPC. The
accused was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.100,
in default to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months under Section 376(2)(f), to
life imprisonment and fine of Rs.100, in default to undergo additional R.I. for
3 months under Section 302 and to 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.100, in default
to undergo additional 3 months R.I. under Section 404, IPC. The Division c
Bench of the High Court has maintained the conviction recorded and sentences
passed by the trial Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the accused. This
appeal has been preferred by. special leave.

A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court and of the High Court shows D
the following pieces of incriminating circumstantial evidence having been
found proved so as to hold the accused guilty of the offences charged:-

(i) Recovery, on the information given by the accused and on his
pointing out and producing, of kuralias belonging to the de-
ceased and which she was wearing on the date of the occurrence; E

(ii) recovery of axe, stained with human blood, on information given
by the accused;

(iii) presence of human blood and semen stains on the chaddi (longish
underwear) of the accused; F

(iv) presence of marks of injury (two abrasions) on his person; and

(v) presence of blood stains on dhoti, baniyan and bush-shirt of
accused.
G
The accused was arrested at 2 a.m., i.e. in the wee hours of 4.9.1992.
Soon on his arrest he gave information that an axe and two silver kuralias were
kept in the south-east corner of the field of victim's father and he could point
out the places. Pursuant to the information so given, the accused led the police,
accompanied by Panch witnesses, to the field of father of the deceased girl in H
I

624 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R .

A the early hours of the same' day. The accused took -out. a polythene bag,
containing two kuralias; which was lying· hid.den in the groundnut crop stand-
ing. in the field. Fr~m another. place, at a little distance from the place
_wherefrom the kuralias were-recovered, the accused took out and produced an
axe which was iying hidd~n below some 'gr~ss and. groundnut crop. The ake
B was ~mudged with mud. Soine· shreds of flesh arid' fat, pieces of bone and blood
were also f~und sticking on'the axe. All these articies recovered were ~eized,
packed at the place of the seizure, brought to the police station and then sealed
in-the"presence of the witnesse·s: The accused.also pointed out the place of the
occurrence whereat a dantli (sickle used for cutting grass) was found lying.

C The accused.also gave information ab9ut his clothes kept-in his r:esiden-
-tial house concealed i_n a kothi (an earthen pot used for stonng foodgrains) and
then led the police to his house. From the kothi he took out a few clothes
bundled up in a piece of cloth._ On opening the bundle came out a dhoti, a bush-
shirt, a chaddi (a longish underwear, tailor made, from striped cloth, and not
D necess~ily worn' as an underwear only) and a baniyan. These clothes had mud-
stairis on them. All the lour clothes were found to have stains on them 'which,
in the opinion' of the investl.gating-officer and the Panch witnesses; were blood·
stains. The chaddi had a few white stains which appeared to be of human
• <f • ' " I •·' -~ , '

semen. All the clqthes were seized. · ·
E The seized -kurdlias Were promptly put up for test identification parade
conducted by Prayagchand Verma, PWIO, Addi. Chief Judicial !v1agistrate.
They were satisfactorily identified by the parents of the deceased as the kuralias -(I

