GOKARAJU VENKATANARASA RAJUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

,




                   GOKARAJU VENKATANARASA RAJU                                      A
                                v.
                     STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                                AUGUST 24, 1993

               [K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.]                             B

          Indian Penal Code 186(}--Sections 302, 201 & 404-Murder~onvic­
    tion based on circumstantial evidence-Requisites of

           Indian Evidence Act-Circumstantial evidence-Requirements for con-
    viction.                                                                        c
         Dead body in a decomposed state-Recognition of by near and dear
    ones-Necessity for.

           On November 3, 1980 the father (PWl) of the deceased made a report
    at the Police Station that his son was missing and was last seen on October     D
    27, 1980 in the company of the accused. On November' 19, 1980 the
    accused-appellant was apprehended and interrogated at the place of PWl
    in the presence of PWsl to 24. The accused-appellant made a statement
    that he stangulated the deceased with a chain and murdered him. The
    Sessions Judge on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case      E
    held that prosecution proved the case beyond doubt and hence convicted
    and sentenced the accused-appellant for life.

           On an appeal by the appellant the High Court concurred with the
    findings of the Sessions Court. The High Court while dismissing the
    appeal held that although there was no eye-witne"s but the cumulative           F
    effect of all the circumstances which the prosecution had established
    conclusively proved the guilt of the accused and that the extra judicial
    confessions were voluntary, true and made without any inducement.

          In the Criminal Appeals by way of a Special Leave the appellant           G
    contended (a) that the circumstantial evidence were not absolutely clinch-
    ing and that there were missing links; (b) that the identity of the dead body
    was highly doubtful since it was in a decomposed state and was beyond
    recognition inspite of the identification of a wearing apparel.

           Dismissing the appeals, this Court                                       H
                                        737
    738                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A         HELD: The circumstantial evidence clearly establishes the chain so
    complete that there is no escape frorn the conclusion that the crilne has
    been committed by the accused and is incapable of any other hypothesis
    consistent with the innocence of the ac,,used and the extra-judicial confes-
    sion has been voluntary made without any threat inducement or promise
B   from from any person in authority. [747-H, 748-A]

          Although there was no eye-witness of the actual occurence but on the
    basis of the materials on record and various circumstances referred to by
    Sessions Judge the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable
    doubt. [744-G]
c
          The chain of evidence furnished by the circumstances must be so far
    complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consisterit
    with the innocence of the accused. [746-D]

          Deonandan Mishra v. 77ie State of Bihar, [1955] 2 SCR 570, followed.
D
          The charge of murder like any other charge of offence can be
    established by inferences but when.there is extremely little byway of direct
    evidence, it is due to the accused that there should be no exaggeration of
    minor incidents in the case and that each inference should be verified with
E   scrupulous accuracy. [746-G]

          Circumstantial eYidence in order to furnish a basis for conviction
    requires a very high degree of probability that is so sulliciently high that
    a prudent man considering all the facts and realising that life or liberty
    of the accused depends upon the decision, feels justified in holding that
F   the accused has committed justified in holding that the accused had
    committed the crime. [746-H]

          Vidyasagar v. State, (1977) Cr.L.J. 950 (SC), followed.

          The Court has to be watchful and avoid danger of allowing the
G suspJcion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes unconsciously it
    may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. At
    times it can be a case of 'may be true' and not 'must be true' and the same
    divides conjectures from sure conclusions. [747-E]

H         Jawaharlal Dass v. State of Q1;ssa, [1991] 3 SCC 27, followed.
               G.V.RAJU v. STATE OF A.P. [G.N. RAY,J.]                  739

      Apart from the circ111nstantial evidence, the extra judicial confes- A
sions fully consistent with the circumstantial evidences establish the guilt
of the accnsed. [748-B)

      The father and near relatives had identified the body and it appears
to us that despite the decomposition it was possible to be identified by the
near and dear ones. [748-C)                                                    B
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JU,USDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
610 of 1990.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.88 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Cr.A. No. 767 of 1981.                                           c
      K.K. Gupta for the appella11t.

