STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusMANGI LAL

                      (2009] 4 S.C.R. 49


                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                            A
                              v
                         MANG ILAL
              Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2002

                      MARCH 6, 2009
                                                                B
    [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                   SHARMA, JJ.]
     Penal Code, 1860-ss. 302 and 201 - Prosecution under
- Eye-witness to the incident turning hostile - Conviction on
the basis of circumstantial evidence and the circumstance in C
which the eye-witness resiled - Acquittal by High Court - On
appeal, held: Acquittal was justified - Prosecution has failed
to establish a complete chain of events.
     Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Reliance on -
                                                                0
Held: Conviction can be based on such evidence - Condition
precedent for reliance before conviction, discussed.
      Administration of Justice - Administration of criminal
;ustice - Police protection to witnesses - In a case of murder
- Held: Failure to provide police protection to the witnesses in E
such case would result in injustice to the victim.
      Respondent-accused was prosecuted for having
killed four persons. As per prosecution, there was an eye-
witness to the incident, but he turned hostile. Trial court
convicted the accused placing reliance on the F
circumstances viz. the accused had illicit relation with two
of the deceased (mother and daughter), there was
objection for the relation with the daughter; mother
deceased had made complaint on two occasions
regarding threat from accused to kill them; police G
statement of the eye-witness and the allegation of his
being beaten to dissuade him from supporting
prosecution case; police dog connecting the accused to

                             49                                 H
    50       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A the murder; blood stained nail clipping of accused taken
  immediately after his arrest; and recovery of articles at               •
  the instance of the accused. He was sentenced to death.
  High Court acquitted the accused holding that the eye-
  witness did not support prosecution case and that the
B circumstances did not establish a complete chain. Death
  reference was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
         Dismissing the appeal, the Court
         HELD: 1.1 It is true that four people had lost their lives
c and the accused does not seem to be a person of high                •
  morals, but that itself would not be a ground to record his
  conviction in the absence of reliable material and
  evidence. The circumstances highlighted by the
  prosecution are: (1) Illicit relations between deceased and
  accused; (2) Illicit relations between accused and other
D
  deceased (daughter of the first cir-ceased); (3) Complaints
  by mother deceased against accu:;ed regarding threat to             </

  kill; (4) Statement of PW-1 recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C.; (5)
  Beating up of PW-1 to dissuade him from giving evidence
  in support of prosecution; (6) Police dog traced the scent
E from the place of incident to the house of the accused;
  (7) Blood-stained nail clippings of accused taken upon
  medical examination immediately upon arrest; and (8)
  Recovery of blood-stained jersey of accused from septic
  tank in the house of the accused and burnt pant at his
F instance. [Para 5] [61-8-H]
        1.2 Instant case is not such, where the prosecution
  has established a complete chain of circumstances which
  rules out possibility of the involvement of any other person
G
  and unerringly points fingers at the accused to be the
  author of the crime. So far as circumstance as regards
  complaint made by the mother deceased a day before the              •
  incident, the trial Court observed that the prosecution
  failed to produce any evidence about the same. The police
  dog traced the scent from the place of incident to the
H
          STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MANGILAL             51


house of the accused is really no evidence in the eye of A
law. So far as the blood stains are concerned medical
examination revealed that the deceased ladies had 'B'
blood group while deceased boys had '0' blood group.
Merely because blood stains were found on the jersey of
the accused from septic tank in the house of the accused 8
and burnt pant, that is inconsequential since his blood
group is also 'B'. The trial court observed that the weapon
used was stone whereas the weapon recovered from the
septic tank is stated to be 'Kadbatodi'. No finger printing
was done. Though the blood of the accused was collected
the same was not sent for chemical analyzer. [Paras 15- C
16 and 17] [65-F; 66-C]
     . 2.1 Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when
all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found
                                                            0
to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or
the guilt of any other person. [Para 6] [62-A-B]
      2.2 The circumstances from which an inference as
to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be          E
closely connected with the principal fact sought to be
inferred from those circumstances. [Para 6] [62-C-D]
      2.3 ·Before conviction could be based on
circumstantial evidence, the conditions which must be
fully established, are: (1) the circumstances from which F
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or
'should' and not 'may be' established; (2) the facts so
established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they G
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should
be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should
exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved; and (5)there must be a chain of evidence so H
    52      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 4 S.C.R


