SURESH AND ANRversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                         [2018] 9 S.C.R. 959                             959


                        SURESH AND ANR                                   A
                                  v.
                      STATE OF HARYANA
             (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1445-1446 of 2012)
                          AUGUST 21, 2018                                B
[N.V. RAMANA AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,JJ.]
      Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.34 – Murder – Circumstantial
evidence – Political rivalry – Incident on election day – Prosecution
case was that victim-deceased was election agent of the losing
                                                                         C
candidate – Accused A-1 and A-2, both supporters of losing
candidate came to the house of deceased and asked him to
accompany them on the pretext that the losing candidate was falsely
implicated in a criminal case and, so they would also falsely involve
the winning candidate in a counter case – On the way, A-3 also
joined them – At 4 a.m., PW-14 while waiting for conveyance saw          D
A-1 to A-3 and the deceased going in auto rickshaw – The deceased
was taken to abandoned house where he was shot by A-1 and A-2 –
Thereafter A-1 and A-2 took the deceased to hospital where he died
– A-2 lodged FIR narrating that while they were going on foot, the
members of the winning party fired a shot at them which hit the
                                                                         E
victim – Ten days after the incident, all the accused-appellants
confessed their guilt before PW-16 – Trial court convicted the
accused persons – High Court upheld the order of trial court – On
appeal, held: It is well settled that motive is an important aspect in
circumstantial evidence case – In this case, it is not convincing that
accused would kill their own person with a motive to foist a false       F
case on the son of the winning candidate – There were material
improvements in the statements of the wife of the deceased, which
made her statement unreliable and doubtful – The conduct of the
wife of deceased in keeping quiet and not stopping her husband
from accompanying the accused even though knowing well that
                                                                         G
her husband was being taken for shooting somebody, does not fit
with the natural human behavior to inspire any confidence – There
was no direct evidence which led the prosecution to clearly prove
that deceased was shot at the abandoned house as alleged – Thus,
prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt –
Conviction set aside.                                                    H
                                   959
960            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A           Witnesses: Chance witness – Evidentiary value of – Held:
      Generally, the chance witness, who reasonably explains his presence
      in the named location at the relevant time, may be taken into
      consideration and should be given due regard, if his version inspires
      confidence and the same is supported by surrounding
      circumstances – The evidence of a chance witness requires a very
B
      cautious and close scrutiny – A chance witness must adequately
      explain his presence at the place of occurrence – Deposition of a
      chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains
      doubtful should be discarded.
            Witnesses: Interested witness – Although it is well settled that
C     mere relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to discredit
      a witness, however, in the instant case, the wife of the deceased
      was an interested witness due to earlier enmity with the accused –
      Therefore, her evidence did not inspire confidence to rely on the
      same – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34.
D           Disposing of the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts
      are called upon to make inferences from the available evidences,
      which may lead to the accused’s guilt. In majority of cases, the
      inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from
E     its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link
      is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof.
      Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place
      so as to fit the case within the parameters of ‘chain link theory’
      and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable
F     doubt. It is well settled that motive is an important aspect in
      circumstantial evidence case. In this case, the motive has an
      important role as this case is based on circumstantial evidence,
      motive herein forms one of the intermediate fact/circumstances.
      The motive of killing deceased was to foist a false case on the
      son of the winning candidate. If the motive was to foist a false
G     case, then it is quite strange to believe that the accused went to
      the extent of killing their own person who was supporter of losing
      candidate to avenge the loss in the elections. Even if the motive
      is taken to be proved, then this too only forms one of the
      circumstances for adducing the guilt of the accused. [Paras 39,
H     40] [979-D-F, G; 980-C-D]
         SURESH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                          961


      Prakash v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC                       A
      1474:[2013] 2 SCR 458; Hanumant and Others v. State
      of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343: [1952] SCR
      1091; Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra AIR
      1973 SC 55; Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay
      AIR 1960 SC 500:[1960] SCR 460; Deonandan
                                                                      B
      Mishra v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 801:[1955] SCR
      570; Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore AIR 1960 SC
      29; Charan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1967
      SC 520; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
      Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622:[1985] 1 SCR 88 –
      relied on                                                       C
      Peacock v. The King 13 CLR 619 – referred to.
      A Practical treatise on the law of evidence, and digest of
      proofs, in civil and criminal proceedings (vol. I, 4th Eds.,
      1876) by Thomas Starkie; Introduction to Indian Evidence
      Act, 1872; Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (1955) –                 D
      referred to.
       2. The evidence of PW-13 (wife of the deceased) portrays
that there were material improvements in her statements, which
makes her statement unreliable and doubtful. The vindictive
statements which were made during the cross examination, clearly      E
bars from taking her testimony into consideration. There is no
dispute that there was prior enmity between the wife and the
accused appellants, which makes her statements unreliable. It is
revealed from her evidence that, even though she knew that her
husband was taken for shooting somebody, she kept quiet and           F
did not stop her husband from accompanying the accused. Such
behavior would be suspicious as it does not fit with the natural
human behavior to inspire any confidence. Although it is well
settled that mere relationship with the deceased will not be
sufficient to discredit a witness, in the present circumstances, it
is apparent that the wife was an interested witness due to earlier    G
enmity between the accused. Hence, this witness does not inspire
confidence to rely on the same. [Paras 41, 42] [980-E-H; 981-A]
      3. Generally, the chance witness, who reasonably explains
his presence in the named location at the relevant time, may be
                                                                      H
962            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A     taken into consideration and should be given due regard, if his
      version inspires confidence and the same is supported by
      surrounding circumstances. The evidence of a chance witness
      requires a very cautious and close scrutiny. PW-14 has not
      explained as to why he was standing near the Bristol Prison so
      early at 4:00 AM in the morning of a peak winter day, when the
B
      first bus to the village was at 7:00 AM. Moreover, it is doubtful
      that A-3 would have brandished a gun, while travelling in the
      auto-rickshaw. It is suspicious that even after getting to know
      that victim-deceased was killed at Hisar, PW-14 did not reveal to
      anybody that he saw the deceased in the company of the accused-
C     appellant in the morning travelling towards Hisar. Indeed, it is
      quite unbelievable that a man, during peak of north Indian winter,
      would wait at 4 A.M for a bus, which is scheduled to leave at 7:00
      AM morning. These suspicious circumstances impugn the
      general trustworthiness of PW-14. Therefore, this Court cannot
      accept the evidence of this witness as being credible. [Paras 44,
D
      45] [981-C-D, F-H]
            Satbir v. Surat Singh (1997) 4 SCC 192: [1997] 2 SCR
            1; Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 11 SCC
            253; Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC
            632; Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 9 SCC
E           650 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 786 – relied on.
            Re Periyaswami Moopan, AIR 1931 Mad. 177 –
            approved
             4. PW-16 narrated that the three accused met him in the
F     bus stop when they confessed to their crime individually. The
      said extra-judicial confession against the co-accused needs to be
      taken into consideration if at all it is one, only if other independent
      evidence on record have established the basic premise of the
      prosecution. The confession of the co-accused cannot be solely
      utilized to convict a person, when the surrounding circumstances
G     are improbable and creates suspicion.[Paras 46, 47][982-A, E-F]
            Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184
            : [1964] SCR 623 – relied on
            5. The FSL report forms part of the evidence, which is shown
      to point out that the crime had taken place in the house at Adarsh
H
         SURESH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                         963