which the deceased girl used to wear usually and were also worn by her on the
date of ·tlle .incident. -
F . I . •
All the seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan,
Jaipu,r. :.The blood smeared soil sei~ed from the place of the_ incident, the
ghaghra seized from the body of the deceased, kulhari recovered on pointing
out by the accused and the· four pieces ·of 'clothes·, namely dhoti,' chaddi,
baniyan and bush-shirt seized on being produced by the accused from his
•
G
house, were all found to be stained with hu111an bloo~ although grouping could
not be cari-'ied: o~t because of the blood ha:ving ~isint~grated. The forensic
Scie~ce 'Laboratory also 'detected .human ;e~en on ghaghra s~ized from the.
body .~f the v~ctim a~d -t~,e d;add~ pr~duced by the ~cc.used. .. ·:·,. ,
1
H ' so· far as the· several recoveries ·are concerned, the 'statement of
GANESH LAL v. STATE [LAHOTI, J.] 625
investigating officer is corroborated by the testimony of Panch witnesses who A
are respectable residents of the same village in which the families of the victim
and the accused also reside. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of
recovery and seizure. The Panch witnesses have deposed that although kuralias,
• ,It axe and dantli having been seized from the respective places whereat they were
found, were cautiously packed and fully covered with the help of paper, cloth B
and thread at the place of the seizure, the seals thereon were affixed at the
police station. It was rainy season. It had also rained on that night. The fields
were wet and had water clogging at places. The recovery and seizure had
taken place in the wee hours and the only means of light available was a torch
carried by the police. In such situation, merely because the articles were not
sealed at the places of seizure but were sealed at the police station, the recovery
c
and seizure do not become doubtful. There is no suggestion that any of the
~ seized items were so tampered with as to implant thereon any piece of incrimi-
nating evidence which was not otherwise available on the seized articles.

The kuralias recovered at the instance of the accused and on his pointing D·
out were placed, before recovery, in such a way that they could not have been
visible to anyone else uriless pointed out and produced by the accused and
therefore exclusive knowledge of concealment of kuralias should be attributed
to the accused. So is the case with the axe. Kuralias were satisfactorily
identified by the parents of the victim girl at the test identificati?n parade and E
also in the Court. The father and the mother - both stated that the kuralias were
those which the deceased used to wear and was wearing on the date of occur-
rence also. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the two parents who
in the ordinary course of things must have seen their daughter wearing the
kuralias for several days and therefore they are the best persons who could
F
have identified those articles. There is nothing in the cross examination of the
two witnesses to doubt veracity of their identification of kuralias.

The axe was found to be stained with human blood. The four pieces of
clothes recovered from the house of the accused on his pointing out are
accompanied by such unusual circumstances which are also incriminating. G
The four items of clothes were bundled together, wrapped in another piece of
cloth and then kept in a kothi (an earthen pot used for storing ~oodgrains in
house) which is not the ordinary and usual way of keeping usable clothes.
Ratan Lal PW8, resident of the same village and who knew the accused too
well, stated that the clothes were of the accused as he had seen the accused H

_j
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A often wearing those clothes. The clothes, at the time of seizure, were found
to be stained with mud. They were also found to be stained with human blood.
The chaddi was stained with human semen. According to Dal Chand PW18,
the accused was a bachelor. On 5,.9.1992, the accused was sent up for medico-
lega1 examination. He was examined by Dr. Subhas Jain, PW9 at l.45 p.m. "7' ~
B on 5. 9.1992. There were two abrasions situated on his left shoulder. and back
of left elbow, each of the dimension of 1" x 1110" and could have been caused
by any blunt object. The two abrasions, looking to their situation and nature,
could have been caused by coming in contact with the rough surface of the ,,
'•
earth or by scratching. The accused was found to be potent and capable of
performing sexual intercourse though there was no external injury on or around
c his private parts.

In the late afternoon of the day preceding the day on which dead-body
of the victim girl was found, a few villagers about 4 in number including
Mangilal, PW2 and Kanl Ram, PW24 happened to be together in the field of
D Mahender Singh which was under cultivation of Mangilal, PW2 who had sown
Soyabin crop therein. There the accused came. They had puff ofbidi (country-
cigarette made of Tendu leaves) for a few minutes whereafter these villagers
had left leaving the accused-appellant behind there itself. Mangilal, PW2 had
seen a young girl of the height of about 3 feet being given a dantli (sickle) by
E the accused. The girl had moved towards the field of her father. Mangilal saw
the accused also going in that direction. However, the girl could not be
identified by Mangilal because of distance in between. A sickle was found
lying near the place which was identified to be the place of the incident where .(
\

the victim girl was raped. The field of the father of the victim girl, the field
of Dalchand, PW18 whose land was taken by the father of the accused for.
F
cultivation on sharing basis and the field of Mahender Singh under cultivation
of Mangilal, PW2 are situated almost adjoining each other as per the site plan.