A 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. [Para 13] [64-G-H; 65-A-D]
                                                                   '
                                                                       -
                                                                       '



        Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063,
B Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316;
  Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State
  of U. P v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224, Ba/winder Singh
  v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee
  v. State of M. P AIR 1989 SC 1890; Bhagat Ram v. State of
C Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State
  of A.P 1996 (10) SCC 193: Pada/a Veera Reddy v. State of
  A.P and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79, State of UP v. Ashok Kumar
  Srivastava 1992 Cr/.LJ 1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar
  and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad
  Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622;
D State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of
  Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. ?003 (11) SCC 261; Kusuma
  Ankama Rao v State of A.P 2008 (10) SCR 89; Manive/ and
  Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2009 (9) JT 31 - relied on.
        "Wills Circumstantial Evidence' by Sir Alfred Wills
E   (Chapter VI) - referred to.
        3. In a case of gruesome murder, police protection
  should be given to witnesses so that they can depose
  freely. Unless that is done result would be that justice
  would not be done to the victim. The accused persons
F with money and power can trample any witness who
  dares to depose against them. The victor will be injustice
  and it would be a slur on the criminal justice system if it
  so happens. [Para 18] [66-C-D]
                      Case Law Refernece
G        AIR 1977 SC 1063        Relied on.       Para 6
         AIR 1956 SC 316        Relied on.        Para 6
         AIR 1983 SC 446        Relied on.        Para 6
         AIR 1985 SC 1224        Relied on.       Para 6
H
           STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MANGILAL                   53


     AIR 1987 SC 350           Relied on.         Para 6           A
     AIR 1989 SC 1890          Relied on.         Para 6
     AIR 1954 SC 621           Relied on.         Para 6
     1996 (10) sec 193         Relied on.         Para 6
     AIR 1990 SC 79            Relied on.         Para 8           B
     1992 Crl. LJ 1104         Relied on.         Para 9
     AIR 1952 SC 343           Relied on.         Para 12
     AIR 1984 SC 1622          Relied on.         Para 13
     2003 (8) sec 180          Relied on.         Para 14          c
     2003 (11) sec 261         Relied on.         Para 14
     2008 (10) SCR 89          Relied on.         Para 14
     2009 (9) JT 31            Relied on.         Para. 14
     CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal               D
No. 23 of 2002
     From the Judgement and Order dated 04.05.2001 passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay Bench at Nagpur in
Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 1999.
     Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, for the Appellant.                 E
     U.U. Lalit, Nitin Sangra,Anil Mardikar, Mohan Moya!, Sitesh
Ketral, Prashani Kumar, for the Respondent.
     The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
     DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.                                        F
      1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of acquittal
passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur
Bench, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent while
answering negatively the reference made by the trial Court for
confirmation of death sentence in terms of Section 366 of the G
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1.973 (in short the 'Code'). The
respondent was found guilty of offence punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
the 'IPC'). Four persons lost their lives in the night between 19th
                        th
of August 1998 and 20 of August, 1998.                              H
    54        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A         2 The case of the prosecution is that one Mahadeo the
    husband of the first victim Durgabai lived at Katepurna. His        •
    brothers were also living in the same village though in different
    localities. Mahadeo committed suicide about three years prior
    to the incident. leaving his widow Durgabai. daughter Yogita
B   aged about 15 years, son Vinod aged about 12 years and the
    youngest Maroti aged about 10 years, to stay in the house
    belonging to Mahadeo. The house was situated near an open
    ground where weekly market is held. In front of the house, there
    was a Flour Mill and by one side of the house, there appeared
c   to be a row of petty shops, One Laxman Kakad (PW-1) was
    said to be residing by the side of the Flour Mill. He was a loner
    and an old man of 75 years of age, living on whatever help which
    he received from others by doing their petty jobs like taking the
    children to the school or doing such sundry works to provide
    him food and living in a small room. After the death of Mahadeo,
0
    his widow Durgabai and her three children were living in the
    house and there appeared to be no clear means of survival to
    these persons and from the evidence of P. Ramkrishna More
    (PW-3), the local Police Patil, Durgabai was known in the village
    as "quarterwali", thereby suggesting her association with
E   dealings in liquor, as could be popularly understood, together
    with people visiting her house because of such reputation of
    Durgabai. In this background, the prosecution alleged that the
    accused Mangilal, of the age of 30 years, developed illicit
    relations with Durgabai. The activity did not stop at that stage
F   because of the presence ofYogita, the first daughter of Durgabai.
    Slowly, during a span of couple of years, he was said to have
    developed illicit relations with Yogita and this was the aspect,
    which was alleged to have been a matter of disturbance to
    Durgabai. Though Durgabai tolerated the access of the accused
G   to her, the aspect of access further extending to Yogita, was
    unacceptable to her and she protested. It was retaliated by the
    accused in quarreling with her, which drove her to give a report
                                     1
    regarding that sometime on 20 h July, 1998 against the accused
    to the police. Her grievance was that the accused used to visit
H   her house and was unnecessarily creating quarrels and giving
           STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MANGILAL                    55
                  [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.)