Nagar, Hisar and gun of 0.15 bore belonging to A-3 was used for      A
the same. The prosecution was expected to examine the author
of the report, and non-examination of the same is a fatal error in
the case at hand. Moreover, at the scene of occurrence, there
was no blood or foot marks found, which is apparent from the
evidence of PW-8. There was no direct evidence which led the
                                                                     B
prosecution to clearly prove that deceased was shot at Adarsh
Nagar in Hisar. Even the circumstantial evidence which is led,
has gaps in between. There was a big hiatus between the time
the accused left the village and the accused-appellants were seen
in the Hospital, at Hisar. Neither the intermediate facts are
established with certainty, nor the case as a whole is established   C
beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 48, 51] [982-H; 983-A-B; 984-
D-E]
     Latesh v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2018 SC 659 :
     [2018] 1 SCR 709 – relied on
                      Case Law Reference                             D

[1960] SCR 460                     relied on         Para 33
[1952] SCR 1091                    relied on         Para 35
[1955] SCR 570                     relied on         Para 36
                                                                     E
AIR 1960 SC 29                     relied on         Para 36
AIR 1967 SC 520                    relied on         Para 37
[1985] 1 SCR 88                    relied on         Para 38
[2013] 2 SCR 458                   relied on         Para 38
                                                                     F
AIR 1973 SC 55                     relied on         Para 40
[1997] 2 SCR 1                     relied on         Para 44
(2004) 11 SCC 253                  relied on         Para 44
(2004) 10 SCC 632                  relied on         Para 44
                                                                     G
[2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 786            relied on         Para 44
AIR 1931 Mad. 177                  approved          Para 47
[1964] SCR 623                     relied on         Para 47
[2018] 1 SCR 709                   relied on         Para 51         H
964            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
      Nos. 1445-1446 of 2012
             From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2012 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No.157-DB/2002
      and Crl. Appeal No.273-DB/2002
B                                     WITH
             Criminal Appeal No.1458 of 2012
             Ms. Anjana Parkash, Sr. Adv., Rishi Malhotra, Rajat Kapoor, Dr.
      Monika Gusain, C. Soloman, Ram Kumar Tripathi, Ms. Amandeep Kaur,
      Anil Kumar Tandale, Himanshu Gupta, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advs. with
C     her for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. These appeals by special leave petitions,
      are preferred by two accused persons, namely Sobhat Singh and Suresh,
      against the conviction imposed by the High Court and the consequential
D     acquittal of other persons, namely Dharampal and Umed Singh, sons of
      Beg Raj and Dharambir, passed by the High Court of Punjab and
      Haryana in Crl. Appeal No. 157-DB of 2002, 273-DB of 2002, 920-SB
      of 2002, 751-DBA of 2002 and Crl. Revision No. 907 of 2004. Facts
      being connected and issues being similar, we would like to deal with
      these appeals by a common judgment.
E
             2. Few facts which are necessary for the disposal of these cases
      are that a panchayat election was held on 15.12.1994, in the village
      Sundawas, where there were two major contestants namely Maha Singh
      and Dharampal son of Beg Raj. Deceased Chander Bhan was an election
      agent for the losing candidate Maha Singh. It is necessary to note that
F
      there was a quarrel including gun shots being fired at around 11 A.M, on
      the day of election between both factions, as a result of which supporters
      of Dharampal son of Beg Raj (winning candidate) sustained injuries. In
      this context, a FIR No. 733 of 1994 was registered against Maha Singh
      (losing candidate) and one Darya under Sections 307 read with 34 of
G     Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for brevity]
      and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
            3. Later, during the intervening night of 15th and 16thDecember
      of 1994, Dharampal alias Dharam son of Nanak Ram [accused A-1],
      Sobhat Singh [accused A-2], both being supporters of losing candidate
H     Maha Singh, came to the house of Chander Bhan, on the pretext that
          SURESH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                965
                   [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