      G. Prabhakar for the respondent.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                               D

      G.N. RAY, J. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the
appellant, Sri Gokaraju Venkatanarasa Raju, under Sections 302, 404 and
201 I.P.C. and sentence to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302 .
!PC., rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 404
                                                                            E
l.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 I.P.C.
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur Division on March 31, 1981
in Session Case No. 35 of 1981, since affirmed by the Division Bench of
Andhra Pradesh High Court by its. judgment dated April 27, 1984 in
Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 1981.
                                                                               F
      The prosecution case in short is that the deceased Ramabhadra Raju
was aged 21 years and was the son of PW.1 Ramaraj. The accused,
Gokaraju Venkatanarasa Raju and his brother were making their living by
tending ducks. In the month of October, 1970 he was living as a tenant in
a portion of the house belonging to the sister of PW.11 at Kakinada. The G
accused became acquainted with PW.5 who was an employee in Gokul
biscuit works at Kakinada and also with PW. 8 who was an employee in a
shop. The deceased, Ramabhadra Raju, was married on April 10, 1980
and the wife did not join him after the marriage before his death. The
deceased received a gold chain and a gold ring with a figure of Lord
Venkates\vara embossed on it from his parents-in-Ja\V as presents in the H
              ,,I



    740                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS jl993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   marriage. He also received a wrist watch from his parcnts-in-la\v, \vhich he
    exchanged with his father, PW.l for a H.M.T. Kohinoor watch. In the years
    1980 the deceased and PW.2 joined first year class of B.A. Degree and
    PW.3 joined fir5t year class of B.Sc. degree in a college at Nidubrolu. For
    some time PW.2 and 3 and ti1e deceased used to go to Nidubrolu every
    day by bus from their respective villages to attend their colleges. As it
B   became inconvenient for them lo go daily 011 bus from distant places, they
    stated living in a room in the house of PW.1 at Nidubrolu 011 rent. The
    deceased and the said two friends were cooking their own food where they
    were slaying. On October 27, 1980, al about 7 or 7.30 P.M., the accused
    went to the deceased in his room and had told him that he had come to
C   Ponnur to witness a cinema show. The deceased, PWs. 2 and 3 accom-
    panied the accused. After reaching the railway level crossing, the accused
    and the deceased went in the direction of the railway track to answer call
    of nature and PW. 2 and 3 proceeded towards Ponnur for purchase of
    notebooks. After some lime, PWs. 2 and 3 came back and thereafter the
    accused and deceased also returned to the room where they had been
D   living. While the accused was taking leave from the deceased, the deceased
    addressed the accused in a language which could be understood by the
    accused only and the accnsed replied that not on that day but day after.
    After saying so, the accused left the place. On October 29, 1980, P.W.2 had
    seen the deceased with the shirt (M.0.1), white lungi (M.0.2) and also a
E   pair of sleepers (M.0.3) which belonged to P.W.3. The deceased told to
    P.W.2 that he was going to bazar and that he would be returning soon. A
    little later PW.3 returned from Khajipalem and enquired about the
    whereabouts of the deceased when PW.2 informed PW.3 that the deceased
    had gone to the bazar. On October.29, 1980, al about 8.30 P.M., while P.W.
    17 was at the bus stop waiting for a bus to go lo Cherukuplalli, he found
F   the accused and the deceased near a bund close t<' the bus stop. The said
    witness, PW.17 had also seen both of them going together crossing the road
    and smoking cigarettes. The deceased informed PW.17 that as his father
    had asked him lo go urgently, he was going lo the village along with the
    accused by bus which was ready to start. PW.17 however, noted that instead
G   of boarding the bus, the deceased and the accused were seen proceeding
    towards the drainage channel bund. PW.17 became curious and questioned
    the accused and the deceased as to why they had been going on the other
    side when they should board the bus but the accused and the deceased
    moved away without answering such question. In the early hours of Oc-
    tober 30, 1980, PW.1.8 while proceeding along side the drainage channel
H   bund, saw the accused com.ing ~from the opposite direction near
                      G.V. RATU v. STATE OF AP. [G.N. RAY, J. J             741