Section 114 of the Evidence Act provides that the Court may presume
the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being
G had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and
private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. Illustration (a)
provides that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft
may be presumed by the Court to be either the thief or one who has received
the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.
H The presumption so raised is one of fact rather than of law. In the facts and
GANESH LAL v. STATE [LAHOTI, J.] 627
circumstances of a given case relying on the strength of the presumption the A
Court may dispense with direct proof of certain such facts as can be safely
presumed to be necessarily existing by applying the logic and wisdom under-
lying Section 114. Where offences, more than one, have taken place as part
of one transaction, recent and unexplained possession of property belonging to
? ...

deceased may enable a presumption being raised against the accused that he B
is guilty not only of the offence of theft or dacoity but also of other offences
forming part of that transaction.

In Baiju v. State of M.P., [1978] 1 SCC 588, Earabhadrappa v. State
of Karnataka, [1983] 2 SCC 330, Guiab Chandv. State ofM.P., [1995] 3 SCC
574, Mukund@ Mishra & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1997) SC C
2622 and A. Devendran v. State of T.N., [ 1997] 11 SCC 720, para 20, murder
and robbery were proved to have been integral parts of one and the same
transaction and the presumption arising under illustration (a) to Section 114 of
the Evidence Act was applied for holding the accused guilty of not only having
committed robbery but also murder of the deceased. The presumption was D
founded on recovery of stolen property belonging to the deceased.

While raising such presumption the time factor between the date of the
offence and recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused
would play a significant role. Precaution has to be taken that the presumption
E
may not be so stretched as to permit suspicion taking the place of proof. No
hard and fast rule can be laid down.

A review of several decisions of this Court, some of which we have cited
hereinabove, leads to the followin6 statement of law. Recovery of stolen
property from the possession of accused enables a presumption as to commis- F
sion of offence other than theft or dacoity being drawn against the accused so
as to hold him a perpetrator of such other offences on the following tests being
satisfied: (i) The offence of criminal misappropriation, theft or dacoity relating
to the articles recovered from the possession of the accused and such other
offences can reasonably be held to have been committed as an integral part of G
the same transaction; (ii) the time-lag between the date of commission of the
offence and the date of recovery of articles from the accused is not so wide
as to snap the link between recovery and commission of the offence; (iii)
availability of some piece of incriminating evidence or circumstance, other
than mere recovery of the articles, connecting the accused with such other H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R..
A offence; (iv) caution on the part of the Court to see that suspicion, howsoever
strong, does not take the place of proof. lri such cases the explanation offered
by the accused for his possession of the stolen property assumes significance.
Ordinarily the purpose_ of Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to · ·
afford the accused an opportunity of offering an explanation of incriffiinating ~ •
B circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence against him. It is not neces-
sary for the accused to speak and explain. However, when the case·rests on
circumstantial evidence the failure of the accused to offer any satisfactory
explanation for his possession of the stolen property though not an incriminat-
ing circumstance·by itself would yet enable an inference being raised against
him because the fact being in the exclusive knowledge of the accused it was
c for him to have offered an explanation which he failed to do. (See
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, para 13 (supra), Guiab Chand v. State
of M.P., para 4 (supra).

In State of Maharashtra_v. Suresh, [2000] l SCC471 a female child of
D tender years was raped and murdered. Case against the accused rested on
circumstantial evidence. The accused when arrested·was found to have injuries
on his person and blood and semen on under-clothes. There were several other
incriminating circumstances ·pointing to. the guilt of accused and this one,
mentioned just before, termed by this Court in its judgment as 'most formidable
E incriminating circumstance' was put to the accused but he could not give any
explanation whatsoever and instead chose to deny the existence thereof. This
Court held that a false answer offered by the accused on his attention being
drawn to such circumstance renders· the circumstance capable of inculpating
him. The Court went on to say that in a situation like this such ~ false answer
can also be. counted as providing 'a missing link' for completing ·the chain of
F circumstantial evidence.