threats to her life because of which she was required to give        A
report against him. The presence of Durgabai and her two sons
- Vinod and Maroti was a matter for irritation to the accused in
maintaining his amorous relations with Yogita. The prosecution
also adduced certain material to contend, as its case, that even
till the earlier day of the incident, Durgabai had a grievance to    B
make regarding the threats given by the accused to her life and
to the lives of her two sons. In this background, the incident of
murders in question occurred. During the eventful night, the
prosecution alleged, that Durgabai had taken care in asking
Laxman Kakad to be present in the Chapri' during the night as        c
she needed some support or protection because of
apprehension day and and accordingly alongwith her children
and Laxman they were all sleeping in the 'chapri' covered by
the tin shed during that night. Laxman was said to have woken
up on hearing the sound of something being heavily struck. He
                                                                     0
got up, and saw the accused present there. The accused
threatened him with consequences similar to the one in which
he was engaged. He was assaulting Durgabai and her children
and was killing them. Laxman saw this, however, due to fear
and the threats given by the accused, he had left the place and
gone away. In the next day morning, around 9.00 a.m., the local      E
Police Patil, who was on his usual way of taking round in the
village, came across a crowd gathered in front of the house of
Durgabai and villagers were looking in the direction of that
house, suggestive of some happening which attracted
Ramrkishna More (PW-3), the local Police Patil to approach           F
the place and to see the ghastly scene of the country cot, on
which Durgabai must have slept, lying with one of its supporting
raft broken and the four dead bodies lying there drenched in
blood. The country quilts, which were spread on the bed, were
also drenched with blood. The bodies of three children were          G-
lyinq on the floor by the side of the other cot, as there were two
cots; nearby them a heavy object like a grinding stone,
domestically used in the kitchen was seen. Neck of Durgabai
was seen to have not only suffered incised wound, but almost it
was on the verge of getting separated from rest of the body.         H
    56        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A   There were incised wounds on the heads of the children, though
    Yogita's face also seemed to have been smeared with earth               •
    and having sunk in the middle suggestive of a fact that it must
    have been smashed with heavy object. Having observed this,
    PW-3, Ramkrishna More, the Police Patil, telephoned by about
B   9.00 a.m. Police Station at Borgaon Manju, a place of about 8
    Kms away from Katepurna. But then by a return response, he
    was told to go to the police station and lodge his report.
    Accordingly, the Police Patil went to the Police Station and
    lodged his report Exhibit-15. By that time, the investigating
    officer - Police Inspector Tayde (PW 19) who seems to be the
c   main figure in investigating the crime and playing a role in
    collecting the evidence, had reached the spot. The Police Patil,
    after lodging the report returned to the spot. The report was acted
    upon by the police station, who registered a crime and then
    from the police station, the original complaint so also the opening
D
    of the case diary were despatched to the spot alongwith a
    Constable. At about 12.30 in the noon, Police Inspector Tayde
    appeared to have given a direction to hisAssistant-P.S.I. Pathan
    (P.W. 14) to make a search for the accused against whom
    suspicion was expressed in the F.l.R. Exhibit-15 and to bring
E   the accused before him. P.W.14- P.S.I. Pathan accordingly had
    a round in the small village when he came across the accused
    present at the local bus stand. The accused was then taken by
    P.S.I. Pathan before the Police Inspector who directed P.S.I.           •
    Pathan to take him to the police station, cause his arrest, get
F   him medically examined and to bring him back to the spot, which
    P.S.I. Pathan did. The accused was put under arrest by about
    1.35 p.m. by taking him to the police station. P.1. Tayde had
    also given instructions to collect the nail clippings of the accused,
    which was done by the Medical officer of Borgaon Manju, soon
G   after the arrest of the accused and the nail clippings so collected
    were then kept in a sealed bottle forwarded by the Medical officer
    to the Police Station for an eventual chemical analysis.
    Requisition to get him medically examined by the local Doctor
    of the Primary Health Centre at Borgaon Manju was given. The
H   doctor examined him, and issued a certificate that there were
               STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MANGILAL                      57
                      [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