since Maha Singh had lost the election and was involved in a criminal        A
case, they should falsely implicate Dharampal son of Beg Raj also, by
registering a counter case against him. On this pretext, they accompanied
Chander Bhan to Hisar. On their way, one Suresh [accused A-3] is
supposed to have joined them.
      4. One Umed Singh son of Mahi Ram [PW-14], while waiting               B
nearBorstal Jail, Hisar for a conveyance at 4:00 A.M on 16.12.1994
(morning) had seen A-1, A-2, Chander Bhan and A-3 going in an auto
rickshaw. It is the prosecution’s version that all of them went to an
abandoned house in Adarsh Nagar at Hisar, wherein Chander Bhan
(deceased) was shot by the aforesaid accused.
                                                                             C
       5. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2took injured Chander Bhanto the City
Civil Hospital, Hisar for treatment. It is alleged that in the meanwhileA-
3 tried to hide the gun. It is born from the record that Chander Bhan
succumbed to his injuries 20 minutes after he was admitted to the
aforesaid Hospital on 16.12.1994.
                                                                             D
       6. Thereafter, accused A-2 went to the Police Station, Sadar
Hisar, for registration of a complaint against Umed Singh son of Beg
Raj, Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj [Sarpanch] and Dharambir for the
death of Chander Bhan. Accordingly, FIR was filed before the police
being FIR No. 736/ 1994, dated 16.12.1994, based on the accused A-2.
                                                                             E
       7. As per the narration of accused A-2,on 16.12.1994, at about
4:30 A.M, the ChanderBhan (deceased), A-2 and A-1were going to
Chandigarh on foot. On reaching a few kilometers ahead of the village
Sundawas, they spotted a jeep coming towards them. One of the
occupants Umed Singh son of Beg Raj, raised lalkara that enemies
were going and they should be taught a lesson for helping Maha Singh in      F
the elections. Dharampal and Umed Singhsons of Beg Raj and Dharambir
alighted from the jeep and Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj, who was armed
with a pistol, shot Chander Bhan in his stomach and ran away. It is
alleged that A-1 and A-2, who escaped the firing, rushed Chander Bhanto
the City Civil Hospital, Hisar, where he succumbed to his injuries.          G
       8. The case was investigated by I.O. Bhim Singh [PW-15], who
reached the spot of the alleged occurrence as per the narration of accused
A-2. However, he could not trace any incriminating material as alleged.
Being suspicious of the version of accused A-2, the investigating police,
started to investigate from different angles.
                                                                             H
966            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A            9. On 25.12.1994, all the accused-appellants contacted one Zile
      Singh [PW-16]and confessed their guilt before him. To put the gist of
      their extra-judicial confessions, it may be noted that the accused stated
      to Zile Singh (PW-16) that having the motive to file a counter case
      against Dharampal son of Beg Raj, the Sarpanch, the accused-appellants
      along with Chander Bhan reached an abandoned house in Adarsh Nagar,
B
      Hisar and Suresh [A-3] fired a shot at Chander Bhanin the house at
      Adarsh Nagar. Thereupon accused A-3fled away with the gun. Later,
      accused A-1 and A-2took Chander Bhan to the hospital and registered a
      false complaint against Dharampal son of Beg Raj, Dharambir and Umed
      Singh son of Beg Raj under Section 302, IPC.
C            10. It may be noted that Zile Singh produced all the accused before
      the Police and thereafter the accused identified the place of occurrence.
      By virtue of such disclosure statements made by the individual accused
      persons, the police are alleged to have recovered a licensed gun,
      cartridges, pellets, some concrete material from the khurli found in the
D     house at Adarsh Nagar, Hisar. Based on the aforesaid complaint, Bhim
      Singh, S.I to the P.S Sadar, Hisar, registered a case under Sections25,
      30, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, being FIR No. 743 [Ex. PZ/1], against
      Lachman Singh [A-4] and A-3.
             11. After the completion of the investigation, charge-sheets came
E     to be filed in the Court against the accused A-1, A-2 and A-3for offences
      under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and accordingly, were
      summoned by the Addl. Sessions Judge on 10.10.1995 [in Criminal Case
      No. 76-1-0802 of 1995 (Sessions Case No. 60 of 1995 in Sessions
      Trial No. 22 of 1995)].In a connected case of FIR No. 743, the accused
      A-3 and Lachman (A-4) were being tried for usage of fire arms, which
F     was consolidated with the main case, by order dated 19.09.1999 and
      both the cases were tried together. During the trial, the Prosecution
      examined 17 witnesses and the Defense examined 4 witnesses in the
      Sessions Case No. 60 of 1995. It may be noted here that the accused
      examined themselves as defense witnesses under Section 315 of Code
G     of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [herein after referred as ‘CrPC’ for
      brevity].
             12. The Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1995 in Sessions
      Trial No. 22 of 1995, by order dated 12.02.2002, found the accused
      guilty of committing the crime and convicted them for the offences
H     punishable as under-
         SURESH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                             967
                  [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

                                                                         A
   ACCUSED         CHARGES                 CONVICTION
                   S. 302/34     RI for Life and fine of Rs 5,000.
    Sobhat
                      IPC        In default, to suffer RI for 6
  Singh [A-2]
                                 months
                     [1] S.      [1] RI for Life and fine of Rs          B
                  302/34 IPC     5,000. In default, to suffer RI for
                   [2] S. 25     6 months.
  Suresh [A-
                   Arms Act      [2] RI for 1 year a nd fine of Rs
      3]
                                 500, In default, to undergo RI for
                                 15 days.
                                 Sentence to run concurrently.           C
   Lachman          S. 30,       Fine of Rs 1,000. In default, to
    [A-4]          Arms Act      suffer RI for 15 days.


It may be noted, that during the trial, accused A-1 died and the trial
against him got abated. The Trial Court, held the accused guilty, and    D
reasoned as under-
  a)   The motive is proved, wherein the crime was staged so as to
       falsely implicate Sarpanch Dharampal belonging to opposite
       political faction.
                                                                         E
  b)   That the accused portrayed a fake story and filed a FIR against
       Dharampal, Umed Singh sons of Beg Raj and Dharambir alleging
       that they have murdered Chander Bhan. However, no evidence
       was found against Dharampal, Umed and Dharambir at the place
       of occurrence as described by accused A-2.
                                                                         F
  c)   There was no motive for Dharampal, Umed Singh and Dharambir
       to murder Chander Bhan. Rather, a motive exists on the part of
       the accused, since their candidate had lost the election.
  d)   Inference was drawn that the probability of causing injuries to
       Chander Bhan by A-1 and A-2was relatively higher.
                                                                         G
  e)   That PW-14, Umed Singh son of Mahi Ram, had seen the accused
       with the deceased early in the morning when they had a small
       conversation and that the Umed Singh (PW-14) had noticed that
       Suresh was holding a single barrel gun.

