NATHIYAversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAGAYAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE

                         [2016] 8 S.C.R. 835


                             NATHIYA                                      A
                                  v.
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAGAYAM POLICE
                  STATION, VELLORE
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of2010)                        B
                       NOVEMBER 08, 2016
          [DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
       Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Murder - Prosecution
case that accused no. 2 allegedly paramour of appellant-wife of C
victim - Victim as also informant had knowledge of the illicit
relationship - Victim confided to the informant that few days prior
to the incident his wife tried to kill him as also appellant and accused
no. 2 conspired to murder him and grab his property - Intervening
night dead body of the victim seen floating in the well - Charge
sheet against appellant and accused no. 2 - Conviction u!s. 302134 D
and sentenced accordingly - Said order upheld by the High Court
- On appeal, held: Materials on record admit of substantial doubt
vis-a-vis the complicity ofthe appellants in the crime - Having regard
to the circumstantial evidence adduced, it would be wholly unsafe
to sustain their conviction - Thus, they are entitled to the benefit of
                                                                         E
doubt - Evidence.
      Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Examination of. to judge
the culpability of the accused - Principles reiterated.
       Criminal trial - Conviction on a criminal charge - In a criminal
trial, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute proof                F
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 It is patent that there is no eye witness to the
occurrence and that the prosecution case is based wholly on
circumstantial evidence. The genesis of the suspicion against the
appellants, being their amorous association to the anguish                G
disliking of the deceased, he being almost reduced to a helpless
entity, having failed to prevent such liaison inspite of his best
endeavours. There is indeed some evidence suggestive of such
an alliance between the_ appellants. This, per se, however, cannot
                                                                          H
                                  835
836           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     be accepted as a decisive incriminating factor to deduce their
      culpability qua the charge of murder of the deceased. [Para 8)(844-
      D-F]
            1.2 The place of occurrence is a well, away from the
      residence of the deceased for which any definitive presumption
B     against his wife, as a conspirator of the crime, cannot be drawn
      without the risk of going wrong to cast a burden on her, as
      contemplated under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. [Para
      9](844-F-G]
        1.3 The closest circumstance bearing on the incident is,
c discernible from the testimony of PW3 who stated to have heard
  the shrieks of the deceased, followed by a loud sound of a fall
  inside the well. There is no evidence that immediately thereafter,
  the appellants were seen in the vicinity of the well. The chappals
  of the deceased were found by the side of the well. However, the
  evidence of PW4 is that when the dead body was recovered
D thereafter from the well, both the appellants were present and
  the wife of the deceased, was seen weeping by his side. [Para
  9](844-G-H; 845-A]
            1.4 The medical evidence does not refer to any external
      injury indicative of use of any external force on the deceased,
 E    resulting in his ante-mortem suffocation and loss of
      consciousness, to be thereafter dispatched into the well. The
      possibility that the cause of death i.e. grievous head injury,
      suffocation and heart failure were post fall manifestations, also
      cannot be ruled out as the medical evidence admits of such an
 F    eventuality as well. [Para 9)(845-B-C]
          1.5 The inexplicable omission on the part of the prosecution
   ·• produce and prove the alleged confessional statements made
    J <:l' appellants and reduced into writing by PW9 and witnessed
  by P ~\· 10 substantially denudes its case of necessary credence to
G incriminate them. The oral testimony of these witesses to the
  effect that such confessional statements had been recorded, ipso
  facto is of no consequence. The recovery of a saree produced by
  the wife of the deceased said to have been gifted to her by the
  accused No.2 and their joint photograph, in the attendant facts
  and circumstances and in the face of the other evidence on record,
H
     NATHIYA v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                           837
          BAGAYAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE

does not clinch the issue in favour of the prosecution. [Para 9] [845-       A
C-D, E-F]
      1.6 The defence proposition that PWl being the cousin
brother of the deceased had framed the appellants so as to wrest
his property in absence of his legal heirs in the factual premise,
also cannot be lost sight of. The imputation of sustained unchaste           B
conduct and the activities of the wife, if true, the possibility of the
deceased committing suicide as an extreme step in a unbearable
anguished state of mind also cannot be wholly excluded. [Para
10][845-F-G]
      1. 7 The chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the            C
prosecution to prove the charge is visibly inc!>mplete and
incoherent to permit conviction of the appellants, without any
trace of doubt. Though the materials on record do raise a needle
of suspicion towards them, the prosecution failed to elevate its
case from the realm of "may be true" to the plane of "must be
true" as is indispensably required in law for conviction on a                 D
criminal charge. It is trite to state that in a criminal trial, suspicion,
howsoever grave, cannot substitute proof. [Para 11 ][845-H; 846-
A-B]
       1.8 In scrutinizing the circumstantial evidence, a court is
required to evaluate it to ensure that the chain of events is E
established clearly and completely to rule out any reasonable
likelihood of innocence of the accused. It was underlined that
whether the chain is complete or not would depend on the facts
of each case emanating from the evidence and no universal
yardstick should ever be attempted. That in judging the culpability F
of the accused, the circumstances adduced when collectively
considered, must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the
accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime alleged. That the
circumstances established must be of a conclusive nature
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
was emphatically propounded. Tested on the touchstone of the G
said parameters, defining the quality and content of the
circumstantial evidence, essential to brir.g home the guilt of an
accused person on a criminal charge, the prosecution, in the case
in hand, failed to meet the same. The materials on record admit
of substantial doubt vis-a-vis the complicity of the appellants in H
'I


          838             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 8 S.C.R./


         .A      the crime. Having regard to the evidence adduced, it would be
                 wholly unsafe to sustain their conviction. They are thus, entitled
                 to the benefit of doubt. (Paras 12-14)(846-F-H; 847-A-C)
                       Sujit Biswas v. State ofAssam 201_3 (3) SCR 830 : (2013)
                       12 SCC 406; Raja @ Rajendra v. State of Haryaya
           B           2015 (3) SCR 947 : (2015) 11 SCC 43 - relied on.
                       Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1985
                       (1) SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 - referred to.
                                         Case Law Reference
                         1985 (1) SCR 88          referred to    Para 12
           C             2013 (3) SCR 830         relied on       Para 12
                        2015 (3) SCR 947 relied on   Para 12
                       CRIMJNALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
                 1015 of2010.                                ·
                    From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2008 of the High Court
           D, of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. I 040 of2007.
                                                 WITH
                         Crl.A.No.1011 of2010.
                        Jayant Muthur Raja, Y. Arunagiri, Rakesh K. Sharma, P. R.
                 Ko vi Ian, Y. Arunagiri, S. Gowthaman, Ad vs. for the Appellant.
           E
                        M . Yogesh Kana, Ms. Nithya, Advs. for the Respondent:
                         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                        AMITAVA ROY, J. I. The appellants being aggrieved by the
                 affirmation of their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34
           F     JPC and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. I 0000/-, in
                 default R.J. for further six months, by the High Court by its verdict
                 dated 27.11.2008, seek this Court's panacean intervention for redress.
                        2. We have heard Mr. Jayant Muthur Raja, learned counsel for
                 tl.c r~pellant Nathiya, in Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of 2010, Mr. P.R.
                 Ko\ il~.:., learned counsel for the appellan~ Suresh, in Criminal Appeal
           G     No. 1011 of2010 and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel for the
                 State.
                       3. The prosecution was set in motion by the First Information
                 Report lodged on 27.3.2006 at2.30 a.m. by one Gunasekaran, the cousin
     · ,~; :~    brotherofthe deceased Gurunathan, the husband of the appellant Nathiya
             H   (accused No. I). The appellant Suresh (accused No. 2) is allegedly the
   NATHIYA v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                             839
 BAGAYAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