    no marks of any fresh injury on the person of the accused. After       A
    the arrest panchnama which was already done and the opinion
    of Doctor in certifying that no injury mark on the person of the
    accused was seen by the Doctor, the accused was taken under
    arrest back to the spot at about 2.00 p.m. The inquest
    panchanarna was done and by the time the requisition sent for          B
    a dog squad appears to have worked and the dog squad from
    Amravati arrived at the spot via police station Borfegaon Manju.
    The accused was interrogated by Police Inspector Tayde. The
    dog squad was said to have worked in its own way. Smell of
    certain articles like a tumbler glass, a liquor bottle, small mirror   c
    like piece of glass from the spot was given to the dog and the
    dog was required to track the culprit. Accordingly, the dog was
    said to have tracked upto the house of the accused, entered it
    and then returned. Since many submissions have been made
    on the aspect of presence of accused and its effect on the dog         D
    squadding, it needs to be mentioned at this stage that the
    accused was present in the village during the time between 2.00
    p.m. to 5.00 p.m. Lipto which the recording of the memorandum
    and the seizure of jersey allegedly at the instance of the accused
    from out of the septic tank adjoining to his house was said to
    have been duly done. On the Memorandum statement, it was               E
    the case of the prosecution that accused showed the place near
    his house where he burnt remains of clothes alongwith the metal
    hook of pant were discovered so also the place of the septic
•
    tank adjoining to his house from which a jersey drenched in the
    water was removed by means of a hook and the rope and that             F
    jersey, on observing the same, appeared to have some stains
    of blood, which came to be seized before the panchas. All this
                      111
    took place on 20 August, 1998. Obviously, the steps were taken
    to forward the dead bodies for post mortem examination. The
    accused was then taken under arrest back to the police station.        G
    He was produced before the Magistrate and.remand was
    obtained against him for a police custody. During the course of
    his police custody, he was further said to have disclosed to the
    police the place where 'Kadbatodi' (Fodder Cutter) was kepU
    hidden. Since heavy submissions were made on this aspect as            H
    58        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009] 4 S.C.R