                                                                         H
968            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A       f)    That the version of accused A-2 was not tenable due to many
              contradicting circumstances.
        g)    That the accused had confessed their crime before Zile Singh
              (PW-16), who later produced the accused before the Police on
              25.12.1994.
B       h)    That the disclosure statements made by the accused appellants
              herein, before the police, led to the recovery of the licensed gun
              and pellets.
        i)    The FSL Report concludes that the pellets which were recovered
              from the Khurli as per such disclosure were similar to those
C             found in the dead body.
        j)    The Post-mortem report confirms the death to have been caused
              due to hemorrhage and shock due to gunshot injuries.
             13. Aggrieved by the fact that the complainant was himself shown
D     as an accused by the investigating authority, A-2 filed a complaint before
      the Magistrate against the Dharambir, Umed Singh son of Beg Raj and
      Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj, on the facts as revealed by accused A-2 in
      FIR No. 736 dated 16.12.1994.
             14. Accordingly, the Magistrate separately took cognizance and
      committed the case to the Sessions Court against Dharambir, Umed
E
      Singh son of Beg Raj and Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj, on 25.01.1997 [in
      Complaint Case No. 95-1 of 1995 (Sessions case No. 62 of 1997]
      under Sections 302 read with 34 of IPC. Further by order dated
      05.03.1997, the Sessions Judge ordered the trial of all the cases to take
      place simultaneously. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to
F     be tried.
            15. In Sessions case No. 62 of 1997, the Sessions Court by order,
      dated 12.02.2002, acquitted Dharampal son of Beg Raj, Umed Singh
      son of Beg Raj and Dharambir on the following reasons-
        a)    That prosecution failed to establish motive on the part of accused-
G             Dharampal son of Beg Raj, as he has already won the election.
        b)    That accused persons came at midnight - 15.12.1994 -16.12.1994,
              called the deceased and told him that they had to shoot somebody
              so as to falsely implicate Sarpanch Dharampal son of Beg Raj in
              a case as corroborated by the evidence of DW-1 (Kamla).
H
       SURESH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                 969
                [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

c)   That the story of the prosecution that the deceased was shot on       A
     the road at a distance of 1-1/2 K.M. from village by the accused
     Dharampal son of Beg Raj is uncorroborated in the absence of
     any incriminating evidence in the said crime scene, as supported
     by the evidence of DW-5 Bhim Singh.
d)   That DW-2 Umed Singh corroborated that on 16.12.1994 at about         B
     4:30 A.M. while waiting for conveyance to go to his village he
     had seen Sobhat Singh, Dharampal son of Nanak Ram and the
     Suresh who was carrying a single barrel gun along with the
     deceased in an auto-rickshaw.
e)   The complainant had taken deceased to the Hospital at 6: 30           C
     AM. In cross-examination Sobhat Singh (PW-4/A-2) and
     Dharampal (PW-5/A-1) could not explain when the deceased
     received injuries or why did they not take the deceased to the
     nearby hospital.
f)   That complainants further failed to explain in their cross-           D
     examination how the three-wheeler appeared merely within five-
     minutes to take them to the Hospital at Hisar.
g)   The evidence of PW5-Dharampal son of Nanak Ram, is
     contradictory to PW-4 (Shobat Singh [A-2]) as to how they took
     the deceased to the hospital.                                         E
h)   That the complainants failed to state the number of vehicle, driver
     of the vehicle in their cross-examination. They have also failed
     to explain why they did not immediately report the matter in the
     village and to the family members of the deceased when they
     were just at a distance of 1-1/2 km from the village.                 F
i)   That extra-judicial confession was made before DW-3 (Zile
     Singh).
j)   That the gun recovered in the instant case was the gun belonging
     to complainant Suresh [A-3] and FSL report available on record
     proves that the pellets found in the body of the deceased were        G
     similar to those fired from that gun.
k)   Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove a case beyond
     reasonable doubt against the accused. So, all the accused were
     acquitted of the charge against them.
                                                                           H
970            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A           16. Aggrieved by the judgments of the Trial Court, in Session Case
      No. 60, accused A-2, A-3 and A-4filed Criminal Appeal No. 273-DB,
      157-DB, 920-SB respectively before the High Court. On the other hand,
      accused A-2 filed a Criminal Appeal No. 751-DBA of 2002, against the
      acquittal, of Dharampal son of Beg Raj, Umed Singh son of Beg Raj and
      Dharambir, passed by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 62 of
B
      1997. It may be noted that the High Court clubbed all the appeals and
      dismissed them through a common impugned judgment dated 03.01.2012.
      The High Court had further directed accused A-2 and A-3 to pay a sum
      of Rs. One Lac as damages to Smt. Kam
            17. la and her two children. The High Court while upholding the
C     conviction emphasized following grounds-
        a)   That it was admitted by accused A-2 and A-1 that they had
             called for Chander Bhanat his house, in the presence of his wife,
             on 16.12.1994.
D       b)   That the evidence produced by the I.O indicates that the accused
             took Chander Bhan to a room in Adarsh Nagar, Hisar, where he
             was shot by accused A-3 using his single barrel gun.
        c)   The accused-appellants had confessed to their crime, which led
             to the recovery of certain incriminating articles.
E       d)   Sufficient evidence is on record like recovery of pellets, gun and
             some concrete material etc. to prove that Chander Bhan was
             shot inside that Kotha (Room) by the accused and not by the
             other gang, as alleged.
        e)   There was a crystal-clear motive on the part of the accused A-
F            2to commit such crime so as to implicate Dharampal son of Beg
             Raj (Sarpanch) in a false case.
        f)   Apart from the testimony of wife-Kamla and the recovery of
             the incriminating materials, the evidence of PW 14 (Umed Singh),
             who deposed that he had seen the accused along with Chander
G            Bhan (deceased) earlier that morning with Suresh was also a
             major circumstance going against the accused.
        g)   Lastly, the extra judicial confession made before Zile Singh (PW-
             16), is found to be true and voluntary and since PW-16 is an
             independent witness, his evidence cannot be doubted.
H
         SURESH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                 971
                  [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