       Venkataraju Pump. The .said PW.18 accosted the accused and the accused A
       replied that he had been returning from Ponnur after seeing a cinema. As
       the deceased did not return to th'1 room even on October 31, 1980, PW.2
       and 3 went to Khajipalem in tne afternoon and apprised PW.l and 4,
       namely the father and the brother of the deceased about the disappearance
       of the deceased from October 29, 1980. Thereafter, enquiries were made
       by PWs.l and 4 with the re¥ations residing in the neighbouring villages B
                                      I
       about the whereabouts of the deceased. On October 31, 1980 at about 2.00
       P.M., the accused met PW.5 at Kakinada near Raju's hotel. The accused
       went to the shop of PW.8 and informed him that he was in some financial
       difficulty due to loss in the business of ducks. The accused then sought the
       help of PW.8 in disposing of the gold ring (M.0.5.) to PW. 9. The accused C
       was taken to PW.9 who wa'!; a pawan broker. PW.8 and the accused got
       the gold ring (M.0.5.) weighed at Dharamakata. PW.9 purchased the gold
       ri'ng (M.0.5) from the accused for Rs. 950. In the evening on the same day
       ivhen PW.5 met the accused again, the accused showed him the gold chain
       (M.0.4) and sought for his help in disposing of the gold chain (M.0.4).
       Next day, the accused went along with PW.5 to PW.6 who was the owner D
       of the silver ware <hop and he sold the gold chain (M.0.4) for Rs. 1450.
       The accused along with PW.5 went to the cloth shop where be purchased
       cloth for pant and shirt and gave them to the tailor, PW.12, for stitching.
       The same evening the accused went along with PW.5 and purchased a
       suitcase (M.0:7). The accused took delivery from PW. 12 of the pant
       (M.0.8) and the shirt (M.0.9). On November 3, 1980, the accused along E
       with P.W.5 went to the bus stand saying that he would return back to the
       village. He purchased a ticket for Bhimavaram and boarded the bus. Before
       leaving, the accused handed over a bag (M.0.6) to P.W.5 saying that he
1      would come back within 15 days and would take the bag from him. On
       November 5, 1980, the accused pledged M.0.6 and borrowed some money
                                                                                    F
       from PW. 7, a licenced pawan broker and borrowed a further sum of Rs.
4      55 from P"".,7 '!Sy keeping the said bag (M.0.6) as security.
~1
  ,
              On November 2, 1980, some colleagues of the deceased met the
       father of the deceased and informed him that they had been searching for
       their missing classmate but they could not trace him. On November 3, 1980, G
       PW.1, father of the deceased went to the police station and submitted a
       report and a case being Crime No. 208/80 under the heading 'Man Missing'
       was registered. Ex. P- 21 is the F.l.R. for the said case. PW.21 the _police
       officer examined PWs. 2 and 3 and recorded their statements. On Novem-
....   ber 5, 1980, PWs. 2 and 3 informed PW.l about what happened on the H
J
           742                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