A to the purpose of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
   (in short the 'Evidence Act') the actual utterances of the accused.
                                                                         .
  the authenticity of what was disclosed and what was discovered
   and whether the entire process was voluntarily at the instance
  of the accused or was a foisted affair What the accused said
B assumed importance and, therefore, in describing the progress
  through which the case passed through, investigation steps
   seemed to have taken place in obtaining police custody, in
   stating certain grounds for so obtaining the police custody, in
   getting a clue as admitted by Police lnspectorTayde that during
c  interrogation the accused had given certain information to the
   police on 21st August, 1998 itself to enlighten the investigating
   machinery about the place where the weapon was kept hidden,
  viz. the same septic tank adjoining to the house of the accused.
   In respect of this information, criticism has been made on behalf
   of the accused regarding the steps which were taken during the
D
   investigation. But as a fact, the Police Inspector endeavoured
   to state that he learnt about this on interrogation on 23rd August
   1998, whereas a Memorandum under Section 27 of the
   Evidence Act seems to have been recorded on 24th August
   1998 pursuant to which the steps which, by that time were
E already taken in calling a municipal vehicle with a big ladder to
   get into it and to drain out the water by means of a motor pump,
   though in actuality the draining out of the water was not done,
   but by means of a ladder and by means of assistance of a              •
   sweeper P.W.10 Ramesh Saude, the weapon, which was said
F to be 'Kadbatodi' was recovered from the septic tank, in which
   there was obviously a drain water of some level. The septic tank
   had an adequate level of water in which the weapon allegedly
   recovered was said to be lying anj through the help of the
   sweeper the weapon was taken out. On observation, the
G prosecution alleges to have collected an evidence regarding
   traces of the blood stains on the handle at some portion where
   the blade is fixed to the handle, where there appeared a hole
   like portion. The weapon was allegedly seized in the presence
  .of panchas and sealed at the spot of the septic tank from where
H it was recovered. As a part of the further steps during the
           STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MANGILAL                     59
                  [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

investigation, the articles observed with stains of blood and         A
seized, namely the jersey, the weapon ('Kadbatodi'), nail
clippings, blood stained clothes seized from the bodies of
victims, samples of the blood of victims were all sent for chemical
analysis on 4th October, 1998. Prior to that, Dr. Nikam (PW9)
who had performed the post mo rt examination on the four dead         B
bodies, was required to forward his opinion on observing the
weapon, whether the incised wounds observed by him could
be caused by that weapon. As a matter of fact, having regard to
the ordinary observations in relation to the weapon and the
description of the injuries which were sustained by the victims,      c
we find the circumstance to be so clean enough, that the weapon
if used can cause such injuries. Dr. Nikam, attached to the
General Hospital at Akola, appeared to be on leave for some
days although a requisition was said to have been sent to him
on 29th August 1998. Dr. Nikam seems to have taken place on
10th September, 1998 and Dr. Nikam opined that the weapon             D
could cause those incised wounds and by this weapon the fatal
injuries sustained by the victims were possible. During the course
of investigation, it appears that the sample of the accused's
blood was also collected so also the sample of his sperms. The
blood groups, with which the court is concerned, are of three         E
categories, viz, the blood groups of the victims and the blood
group of the accused. The prosecution did not lead any evidence
with respect to the blood group of the accused. The accused
contended that his blood group was "B" positive and in his
examination under Section 313 of the Code, asserted this fact         F
in giving a written statement and also producing some copies
of some certificates and the blood group of the victims was
classified by the Chemical Analyser to be "B" in relation to victim
Durgbai and Yogita and "O" in relation to victims Vined and
Maroti. Chemical Analyser certified that the weapon 'Kadbatodi'       G
was noticed to have stains of blood group "B". The jersey was
shown to have stains of blood of blood group "B". Nail clippings
were found to contain remains of blood of blood group "B". On
the strength of the collection of evidence of Laxman Kakad, the
 eye witness and the four circumstances which have been               H
    60        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A agitated and finally relied upon by the prosecution to bring its
  case viz, motive to commit murders founded on illicit relations
  of the accused with Durgabai and later also with Yogita. Quarrels
  and obstruction or resistance in maintaining relations with Yogita
  driving the accused to form a motive and then the actual
B incriminating objects such as nail clippings, jersey and
  'Kadbatodi' discovered at the instance of the information given
  by the accused, about his knowledge and the place where the
  articles were kept and his conduct together was said to have
  enabled the prosecution to file charge sheet against the accused
C for committing the two crimes in question.