  h)   The chain of circumstances are complete so as to bring home           A
       the guilt of the accused.
  i)   Further, the gun used was a licensed gun which belonged to
       Lachman, father of A-3, who had allowed the gun to be taken
       from his custody and misused by his son. Hence, the conviction
       under Arms Act was also justified.                                    B
       18. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by
the High Court, accused A-2and A-3 have preferred Criminal Appeal
No (s). 1445-1446 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2868-2869
of 2012) in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1995 in Sessions Trial No. 22 of
1995. Further accused A-2 preferred a Criminal Appeal, being Criminal        C
Appeal No. 1458 of 2012 (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 2926 of 2012),
against the acquittal of Dharampal son of Beg Raj, Umed Singh son of
Beg Raj and Dharambir in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1997 in Sessions
Trial No. 97 of 1997.
      19. Learned senior counsel, Ms. Anjana Prakash, appearing on           D
behalf of the appellant accused has mainly contended as under-
  a)   That the case involves no direct evidence and the chain of
       circumstantial evidence is not complete; therefore, the conviction
       of the appellants on the basis of unfounded evidence should not
       be sustained.                                                         E
  b)   That PW-13 (wife of the deceased), when materially confronted,
       denied the statement that she had stated to the police that accused
       A-1and appellant accused A-2had told the deceased that they
       had to fire a shot at somebody to implicate Sarpanch Dharampal
       son of Beg Raj.                                                       F
  c)   That PW-14 presence at spot is doubtful. He made out an illogical
       story that while waiting for conveyance to go to his village at
       4:00 AM, he had seen the appellant and Dharampal with the
       deceased. But in Cross examination he was not able to explain
       why he was waiting for the conveyance 3½ hours early, especially
                                                                             G
       when the first bus for his village leaves at 7:30 AM.
  d)   That PW-14 has also admitted that he did not tell PW-13 that he
       had seen accused persons carrying gun along with the deceased
       in the said auto- rickshaw. PW-14 inter alia has also admitted
       that he and PW-16 had injured the deceased at an earlier point
                                                                             H
972            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A             of time and denied the fact that brother of PW16 had fired upon
              the deceased.
        e)    That alleged extra-judicial confession made on 25.12.94 before
              PW-16 is not admissible on the ground that it was made under
              suspicious circumstances. PW-16 inter-alia, also admitted that
B             Maha Singh had defeated him previously in the Sarpanch election;
              therefore, election rivalry is evident against accused persons.
        f)    That if the accused persons were arrested on 18.12.94, then the
              question of alleged extrajudicial confession made on 25.12.94
              before PW16 casts doubt in the prosecution story.
C       g)     That the FIR was lodged by the appellants and it is also an
              admitted fact that it was the appellant-accused who had brought
              the injured at the hospital for treatment.
        h)    That the gun recovered in the instant case is the licensed gun of
              the father of the accused Suresh and there is no forensic evidence
D             available on record to prove that pellets found in the body of the
              deceased was fired from that gun.
        i)    That the motive plays an important role in a case of circumstantial
              evidence. In the present case there is no strong motive that can
              be inferred on the part of accused person on the ground of election
E             rivalry.
        j)    That the role of investigating officer is doubtful in this case as
              there are contradictions in respect of the date of arrest of the
              accused persons. As the IO stated that he had found evidence
              against appellants within two days of occurrence but denied
F             arresting them then. However, from the materials on record it is
              evident that date of arrest of accused persons is on 18.12.1994.
              That it can be said that IO is exonerating the actual accused and
              falsely implicating the appellants.
             20. On the Other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
G     the State, Dr. Monika Gusain, while supporting the judgment of the lower
      courts, has drawn our attention to the fact that the accused, were hard
      core criminals, who would not stop short of killing their own for political
      rivalry. She has also contended that the recovery at the place in Adarsh
      Nagar bolsters the case of the prosecution. She argues that if for a
      moment, the version of accused A-1 is taken into consideration, then
H
          SURESH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                 973
                   [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

there was no question of taking the deceased to a Hospital 24 KM away         A
in Hisar, while there was a Hospital near the vicinity of the alleged crime
scene.
       21. Having heard the Learned counsel for either side and given
our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case on
hand, at the outset, it would be apt to observe certain statements of         B
prosecution witnesses, on whose evidence the courts below have
excessively placed reliance. For this purpose, it would be necessary for
us to deal with the two cases separately. First, we would like to take up
the Criminal Appeal NO. 1445-1446 OF 2012 and thereafter consider
Criminal Appeal No. 1458 of 2012.
                                                                              C
       22. PW-1(Dr. Bishnoi), SMO General Hospital, Tohana, deposed
that he was the person, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased.
Regarding the nature of the injury, he states that-
        Multiple rounded and oval shaped wounds of the size of 1/3 cm
        into 1/3 cm present on the front of trunk and pelvic area along       D
        with upper part of the front of both thighs numbering about (50).
        Majority of these wounds were present on the left side of front
        part of the body. These were covered with clotted blood with
        inverted margins with lacerations. No blackening or tattooing
        were present. … All structures in the pelvic and in the lower
        abdomen including small and large intestine and vessels were          E
        injured. Abdominal cavity was full of red colored blood.
Further he has deposed that the death of Chander Bhan (deceased)
resulted because of hemorrhage, and shock due to gun-shot injuries. All
injuries were opined to have been ante-mortem in nature and sufficient
in the usual course to cause death.                                           F
      23. PW-2 (Dr. Surinder Singh), Medical Officer, who treated the
Chander Bhan (deceased) at the Hospital. He avers that from the perusal
of the bed-head ticket, the Chander Bhan (deceased) was brought to
the Hospital at Hisar, by accused A-1 and A-2.It is important to note that
the deceased was brought in a semi-conscious state to the Hospital.           G
        24. PW- 13 - Smt. Kamla, widow of deceased Chander Bhan
states that on 15.12.1994, an election was held in the village of Sundawas,
wherein the deceased Chander Bhan, was an election agent for Maha
Singh. She deposed that persons in support of Maha Singh, supposedly
fired gun shots and the supporters of Dharampal son of Beg Raj, allegedly     H
974            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A     had received injuries in the aforesaid firing. In the intervening night of
      15-16th, A-1 and A-2, came to meet the deceased Chander Bhan. She
      states that her husband had enquired with the aforesaid accused, who
      had revealed to him that they had to go to Hisar and had to shoot somebody
      so as to involve Dharampal son of Beg Raj in a false case. In that
      pretext she states that all the three accused(A-1, A-2 and A-3) and
B
      Chander Bhan (deceased) left for Hisar.
           25. It may be of some significance to note that, during her cross
      examination, she states as under-
              I had told in my statement to the police that accused Dharma
C             and Sobhat has told my husband that somebody was to be fired
              at. I had told the police in my statement that accused Dharma
              and Sobhat had told my husband that they would fire shots at
              their own brother in order to involve Dharampal Sarpanch.
      Appellant-accused has extensively placed reliance on the aforesaid
D     statement, to point that the statement of PW-13 was ridden with
      improvements, which questions the reliability and credibility of her
      statements. The consequence of the same, will be discussed at a later
      stage.
             26. PW-14 (Umed Singh son of Mahi Ram), states that he belongs
E     to the village of Sundawas. On 15.12.1994, after casting his vote, he
      returned to Hisar in the evening for purchase of seed and fertilizers.
      Following morning, at about 4 AM, while he was standing near the Borstal
      Jail, Hisar, waiting for a bus to go back to his village Sundawas. Around
      that time, one auto rickshaw came from the side of Hisar City and stopped
      near him. The occupants of the auto-rickshaw were accused A-1, A-2,
F     A-3 and Chander Bhan. He states that accused A-3 was holding a single
      barrel gun in his hand. When the occupants enquired about him, he replied
      to them that he was waiting for the conveyance to go back to his village
      and the occupants of the auto supposedly told him that they were going
      for some urgent work.
G            27. PW-15- Bhim Singh, the Investigating Officer has deposed
      that accused A-2 had registered a complaint against Umed Singh,
      Dharampal sons of Beg Raj and Dharambir on the grounds that they
      have shot the deceased Chander Bhan on account of prior rivalry. He
      further deposed that in furtherance of the enquiry, on reaching the alleged
      scene of the crime, he did not find any tyre marks of the jeep or any
H
          SURESH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                    975
                   [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