,'.:,, A
       night of October 27, 1980. On November 6, 1980, the accused met PW. 16
       at night at his house and requested PW.16 to get two of his shirts for wash
       The accused told PW.16 that would came back on November 8, 1980 and
       collect the shirts. The accused went away leaving the suitcase with PW. I~.
       On the very same day, PWs.l and 2 went to P~.l(i·and enquired about th~
     B accused. The accused having come to know tharPW.l was in search of him
       went to Pw.16 and told him that PW.l's son was reported to have been
       murdered and that he was being suspected in that connection. The accused
       requested PW.16 that he should inform the people enquiring about him
       that he had stayed with him but PW.16 expressed his reluctance to speak
       falsely. On November 17, 1980, PW.1 located the accused in h.is house and
     C questioned him as to the whereabouts of the deceased. The accused
       pleaded ignorance of the matter. When PW.4 went to Tenali and met
       PW.16 on November 7, 1980 and questioned him, PW.16 informed PW.4
       as to what happened and handed over M.Os 7 to 12 to him. PW.4 apprised
       his father, PW.l aboufwhat PW.16 had told him. Thereafter, he proceecled
     D to Kakinada and met PWs.5 to 12. He showed the photograph of the
       deceased to PW.5 and to the tailor, and asked the tailor whether the person
       in the photograph had come to his shop. The tailor replied that no such
       person had come to his shop. PW.4 handed over M.Os. 7 to 12 at the
       Ponnur Police Station and the said articles were seized. On the evening of
     E November 18. 1980, PW.16 sent a phone message to PW.I to go over to
       Tenali since the accused was apprehended at Tenali. He immediately
       proceeded to Tenali and brought the accused to his village. On November
       19, 1980, the accused was interrogated at the house of PW.l in the presence
       of PWs. 1 and 24 and several others. The accused made a statement ta the
       effect that on the night of October 28, 1980 when he met the deceased al
     F Chandole, he promised to bring a prostitute for him and both of them wen•
       to the sand heaps between Chandole and their villages and sat there for
       some time waiting for the call girl to turn up. The accused also told that
           on the pretext of urinating he went aside and loosened the cycle chain
           which was tied round his waist and that he approached the deceased from
     G     behind and strangulated him to .death. He removed the gold chain, ring
           and the watch.(M.Os.4 to 6) from the body of the deceased, and thereafter
           dragged the deceased to a nearby palmyrah tree and tied his neck with the
           hands of the deceased behind his back with palmyi:ah leafs and later he
           threw away the cycle chain. Thereafter he dug a pit at the scene of offence,
     H     pushed the dead body into the pit and covered it up with sand leaving
                G.V. RAJU v. STATE OF AP. [G.N. RAY, J.]                  743

M.Os2 and 3 in the pit itself. He also told them that he went to Kakinada        A
and disposed of M.Os. · 4 and 5 with the assistance of PW.5 and he
purchased a new suitcase and got new clothes stitched at Kakinada and
went to Tenali where he met PW.16 and he left the clothes for being ironed
after telling PW.16 that he would come back and collect the clothes. On
such statement of the accused, PW.1 called for the village Munsiff, PW.19,       B
who also questioned the accused and the accused admitted that he had
murdered Ramabhadraraju in the fields near Chandole and hurried the
dead body. The accused led PWs 1, 2 and 19 and others to the sand
mounds where the dead body of the deceased was found in the pit. PW.1
identified the dead body as that of the deceased, Ramabhadraraju. PW.19
thereafter recorded the statement of PW.I and prepared the Crime                 C
Report. PW.22 on receipt of the report, altered the crime one under
Section 302 !PC. and sent the reports to all the authorities concerned.
PW.22 after inquest recorded the statements of material witnesses and
after completion of investigation lodged the charge sheet against the ac-
cused. On November 26, 1980, PW.19 and another conducted an identifica-          D
tion proceedings during which PWs.l to 4 identified M.Os. 4 to 6 as the
articles belonging to the deceased. When questioned under Section 313
Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded innocence. The learned Sessions Judge on a
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the
finding that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable
doubts. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the accused as stated            E
herein before.

      At the hearing of the appeals the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in believing the prosecu-
tion evidences which were discrepant and the circumstances were quite            F
insufficient to base the conviction of the appellant. It may be indicated here
that the learned Sessions Judge after consideration of the evidences came
to the following findings:

         (i)   that the accused committed the murder of the deceased for
               gain and that there was a strong motive for the commission G
               of the offence.

         (ii) that deceased, Ramabhadraraju, was last seen in the company
              of the accused on which occasion he was having M.Os.4 to 6
              on his person and the accused was found in possession of           H
    744                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A                 these M.Os. within a couple of <lays after he was seen in the
                  company of the deceased. The accused sold M.Os. 4 and 5
                  to PW. 6 and 9 with the assistance. of PW.5 on October 31,
                  1980 and he pledged M.0.6 lo PW.7 0n November 6, 1980.

             (iii) when the dead body was discovered at tl,i.e instance of the
B                  accused in pursuance of the state~ertt' .in.idc, by him in
                   presence of PW.1,2, 4 and 10, M.Os. 4 to 6 were.:.found to be
                   missing on the dead body.