          Eventually, after initiation of the prosecution upon a charge
    sheet, the committal of the case to the Court of Sessions. framing
    of a charge for the two offences, trial was held.

        As the case rested on circumstantial evidence the trial
D
  Court analysed the various circumstances and came to the
  conclusion that the respondent accused was responsible for
  the murder of four persons and accordingly awarded the death
  sentence. The respondent questioned his conviction while
  reference was made for confirmation of death sentence awarded
E by the trial Court. As noted above, the High Court found that the
  circumstances do not make out a case for the conviction. The
  High Court found that though PW-1 the eye witness resiled from
  the statement made during investigation the natural presumption
  was that he on account of the side of the defence must have
F been subjected to threaten to his life as a result of which he did
  not ultimately support the prosecution case. The High Court found
  that once PW-1 did not support the prosecution version the case
  rests on circumstantial evidence. The High Court found that the
  circumstances highlighted did not establish a complete chain
G and, therefore. directed acquittal as noted above.
         3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
    appellant-State submitted that in a case of such gruesome
    murder the High Court ought not to have interfered when the
H   most important witness did not support the prosecution version.
                    STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MANGILAL                    61
                           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

         It was writ large that the accused was threatening him and/or        A
         had managed to get him to their side. In that background the
         trial-Court's judgment was justified.
             4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
         supported the judgment of the High _Court.
                                                                              B
                5. It is true that four people had lost their lives and the
         accused does not seem to be a person of high morals, but that
         itself would not be a ground to record his conviction in the
         absence of reliable material and evidence. The circumstances
         highlighted by the prosecution are as follows:                       c
              1.   llicit Relations between deceased Durgabai and
                   accused.

              2.   Illicit relations between accused and Durgabai's
                   daughter Yogita (15 years old).
                                                                              D
              3.   Complaint made by deceased Durgabai on 20.7.1998
                   against accused regarding threat to kill.
              4.   Complaint made by deceased Durgabai one day
                   before the incident regarding threat by accused.
                                                                              E
              5.   Statement of PW-1 Laxman recorded under Section
                   164 of the Code.

    ..        6. Beating up of PW-1 Laxman by Prakash Bole to
                   dissuade him from giving evidence in support of
                   prosecution.                                               F

              7.   Police dog traced the scent from the place of incident
                   to the house of the accused thereby connecting the
                   accused to the ghastly murders.
              8.   Blood stained nail clippings of accused taken upon         G
                   medical examination immediately upon arrest.
              9.   Recovery of blood stained jersey of accused from
                   septic tank in the house of the accused and burnt
.                  pant at his instance.
                                                                              H
    62        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A         6. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that
    where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
    inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
    facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
    innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See
B   Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu
    and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316);
    Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State
    of U.P v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Ba/winder
    Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar
c   Chatterjee v. State of M. P. (Al R 1989 SC 1890). The
    circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the
    accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
    and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal
    fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat
    Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down
0
    that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from
    circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must
    be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring
    the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
E        7. We may also make a reference to a decision of this
    Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P (1996) 10
    sec 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
         "In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled
         law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of
F        guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
         circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all
         the circumstances should be complete and there should
         be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved
         circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis
G        of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
         innocence .... ".
       8. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. (AIR
  1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon
  circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following
H tests:
                           STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V MANGILAL                       63
                                  [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