incriminating marks whatsoever. It may be noted that his evidence is a           A
crucial link to portray that the case of false prosecution against the winning
candidate Dharampal son of Beg Raj was given full effect by misleading
the police authority as to the scene of the incident. He further recorded
the statement of PW-13-Smt. Kamla and found out that on 16.12.1994
the accused A-2and A-1 came to the house of the deceased at around
                                                                                 B
midnight and took Chander Bhan on the pretext that since Maha Singh
had lost the election and was involved in a criminal case, hence they
should falsely implicate Sarpanch Dharampal son of Beg Raj, by
registering a counter case against him.
      28. PW-15 further deposed that PW-14 informed that while Umed
Singh (PW-14) was waiting at Borstal Jail, Hisar for conveyance at               C
4:00 A.M on 16.12.1994, hehad seen that accused A-1, A-2, deceased
Chander Bhan and A-3 were going for some urgent work and that he
had also noticed A-3 holding a single barrel gun.
       29. Furthermore, PW-15 had also deposed that later, on
25.12.1994, PW-16, Zile Singh had produced the accused before him                D
where he recorded the statement of Zile Singh with regard to the extra
judicial confession made to him by the accused. It may be relevant to
note PW-15 in the examination-in-chief states that the Zile Singh (PW-
16), left the Police Station and did not wait till the completion of the
interrogation. Whereas, in the cross-examination he contradicts himself          E
that Zile Singh (PW-16) was present during the interrogation of the
appellant-accused. PW-15also deposed that by virtue of the disclosure
statements made by the individual accused persons, the recovery of the
gun, cartridges, pellets and some concrete material from room and the
khurli of the Adarsh Nagar House were made.
                                                                                 F
       30. PW-16 (Zile Singh), deposes that on 25.12.1994, when he had
come to the village Sundawas, accused A-1, A-2 and A-3 had confessed
before him by detailing the modus operandi of the crime and subsequent
cover-up of the incident. Thereafter, he states that he handed over the
accused to the police for interrogation and the interrogation was
conducted in his presence. At the appropriate stage, we will examine             G
the relevance of the aforesaid confession made before Zile Singh (PW-
16) and its impact on the prosecution’s case.
       31. As regards to the evidence of other witnesses who supported
the prosecution case, PW-17, Mewa Singh, is the panch witness for the
seizures made by the police from crime scene. He deposed that on                 H
976            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A     25.12.1994, he went to the police station along with one Sant Lal on
      getting the information that the real culprits in Chander Bhan’s murder
      case have been arrested. He further deposed that I. O. Bhim Singh
      interrogated the accused in his presence. That during such interrogation,
      accused A-1 and A-3pointed out that they will be able to show the scene
      of the crime as well as the hidden gun. He had further deposed that he
B
      and Sant Lal were witnesses to the subsequent recoveries made by the
      investigating officer.
             32. After having appreciated the evidence of certain crucial
      witnesses, we would like to clarify at the outset that this is a case of
      circumstantial evidence. Jurisprudentially the meaning of circumstantial
C     evidence has never been settled. Although we may not require a detailed
      analysis of the jurisprudential dichotomy which exists as to what amounts
      to ‘circumstantial evidence’, we may indicate certain precedents and
      legal literature have given a definite shape for the aforesaid term.
      In Thomas Starkie, A Practical treatise on the law of evidence,
D     and digest of proofs, in civil and criminal proceedings (vol. I, 4 th
      Eds., 1876), it is said that-
             “In criminal cases, proof that the party accused was influenced
             by a strong motive of interest to commit the offence proved to
             have been committed, although exceedingly weak and
E            inconclusive in itself, and although it be a circumstance which
             ought never to operate in proof of the corpus delicti, yet when
             that has once been established aliunde, it is a circumstance to be
             considered in conjunction with others which plainly tend to
             implicate the accused”.

F     Sir Fitz James Stephen, while writing his Introduction to Indian
      Evidence Act, 1872, writes as under-
             Facts relevant to the issue are facts from the existence of which
             inferences as to the existence of the facts in issue may be drawn.
             A fact is relevant to another fact when the existence of the one
G            can be shown to be the cause or one of the causes, or the effect
             or one of the effects, of existence of the other, or when the
             existence of the one, either alone or together with other facts,
             renders the existence of the other highly probable, or improbable,
             according to the common course of events.
H
          SURESH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                    977
                   [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (1955)-                                              A
       “In prosecutions for homicide, as in criminal prosecutions generally,
       evidence to show motive is competent and considerable latitude
       is allowed in its introduction. When proof has been made of the
       corpus delicti, all facts and circumstances that tend to show motive
       on the part of the accused are relevant”.                                 B
      33. Peacock v. The King, 13 CLR 619, expounded the
circumstantial evidence to mean-
       Whether the fact, or that body of facts which is called the ‘case’
       is capable of bearing a particular inference, is for the Court, and
       unless it is so capable, the Court’s duty is to withhold it from the      C
       jury, as a single fact or as a case. But when the case is
       undoubtedly capable of the inference of guilt, albeit some other
       inference or theory be possible, it is for the jury, properly directed,
       and for them alone, to say not merely whether it carries a strong
       probability of guilt, but whether the inference exists actually and       D
       clearly, and so completely overcomes all other inferences or
       hypotheses, as to leave no reasonable doubt of guilt in their minds.
     34. In Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960
SC 500, this court defined circumstantial evidence-
       Circumstantial evidence in this context means, a combination of           E
       facts creating a network through which there is no escape for
       the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of
       any inference but of his guilt.
      35. In line with the aforesaid definition, this Court in catena of
cases has expounded the test of ‘complete chain link theory’ for the             F
prosecution to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt based on the
circumstantial evidence. In Hanumant and Others v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 [hereinafter referred as ‘Hanumant Case’
for brevity], this Court explained one of the possible ways to prove a
case based on circumstantial evidence, in the following manner-
                                                                                 G
       in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
       circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
       should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts
       so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
       the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a
                                                                                 H
978            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A            conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to
             exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.
             36. It was for the first time that this Court formulated a test
      concerning circumstantial evidence. Subsequently, the aforesaid test was
      applied on multiple occasions by this Court in Deonandan Mishra v.
B     State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 801, Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore,
      AIR 1960 SC 29.
             37. In Charan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC
      520, this Court expounded the proposition laid down in Hanumant Case
      (supra), and observed as under-
C            It is well established that in cases where the evidence is of a
             circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the
             conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be
             fully established, and the circumstances so established should be
             consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
D            person; that is, the circumstances should be of such a nature as
             to reasonably exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to
             be proved. To put it in other words, the chain of evidence
             must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable
             ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of
             the accused person.
E
      We may note that this Court for the first time explained the general test
      applicable for evaluating circumstantial evidence and brought in the
      concept of ‘completion of chain of evidence’.
             38. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,
F     AIR 1984 SC 1622. Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence,
      it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the
      chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution cannot
      be cured by a false defense or plea. The conditions precedent in the
      words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial
      evidence, must be fully established. They are-
G
         (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
              drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned
              ‘must or should’ and not merely ‘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 should
H
          SURESH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                   979
                   [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