             (iv) the accused made the statement on November 19, 1980 in the
                  presence of PW.s. l, 2, 4, 6 and 19 which was in the nature
c                 of confessional statement, admitting to have committed the
                  murder of Ramabhadraraju in the manner recorded in the
                  statement, Ex. p-2. The accused also made an extra judicial
                  confession as recorded in Ex. P-10 by PW.13

D        It may be indicated here that after the dead body was found from
  the pit in a highly decomposed condition, the post mortem examination
  was held on the dead body and the doctor, PW.14's evidence was to the ·
  effect that the death of the deceased was due to homicidal violence.
  According to the doctor, the hyoid bone was broken into pieces which
E suggested that a stronger force that mere application of hands was applied
  and such injuries were possible by the use of a cycle chain or a stick and
  if the hyoid bone is fractured as in the instance case, the wind pipe would
  automatically he closed leading to instantaneous death. The doctor opined
  that the death of the deceased must have occurred on account of stran-
  gulation and such death had occurred within three hours after the last
F meal: According to the doctor, the deceased had died about 20 days prior
  to the post mortem examination.

        The High Court accepted the finding made by the learned Sessions
  Judge and came to the finding that although there was no eye-witness of
  the actual occurrence but on the basis of the materials on record, and
G various circumstances referred to by the learned Sessions. Judge the guilt
  of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt. It is the specific
  finding of the High Court that the cumulative effect of all th.: circumstances
  which the prosecution had e.stablished conclusively proved 'the guilt of the
  accused. The High Court also accepted the extra judicial confessions made
H by the accused once before PWs. 1, 2, and 4 on another occassion before
               G.V. RAJU v. STATE OF AP. [G.N. RAY, J.]              745

PW.9 and thereafter before PW.13. The High Court agreed with the A
learned Sessions Judge that the extra judicial confessions were voluntary
in nature and were true and tuch statements were made without any
inducement of threat from any ,person in authority. In that view of the
matter, the High Court dismissed' the appeal by upholding the conviction
and sentence passed against the accused.
                                                                           B
       At the hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant
has contended that the circumstantial evidence on the basis of which the
complicity of the accused was found by the learned Sessions Judge-and the
High Court, were not absolutely clinching. The learned counsel has further
contended that even the identity of the dead body was highly doubtful C
because the dead body was found in a highly decomposed state and that
the identity of the deceased was beyond recognition. He has contended
that simply because some wearing apparel could be recognised by the
relations lying near the dead body, 'it cannot be held beyond all reasonable
doubts that the dead body of the deceased was recognised. The learned D
counsel has contended that in the advertisement for the missing person,
Ramabhadraraju, the description of the gold ornaments were not properly
given. He has submitted that it was reasonably expected that such descrip-
tion should have been given in the advertisement very accurately so that
the identification was possible. In the absence of such description it is not
at all improbable that the articles M.Os. 4 to 6 were later on connected E
with the articles stated to have been missing, from the person of Ramab-
hadraraju when he was last seen. The learned counsel has contended that
the missing person, namely, Ramabhadraraju, had been staying with tl'lo ·
classmates in a room and the room-mates immediately did not inform the
father about the disappearance of their room-mate. Their conduct was far F
from being satisfactory and was quite doubtful. It is nol unlikely that they
were involved in the commission of murder for some material gain ur for
 any other reason. The learned counsel has contended that although in the
 facts and circumstances of the case, there may be occasions for a strong
 suspicion against the accused, such suspicion cannot take the place of
 requin;ment of proof. Be has contended that law is well settled that for G
.sustaining a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the cir-
 cumstantial evidence must be convincingly established and such cir-
 cumstantial evidence must be such as would complete the chain so as to
 leave no room for doubt against the complicity of the accused. In the
 instant case, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there are H
    746                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A missing links. As such, no conviction can be based on the alleged cir-
     cumstantial evidence. He has, therefore, submitted that the appeal should
     be allowed and the conviction and sentence should be set aside.

         Such contention, however, was opposed by the learned counsel for
   the State. It has been submitted that in the instant case the circumstantial
B evidences are so clear and specific that there was no room of doubt about
  ·the complicity of the accused and both the learned Sessions Judge and the
   High Court have accepted such circumstantial evidence as clinching and
   firm thereby establishing the guilt of the accused and have convicted the
   accused. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the appeal
C should be dismissed.