paramour of accused No. 1. It was averred in the FIR that the deceased A
was a book binder by occupation and owned some properties located in
his village, worth several lakhs. He also had his own house. The house
of the appellant Suresh was also situated nearby. It had been alleged
that the appellant Nathiya, the wife of the deceased had developed illicit
relationship with Suresh which was not only to the knowledge of the
                                                                            8
deceased but also of the informant. The FIR discloses that this depraved
liaison between the accused persons had also been brought to the notice
of the local panchayat and that though, it had advised the appellants
against the continuation of such alliance, they did not desist therefrom.
Being appalled, though the deceased at some point oftime, had shifted
to a rented house elsewhere but had to return under financial compulsions C
to his original place of abode. This, according to the FIR, facilitated the
continuance of the extra-marital relationship ofNathiya with Suresh. It
was alleged in the FIR that in retaliation to the persistent endeavours
made by the deceased to make Nathiya mend her ways, she used to
torture him and threaten that she would eliminate him and would sell his
                                                                            D
properties and elope with her paramour. The informant claimed that
not only a few days prior to the incident, the deceased had confided him
that his wife had tried to suffocate him to death by pressing a pillow on
his face, on 26.3 .2006, i.e. on the eve of the incident as well, he had
 disclosed to him about a conspiracy between the two accused persons
to murder him and grab his properties.                                      E
       4. The informant further mentioned that in the intervening night of
26.3.2006/27.3.2006, while he was asleep, Pushpa, wife ofDinakaran,
his neighbour informed him thatthe dead body of the deceased had been
seen floating in a nearby well. On getting this information, the informant
rushed to the place of occurrence and with the help of Pandurangam            F
and Dinakaran, retrieved the body from the well. On further enquries,
he could come to learn that one Packiammal, at about 11 p.m., heard the
shrieks of the deceased followed by a loud thud from the well. The
informant referred to the accused persons as the suspects. It was
incidentally mentioned as well that they were not available in their house
at that point of time. This FIR was registered as Bagayam P.S. Crime          G
No. 278 of2006 and investigation followed.
      5. Eventually the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused
persons. The case was committed for sessions trial. The appellants having
denied the charge, were made to stand trial and finally by the judgment
                                                                              H
840             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A and order dated 13.11.2007 passed in S.C. No. 94 of2007, the appellants
  were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and
  sentenced as above. To reiterate, their conviction and sentence has been
  upheld by the High Court by the judgment and order impugned herein.
             6. Before adverting to the rival submissions advanced, apt it would
B     be to undertake an analysis of the evidence on record to the extent
      indispensable.
           PW! Gunasekaran, the informant while substantially reiterating
  his version in the FIR stated on oath that the deceased was a dwarf in
  structure and that though being exasperated with the incorrigible conduct
c ofhis wife in indulging in the extra-marital relationship with the Suresh,
  he had shifted his family to Idaiyamsathu Village, because of his meager
  means, he could not afford to stay there and returned to Kollaimedu
  within three months. The witness stated that the deceased inspite of his
  best efforts could not stop the unwholly alliance between the accused
  persons and used to very often share his distress with him. He stated
D that on receiving the information about the dead body of the deceased in
  the well, he rushed to the place of occurrence and, amongst others, saw
  that chappals of the deceased lying by the side of the well. He owned
  the FIR lodged by him and reiterated the suspicion about the culpability
  of the two appellants.
E             In cross-examination, he denied the defence suggestion that the
      the grand-father of the deceased had executed a will in favour of him as
      well as the deceased. He admitted that the appellant Nathiya and her
      daughter were the only legal heirs of the deceased and that no
      incriminating material was recovered by the police from the house of
F     Nathiya. He admitted as well to have not disclosed the illicit relationship
      between the appellants to the police. He admitted too that the well was
      located at a distance of2.5 feet from the house of Packiammal and that
      there were other houses situated within 200 feets from there.
           PW2 Rajan, who was also a resident ofldaiyamsathu Village,
G deposed that the appellant Nathiya did not respect the deceased as her
  husband, who did not know swimming and cycling. He stated that on
  26/27.3.2006, while he was sleeping, he heard that the deceased had
  fallen in the well and on reaching the spot, found his dead body floating
  in the well with his face downwards. He mentioned too about the illicit
  relationship between the two appellants for which time and again, the
H
   NATHIYA v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                             841
 BAGAYAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