        not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused      A
        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
                                                                                B
   (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.
The aforesaid testsare aptly referred as ‘Panchsheel of proof in                C
Circumstantial Cases’ [refer Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013
SC 1474].The expectation is that the prosecution’s case should reflect
careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof
and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the
intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable
doubt.                                                                          D
       39. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may
infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and
circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts
are called upon to make inferences from the available evidences, which
may lead to the accused’s guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of         E
guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the
point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on
evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to
identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the
parameters of ‘chain link theory’ and then see whether the case is made         F
out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed
the ‘chain link theory’ since Hanumant Case (supra), which of course
needs to be followed herein also.
      40. We need to consider five aspects and their impact on the case
at hand, before we put forth our analysis. It is well settled that motive is
                                                                                G
an important aspect in circumstantial evidence case. In Shivaji Genu
Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55 -
        “In case the prosecution is not able to discover an impelling motive,
        that could not reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved to
        be a reliable eye-witness. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt,
                                                                                H
980            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A             go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial
              evidence. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain
              of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that would not be
              so in cases where there are eye-witnesses of credibility, though
              even in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof
              would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its
B
              ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if motive is not
              established, the evidence of an eye-witness is rendered
              untrustworthy”.
      In this case the motive has an important role as this case is based on
      circumstantial evidence, motive herein forms one of the intermediate
C     fact/circumstances. In this case, the motive of killing Chander Bhan
      (deceased) was to foist a false case on Dharampal son of Beg Raj. If
      the motive was to foist a false case, then it is quite strange to believe
      that the accused went to the extent of killing their own (supporter of
      Maha Singh) to avenge the loss in the elections. Even if the motive is
D     taken to be proved, then this too only forms one of the circumstances for
      adducing the guilt of the accused.
             41. The credibility of the witnesses, which the prosecution mainly
      relies on to prove the case on the basis of the circumstantial evidence is
      an important aspect. In this case the evidence of PW-13 (wife of the
E     deceased) is crucial. Her statements should be carefully appreciated.
      The statements, as indicated above, clearly portray that there were
      material improvements in the statements, which makes her statement
      unreliable and doubtful. The vindictive statements which were made
      during the cross examination, clearly bars us from taking her testimony
      into consideration.There is no dispute that there was prior enmity between
F     the wife and the accused appellants, which makes her statements
      unreliable. It is revealed from her evidence that, even though she knew
      that her husband was taken for shooting somebody, she kept quiet and
      did not stop her husband from accompanying the accused. Such behavior
      would be suspicious as it does not fit with the natural human behavior to
G     inspire any confidence.
             42. Although this Court, on number of occasions, reiterated that
      mere relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to discredit a
      witness, in the present circumstances, it is apparent that the wife was an
      interested witness due to earlier enmity between the accused. Hence,
H
          SURESH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                  981
                   [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