                    "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is         A
                    sought to be dr,awn, must be cogently and firmly
                    established;
                     (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
                     unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
                                                                                       B
                    (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a
                    chain so complete that there is no escape from the
                    conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
     t
     ~              committed by the accused and none else; and
          ~




                    (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain                c
                    conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation

-                   of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused
                    and such evidence should not only be consistent-with the
                    guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his
                    innocence.                                                         D
         )._
                     9. In State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ
....:t         1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in
               evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied
               on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of
               the accused must be accepted: It was also pointed out that the          E
               circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully
               established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
               established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
         "
                     10. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills'                F
               Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following
               rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial
               evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference
               must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected
               with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on
                                                                                       G
          ~    the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal
  "('
               accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial
               evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature
               of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt,
               the inculpatory facts must be. incompatible with the innocence
                                                                                       H
    64        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A   of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other
    reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any     •     ~-'"-''



    reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of
    right to be acquitted".

         11. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely
B on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-
    stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by
    the this Court as far back as in 1952.

          12. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of               ~
                                                                         ;.
c   Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed
    thus:

         "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence
         is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which           .....-
         the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first
D        instance be fully established and all the facts so
         established should be consistent only with the hypothesis       ~     I
         of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should
         be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should                J
         be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
E        proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a
         chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
         reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
         innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
         that within all human probability the act must have been        .,,
F        done by the accused."

       13. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad
  Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC
  1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it
  has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that
G the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution
  cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions               •     'r
  precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be                 ,,
  based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.
  They are:
H
                 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MANGILAL                    65
                        [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

           (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt        A
~·
           is to be drawn should be fully established. The
           circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may
           be' established;

           (2) the facts so established should be consistent only
           with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to     B
           say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
           except that the accused is guilty;

 i         (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
           and tendency;                                                   c
           (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
           the one to be proved; and

           (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
           to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
                                                                           D
           consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
t-
           show that in all human probability the act must have been
           done by the accused.
           14. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan
      v. Raja Ram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir           E
      Singh and Anr (2003 (11) SCC 261), Kusuma Ankama Rao v
      State of A.P (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of on
      7.7.2008) and Manive/ and Ors. v. State of Tami Nadu (Criminal
..,
      Appeal No.473 of 2001 disposed of on 8.8.2008).

            15. So far as circumstance No.4 is concerned the trial Court   F
      observed that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence
      about the same. The police dog traced the scent from the place
      of incident to the house of the accused is really no evidence in
      the eye of law. So far as the blood stains are concerned medical
      examination revealed that the ladies had 'B' blood group while       G
 •    boys had 'O' blood group. Merely because blood stains were
      found on the jersey of the accused from septic tank in the house
      of the accused and burnt pant, that is inconsequential since as
      noted above his blood group is also 'B'. The trial Court observed
      that the weapon used was stone whereas the weapon recovered          H
                                         •

    66        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A from the septic tank is stated to be 'Kadbatodi'. Unfortunately,
  no finger printing was done.                                              •
                                                                                -
          16. It is noted that though the blood of the accused was
    collected the same was not sent for chemical analyzer.

B         17. In view of the position in law highlighted above it cannot
    be said to be a case where the prosecution has established a
    complete chain of circumstances which rules out possibility of
    the involvement of any other person and unerringly points fingers
    at the accused to be the author of the crime.
c       18. It needs no emphasis that in a case of gruesome
  murder, police protection should be given to witnesses so that
  they can depose freely. Unless that is done result would be that
  justice would be done to the victim. The accused persons with
  money and power can trample any witness who dares to depose
D against them. The victor will be injustice and it would be a slur
  on the criminal justice system if it so happens. In view of the
  above conclusions, the appeal is dismissed.
                                                                           ..
    K.K.T.                                          Appeal dismised.