In Shivappa v. State of Mysore, [ 1970] 1 _stc 487 this Court set out a
little different line of logical. thinking, for a judge of facts, by stating that if
there was other evidence to connect an accused with the crime itself, however·
small, the finding of s~olen property with him is~ a piece of evide~ce which
G
connects him further with the crime; there is then no question of presumption;
the evidence strengthens the other evidence already against him. It is only
when the accused cannot be connected with the crime except by reason of
possession of the fruits of crime that the presumptfon may be drawn.

H In A. Deveiidran v. State of T.N., (1997) 1SCC720 this Court empha-
GANESH LAL v. STATE [LAHOTI, J.] 629
sized tpe need of taking into consideration, in arriving at a decision, the factors A
such as the nature of stolen articles, the nature of their identification by the
owrier, the place and the circumstances of recovery, the intervening period
between the. date of occurr.ence and the date of recovery and the explanation
of person from whom the recovery is made.
B
In the case at hand a little before the probable time of commission of the
crime the accused was seen near the place· of occurrence. We should not be
misunderstood as holding the evidence of availability of the accused near the
place of occurrence arid his passing on a dantli (sickle) to a young girl-child
as evidence of 'last seen together'. We are only holding the presence of the
accused near the place of occurrence a little before the time thereof and his c
having seen the likely victim of the crime thereat. . The recovery of kuralias
worn by .the deceased was made at the instance of the accused and there is a
time-lag of just 2 days between the offence and the recovery. An axe was
. recovered on an information given by the accused which is found to be stained
with human blood on examination by forensic science laboratory. The axe had D
mud, pieces of bone and shreds of flesh and fat OJ.! it at the time of recovery,
as deposed to by the witnesses and perception of which facts needs no exper-
tise. Clothes of the accused were recovered on being produced by him from
his house. The four clothes were bundled up in a piece of cloth and kept hidden
in an earthen pot. The manner in which the clothes were kept is not one in
E
which the wearing apparels are ordinarily kept in the house. All these clothes
were found to be stained with mud and human blood. The chaddi (underwear)
was having stains of blood and semen - both. The accused is a bachelor. He
had two injuries on his person which could have been caused at or about the
time of occurrence. The nature of the injuries was such that they could have
been cau~ed either by the scratches of the victim resisting the act of the accused F
m by the accused coming in contact with rough surface of the ground in the
course of commission -of the crime. All thes.e ci~cumstances were put to the
·accused. His only answer to all such circumstances is 'Galat Hai'(i.e., it is
false or incorrect). The fact remains that the accused failed to offer any
explanation of such circumstances and therefore they can be used as inculpa- G
tory circumstances against'him and the necessary inferences flowing therefrorri
used as links in chain of incriminating circumstantial· evidence fastening guilt
on him. The medieal evidence shows that the victim girl was raped, her neck
was twisted and she was throttled to kill her. On her death the two legs were
chopped off arid the kuralias worn by her were removed. The accused was in
H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A recent unexplained possession of kuralias. These several criminal acts - rape,
killing and theft - were committed in one transaction. The availability of the
.abovesaid pieces of incriminating circumstantial evidence and their having
remained totally unexplained forge a complete chain of incriminating circum-
stantial evidence so as to fasten guilt upon the accused beyond any reasona~le ~ ,
B doubt. The silence of the accused supplies the 'missing link', if any, as held
by this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (supra). It is not
only the recovery of stolen property but also availability of other strong
- circumstances which hav.e fastened inescapable connectivity of the accused
_with the offences charged.

C For the foregoing reasons we do not find any case having been made out
for interference with the judgment of the High Court, confirming the finding
of guilty recorded by the Trial Court for the several offences for which the
accused was charged and the sentences passed thereon. The appeal is dis-
missed.
D
We would like to place on record our appreciation of very able assistance
rendered to Court by Shri Seeraj Bagga, Advocate, who appeared amicus
.}
curiae for the appellant.

A.K.T. Appeal .dismissed.

·-