           The principles for convicting a person on circumstantial evidence
     have been indicated in a number of decisions of this Court. In Deonandan
     Mishra v. The State of Bi/tar, [1955] 2 SCR 570, this court has indicated that
I) ·in order to convict a person on circumstantial evic.lcncc, the circun1stanccs
   relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the
   chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so far complete
   as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
   innocence of the accused. It has been further held that in such cases, not
   only should the various links in the chain: of evidence be clearly established,
.E but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood
   of the innocence of the accused. It has also been· indicated by this Court
   in Vidyasagar v. State, (1977) Cr.L.J. 950 SC, that where the evidence
   against the accused is circumstantial, in order justify the inference of guilt,
   the inculpatory fact must be incompatible with the innocence of the ac
 F cuscd and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis
   than that of his guilt. In various decisions, this Court has put a note ol
   caution that the circumstances should he of conclusive nature and must
     not remain in the realm of suspicion, however grave it may be. The charge
  of murder like any other charge of an offence, can be established by
  inferences but when there is extremely little by way of direct evidence, it
G is due to the accused that there should be no exaggeration of minor
  incidents in the case and that each inference should be verified with
  scrupulous accuracy. It should be remembered that circumstantial
  evidence in order to furnish a basis for convection requires a very high
  degree of probability, that is, so sufficiently high that a prudent man
H considering all the facts and realising t~at the life or liberty of the accused
               G.V. RAJU v. STATE OF AP. [G.N. RAY, J.)                   747

depends upon the decision, feels justified in holding that the accused has       A
committed the crime. In a very recent judgment in Jawahar Lal Dass v.
State of 01issa, [1991J 3 SCC 27, this Court has very succinctly summarised
the principles governing the conviction on circumst~ntial evide~ce. It has
been indicated in the said decision that (i) the circumstances from which
an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly
established. (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
                                                                                 B
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. (iii) the circumstances,
taken cumulatively, should from a chain so complete that there is no escape
from the conclusion that within all human .probability the crime was com-
mitted by the accused and non else, and it should also be incapable of
explanation on any other hypoihesis than that of the guilt of the accused.       c
      In the said decision, this Court has also struck a note of caution that
in cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a
danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. But,
it has been indicated that the gra\ity of the offence cannot by itself D
overweigh so far as legal proof is concerned; It has also been indicated that .
when the main link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the
other circumstances cannot in any manner establish the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubts. It is at this juncture, the court has to be
watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place
of legal proof for sometimes unconsciously it may happen to be a short E
step between moral certainty and legal proof. At times, it can be a case of
'may be true' and not 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from
sure conclusions.


      Keeping the above principles in mind, it is 'to be ascerlaine~ as to F
whether in the instant case, the circumstantial evidence has clearly proved
the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and the conviction
d~es not lie in the realm of suspicion, however grave it may be. We have
taken into consideration the facts established in the instant case wd the
reasonings given by the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court and it
appears to us that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable G
doubts that the accused was guilty of the offence charged against him. The
circumstances established in the instant case clearly establish the chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime had
been committed by the accused and none else and it is incapable of
explanation or any other hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the H
I
I



        748                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS '(1993) ~UPP. 1 S.C.R.

    A accused. That apart, there are· extra judicial confessions in this case as
        indicated hereinbefore and it has been held by the learned Sessions Judge
        and by the High Court that such confessions had been voluntarily made
        without any tlrreat, inducement' or promise from any person in authority. ·.
        Both the Cour1s have held that the extra judicial confessions made by the
        accused were not only voluntary but the same were true. Hence, apart from
    B   the circumstantial evidence, the extra judicial confessions fully consist~nt
                                                                           We
        with the circumstantial evidences es.tablish the guilt of the accused.   are
        not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
        appellant that the factum of murder could not be established beyond
        reasonable doubt because the body exhumed was highly decomposed and
    C   could not be properly identified. The father and near relations had iden-
        tified the body and it appears to us that despite the decomposition it was
        possible to be identified by the near and dear ones. In the aforesaid
        circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, therefore,
        dismissed.

        R.S.K.                                                  Appeal dismissed.