deceased had warned his wife Nathiya. He also claimed that the deceased      A
had disclosed to him about the immoral character of his wife for which
he used to console him. He stated as well that few days prior to the
incident, the deceased had disclosed to him that Nathiya had tried to
murder him by covering his face with a pillow.
         In cross-examination, however he conceded that he had not            B
disclosed to the police about the incident of the attempt to murder the
deceased by his wife. The witness admitted that PW! and the deceased
had equal shares in the well. He also admitted of not having disclosed to
the police about the immoral relationship between the appellants.
         PW3 Packiammal stated on oath to have heard in the intervening       C
night of26/27.3.2006, cries of someone and then a sound from the well.
She thereafter raised alarm apprehending that some body inight have
fallen in the well and that in the next morning, she heard that Gurunathan
had died. She stated that the house of the deceased and that of the
Suresh were near that of hers.
                                                                              D
        PW 4 Dinakaran testified that in the night of the occurrence,
Packiammal (PW3) had raised alarm whereupon he went to the place
of occurrence and found that the deceased had fallen into the well
whereafter his body was taken out therefrom. According to him, though
the police reached the place of occurrence some time thereafter, he
was not interrogated. He, however mentioned about the presence of             E
both the appellants at the time when the dead body was retrieved from
the well at about 11 p.m. He stated as well that the appellant Nathiya
was weeping, sitting near the dead body.
         PWS Dr. Anbalagan, who performed the post-mortem
examination of the dead body on 27.3.2006 at about 6.30 p.m. detected         F
the following extrenal injuries:
       I. Lacerated wound 2 cm x I cm x Yi cm. deep on the right
       side and back.
      2. One cut injury measuring 2 cm x I cm x Yi cm. deep on
                                                                              G
      the rear part of the head.
       PWS mentioned that the occipital bone was broken measuring 3
c.m. on rear part of the head and that blood clot was also found on the
broken bone. Amongst the internal injuries detected, he mentioned about
traverse fracture of the occipital bone. He opined that the deceased
                                                                              H
842             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     had died due to grievous head injuries, suffocation and heart failure.
      According to him, the deceased appeared to have died because of
      drowning in the water. He admitted that if a person becomes unconscious
      out of suffocation and is thrown into a well, he is Iikely to die of the
      above injuries.
B     In cross-examination, he however opined as well that if a person falls
      from a very high height, he is likely to sustain injuries on the rear part of
      the head.
               PW9 Kamalakannan, Village Administrative Officer, at the
      relevant time, testified that on 27.3 .2006, both the appellants had appeared
c     at his office and had voluntarily confessed that they had smothered the
      deceased and that thereafter had pushed him down in the well. This
      witness stated that the confessional statements of the appellants were
      recorded by him in the presence of Kothandan, his assistant and
      Palavansathukuppam Gunasekaran, Village Administrative Officer,
      Virupatchipuram Village and that thereafter he had handed over the
D     accused persons with the confessional statements to the police. He
      denied the suggestion that the accused persons had not appeared before
      him at his office or had not made any confessional statement.
               PW!O Kothandan, who at the relevant time, was the Village
      Assistant at Palavansathu Village, deposed that on 27.3.2006, while he,
E     Kamalakannan, Village Administrative Officer and Palavansathukuppam
      Gunasekaran, Village Administrative Officer, Virupatchipuram were
      present in their office, the appellants appeared there and voluntarily gave
      their confessional statements admitting to have killed the deceased and
      thrown him in the well. The witness affirmed as well that their statements
F     were recorded by PW9 Kamalakannan, whereafter they had taken the
      appellants to the police station following which they were arrested. He
      also stated that the confessional statements were handed over to the
      police. According to this witness, appellant Nathiya also produced the
      saree gifted to her by Suresh and the witness identifiecj the said article
      as MOl. He also referred to a photograph of the appellants produced
G     by Suresh before the police and exhibited the same as M02.


            In cross-examination, this witness acjmitted to have signed the
      voluntary statement along with PW9 Kamalakannan. He however

H
   NATHIYA v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                             843
 BAGAYAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

admitted that he did not disclose about the confessional statements to       A
anybody. He denied the suggestion that neither the appellants had appeared
at the office of the Village Administrative Officer nor had made any
confessional statement.
        PW 11 Kumar Devikan, the Investigating Officer, amongst others,
admitted that on 27.3.2006 at about 2 p.m., the appellants were produced      B
before him at the police station by the Village Administrative Officer of
Palavansathu and Virupatchipuram along with their confessional
statements.
        7. The learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the
circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, in absence of any C
eye witness to the incident, is extremely shaky, incomplete and incoherent
so as to warrant conviction of the appellants and they are thus entitled
in law to be exonerated from the charge of murder levelled against them.
While repudiating the alleged disclosures by the deceased about the
infidel character of his wife to PWl and PW2, as reproduced by them,
to be hearsay evidence and thus of no significance, it has been urged D
that the prosecution case stands discredited as well on the ground of
suppression of the alleged confessional statement of the appellants
recorded by the Village Administrative Officer. Apart from the fact
that the deceased was no.t seen in the company of the appellants
immediately prior to the incident and that thus the "last seen theory" is E
not applicable to the facts of the case, they have urged that the medical
evidence as well does not conclusively prove that the death of the
deceased was homicidal and not suicidal. Dismissing the recovery of
saree and the photograph of the appellants to be wholly inconsequential
in the face of want of any credible evidence to establish the complicity
of the appellants with the crime, it has been insistently argued that the F
possibility of PW I, the cousin brother of the deceased, who had been
interested in this property, falsely implicating the appellant Nathiya in
particular for illegal gain, cannot be wholly ruled out. The learned
counsel have maintained in unison that even assuming that the imputation
of illicit relationship between the appellants had been proved, the same G
per se, even if at the best is a suspicious circumstance, does not establish
beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of the appellants. In the prevalent
facts and circumstances, the possibility of the deceased committing suicide
cannot be excluded and that on that count as well, the appellants are
entitled to the benefit of doubt.
                                                                             H
844            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A          As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued
  that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is adequately
  cogent, persuasive and clinching and thus in the face of concurrent
  findings of the guilt of the appellants, this Court would not upturn the
  same. According to him, the factum of sustained illicit relationship
B between the appellants has been proved beyond doubt and in the face
  of the revelation made by the deceased about the previous attempts to
  eliminate him, the charge against the appellants stands proved on the
  basis of the materials on record. Referring to the medical evidence, the
  learned counsel has argued that it is apparent therefrom that the deceased
  was first smothered and then thrown into a well in an unconscious state
C whereupon he died due to the head injuries sustained. According to the
  learned counsel, the omission on the part of the prosecution to produce
  the recorded confessional statements of the appellants is wholly
  insignificant in the face of the sworn testimony of PW9 and PWIO to
  that effect.
D            8. The competing arguments and the materials on record have
      received our due scrutiny. It is patent in the present factual setting that
      there is no eye witness to the occurrence and that the prosecution case
      is based wholly on circumstantial evidence. The genesis of the suspicion
      against the appellants, being their amorous association to the anguish
      disliking of the deceased, he being almost reduced to a helpless entity,
 E    having failed to prevent such liaison inspite of his best endeavours.
      There is indeed some evidence suggestive of such an alliance between
      the appellants at the relevant point of time. This, per se, in our
      comprehension, however, cannot be accepted as a decisive incriminating
      factor to deduce their culpability qua the charge of murder of the
 F    deceased Gurunathan.
            9: The place of occurrence is a well, away from the residence
   of the deceased for which any definitive presumption against his wife
   Nathiya, as a conspirator of the crime, cannot be drawn without the risk
   of going wrong to cast a burden on her, as contemplated under Section
 G I 06 of the Evidence Act.
            The closest circumstance bearing on the incident is, discernible
   from the testimony of PW3 Packiammal who stated to have heard the
   shrieks of the deceased, followed by a loud sound of a fall inside the
   well. There is no evidence that immediately thereafter, the appellants
 H were seen in the vicinity of the well. Noticeably, the chappals of the
   NATHlYA v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                              845
 BAGAYAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE [AMITAVA ROY, J.)

deceased were found by the side of the well. The evidence of PW4 A
Dinakaran is, however, to the effect that when the dead body was
recovered thereafter from the well, both the appellants were present
and Nathiya, the wife of the deceased, was seen weeping by his side.
         The medical evidence does not refer to any external injury
indicative of use of any external force on the deceased, resulting in his      B
ante-mortem suffocation and loss of consciousness, to be thereafter
dispatched into the well. The possibility that the cause of death i.e.
grievous head injury, suffocation and heart failure were post fall
manifestations, also cannot be ruled out as the medical evidence admits
of such an eventuality as well.
                                                                               c
          The inexplicable omission on the part of the prosecution to
produce and prove the alleged confessional statements made by the
appellants and reduced into writing by PW9 and witnessed by PWl 0
substantially denudes its case ofnecessary credence to incriminate them.
The oral testimony of these witnesses to the effect that such confessional
statements had been recorded, ipso facto is of no consequence. Not D
only the contention that the supposed disclosure by the deceased to PWs
1 and 2 about the immoral conduct of the appellants is discardable being
hearsay in nature, deserves some reflection, it is noticeable that PW2, in
his cross-examination, did admit that he had not divulged the above fact
to the police. PW 10, as well, did concede that he had not revealed to E
anybody about the confessional statements made by the accused persons.
The recovery of a saree produced by Nathiya said to have been gifted
to her by Suresh and their joint photograph, in the attendant facts and
circumstances and in the face of the other evidence on record, does not
clinch the issue in favour of the prosecution.
                                                                            F
        10. The defence proposition that PWl being the cousin brother of
the deceased had framed the appellants so as to wrest his property in
absence of his legal heirs in the above factual premise, also cannot be
lost sight of. The imputation of sustained unchaste conduct and the
activities of the wife, if true, the possibility of the deceased committing
suicide as an extreme step in a unbearable anguished state of mind also G
cannot be wholly excluded.
       11. On an analysis of the overall fact situation, we are of the
considered opinion that the chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon
by the prosecution to prove the charge is visibly incomplete and incoherent
                                                                               H
846             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016) 8 S.C.R.


A     to permit conviction of the appellants on the basis thereof without any
      trace of doubt. Though the materials on record do raise a needle of
      suspicion towards them, the prosecution has failed to elevate its case
      from the realm of"may be true" to the plane of "must be true" as is
      indispensably required in law for conviction on a criminal charge. It is
B     trite to state that in a criminal trial, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot
      substitute proof.
            12. The classic enunciation of the law pertaining to circumstantial
      evidence, its relevance and decisiveness, as a proof of charge of a
      criminal offence, is amongst others traceable to the decision of this
C     Court in Sltaratl Birtl/1icltantl Sartla vs. Stale ofMaltarasltlra ( 1984)
      4 SCC 116. The relevant excerpts from paragraph 153 of the decision is
      assuredly apposite:
            "153.(2) The facts so established should be consistent
            only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused ... they
            should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
D           that the accused is guilty.
            (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
            tendency.

                       *              *              *
E           (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
            to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
            consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show
            that in all human probability the act must have been done
            by the accused."
 F              As recently as in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013) 12
      SCC 406 and Ra.ia \a; Rajentlra vs. State of Haryaya (2015) 11 SCC
      43, it has been propounded that in scrutinizing the circumstantial evidence,
      a court is required to evaluate it to ensure that the chain of events is
      established clearly and completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood
 G    of innocence of the accused. It was underlined that whether the chain
      is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating
      from the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be attempted.
      That injudgingthe culpability of the accused, the circumstances adduced
      when collectively considered, must lead only to the irresistible conclusion
      that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime alleged. That the
H
   NATHNA v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                             847
 BAGAYAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

circumstances established must be of a conclusive nature consistent A
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, was emphatically
propounded.
       13. Tested on the touchstone of the above judicially laid
parameters, defining the quality and content of the circumstantial
evidence, essential to bring home the guilt of an accused person on a B
criminal charge, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution, in
                   •
the case in hand, has failed to meet the same. The materials on record
admit of substantial doubt vis-a-vis the complicity of the appellants in the
crime.
       14. Having regard to the evidence adduced, it would be wholly        c
unsafe to sustain their conviction. They are thus entitled to the benefit
of doubt. The appeals thus succeed and are allowed. The bail bonds of
appellant Nathiya, who is on bail, stands discharged. Appellant Suresh
be released from the jail immediately, if not required in any other case.
                                                                             D
Nidhi Jain                                               Appeals allowed.