we are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid witness does not           A
inspire confidence for us to rely on the same.
       43. Coming to the testimony of the PW-14 (Umed Singh), the
defense has tried to exposé the aforesaid witness on certain
contradictions and improvements, which needs our consideration. At the
outset, they question the presence of the aforesaid witness at Hisar, as       B
the veracity of him being a chance witness is questionable. Learned
senior counsel for the accused-appellant, has strenuously contended that
PW-14 is a chance witness, and contends that not much reliance may be
placed on his statement.
       44. Generally, the chance witness, who reasonably explains his          C
presence in the named location at the relevant time, may be taken into
consideration and should be given due regard, if his version inspires
confidence and the same is supported by surrounding circumstances.
Nonetheless, the evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious
and close scrutiny. A chance witness must adequately explain his presence
at the place of occurrence [refer Satbir v. Surat Singh, (1997) 4 SCC          D
192; Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 11 SCC 253]. Deposition
of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains
doubtful should be discarded [refer Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan,
(2004) 10 SCC 632]. The behavior of the chance witness, subsequent to
the incident may also be taken into consideration particularly as to whether   E
he has informed anyone else in the village about the incident. [refer
Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 650].
       45. It may be noted that the (PW-14) has not explained as to why
he was standing near the Bristol Prison so early at 4:00 AM in the morning
of a peak winter day, when the first bus to the village was at 7:00 AM.        F
Moreover, it is doubtful that A-3 would have brandished a gun, while
travelling in the auto-rickshaw. It is suspicious that even after getting to
know that Chander Bhan was killed at Hisar, PW-14 did not reveal to
anybody that he saw the deceased in the company of the accused-
appellant in the morning travelling towards Hisar. Indeed, it is quite
unbelievable that a man, during peak of north Indian winter, would wait        G
at 4 A.M for a bus, which is scheduled to leave at 7:00 AM morning.
These suspicious circumstances impugn the general trustworthiness of
PW-14. Therefore, this Court cannot accept the evidence of this witness
as being credible.
                                                                               H
982            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A            46. Now coming to the evidence of Zile Singh (PW-16). He
      narrates that the three accused met him in the bus stop on the morning
      of 25.12.1993, when they confessed to their crime individually. We may
      note that his statements are ridden with following un-clarified doubts-
        a.   That the Zile Singh (PW-16) accompanied the accused, after
B            they confessed, from the bus stand to the police station.
        b.   Not taking the accused to the Police personnel present in the
             Bus stand.
        c.   That his presence in the police station itself is suspicious as the
             I.O. Bhim Singh (PW-15) has contradicted Zile Singh (PW-16)
C            on this aspect.
        d.   That there is no signature of Zile Singh (PW-16) on any of the
             documents in the Police Station.
      In light of these circumstances, we need to be cautious in considering
D     the statements of this witness.
             47. Now we need to concentrate on the relevance of the alleged
      confessions of the co-accused made before Zile Singh (PW-16). In Re
      Periyaswami Moopan,AIR 1931 Mad. 177, Reilly J. observed “where
      there is evidence against the co-accused sufficient, if believed, to
      support his conviction, then the kind of confession described in
E
      Section 30 may be thrown into the scale as an additional reason for
      believing that evidence”. Therefore, the aforesaid extra-judicial
      confession against the co-accused needs to be taken into consideration
      if at all it is one, only if other independent evidence on record have
      established the basic premise of the prosecution. The confession of the
F     co-accused cannot be solely utilized to convict a person, when the
      surrounding circumstances are improbable and creates suspicion. [refer
      Haricharan Kurmiv. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184]. As the
      confession of a co-accused is weak piece of evidence, we need to consider
      whether other circumstances prove the prosecution’s case.
G           48. On the aspect of recovery of pellets from a house at Adarsh
      Nagar, Hisar, it is an argument of the learned senior counsel, appearing
      on behalf of the appellant accused, that the FSL Report indicating the
      possibility of pellets being fired from the gun recovered from the
      confession of accused A-3, should not be considered as the person, who
      made the report was not examined-is of some relevance. The FSL report
H
          SURESH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                  983
                   [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

forms part of the evidence, which is shown to point out that the crime         A
had taken place in the house at Adarsh Nagar, Hisar and gun of 0.15
bore belonging to A-3 was used for the same. The prosecution was
expected to examine the author of the report, and non-examination of
the same is a fatal error in the case at hand. Moreover, at the scene of
occurrence, there was no blood or foot marks found, which is apparent
                                                                               B
from the evidence of PW-8.
       49. The last circumstance, pointed out by the learned senior counsel
for appellant is that, if the intention of the accused-appellant was indeed
to murder the deceased, then, why would they take him to the Hospital.
Thereby, she extends this argument, to portray that the accused, never
had an intention to kill the deceased. It has not been explained by the        C
prosecution, as to why such action would be undertaken by the accused
and risk taking an alive person, who was shot, to the hospital. The
contention of the State that this was a diabolic act of perverted criminals,
may not fit the evidence available on record.
       50. In line with the aforesaid discussion on various circumstances,     D
we may now identify the intermediate circumstances, which we are
called upon to infer guilt from-
  1.) On 15.12.1994, there was a local election, wherein main
      candidates were Maha Singh and Dharampal son of Beg Raj.
  2.) Chander Bhan (deceased) was the election agent as well as the            E
      supporter of Maha Singh.
  3.) On the day of the election, there was a fight between two
      factions, in which Maha Singh and one Darya were charged for
      firing gun shots at the supporters of Dharampal son of Beg Raj.
  4.) Maha Singh lost the elections, which was known to the accused            F
      party as well as deceased.
  5.) That Sobhat Singh [A-2], Dharampal son of Nanak Ram [A-1]
      and Chander Bhan (deceased), met on 15th-16th mid night.
  6.) Near Hisar, the Chander Bhan was seen going with the accused
      around the time of the incident. [of doubtful veracity]                  G
  7.) Injured Chander Bhan was alive when he was brought to Hospital
      in Hisar by Sobhat Singh [A-1] and Dharampal [A-2].
  8.) Chander Bhan’s body was found to have sustained more than
      fifty ante mortem gun shot wounds.
                                                                               H
984            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A       9.) Gun and pellets were recovered from an abandoned house in
             Adarsh Nagar.
        10.) Extra-judicial confession recorded before Zile Singh on
             25.12.1994.
             51. From the aforesaid circumstances, we may note that the
B     hypothesis canvassed by the prosecution cannot be said to have been
      proved beyond reasonable doubt as there exist apparent gaps in the
      prosecution story, which are left incomplete or insufficiently proved. In
      Latesh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2018 SC 659, this court had
      observed the ‘When you consider the facts, you have a reasonable
      doubt as to whether the matter is proved or whether it is not a
C
      reasonable doubt in this sense. The reasonableness of a doubt must
      be a practical one and not on an abstract theoretical hypothesis.
      Reasonableness is a virtue that forms as a mean between excessive
      caution and excessive indifference to a doubt. In view of this
      proposition, we accept that there is no direct evidence which led the
D     prosecution to clearly prove that deceased was shot at Adarsh Nagar in
      Hisar. Even the circumstantial evidence which is led, has gaps in between.
      In the narration above, there is a big hiatus between the time the accused
      left the village and the accused-appellants were seen in the Hospital, at
      Hisar. Neither the intermediate facts are established with certainty, nor
      the case as a whole is established beyond reasonable doubt.
E
              52. We may note that every acquittal in a criminal case has to be
      taken with some seriousness by the investigating and prosecuting
      authorities, when a case of this nature is concerned. We are aware of
      the fact that there has been a death of a person in this incident and there
      is no finality to the aforesaid episode as it ends with various unanswered
F     questions, which point fingers at the lack of disciplined investigation and
      prosecution. Although Courts cannot give benefit of doubt to the accused
      for small errors committed during the investigation, we cannot however,
      turn a blind eye towards the investigative deficiencies which goes to the
      root of the matter.
G           53. Now, coming to the case foisted against Dharambir, Umed
      Singh and Dharampal (sarpanch) sons of Beg Raj, in Criminal Appeal
      No. 1458 of 2012 (Sessions Case No. 62 of 1997 in Sessions Trial No.
      97 of 1997). The prosecution had examined PW-1 (Dr. R.S. Bishnoi),
      PW-2 (Dr. Surendra Singh), PW-3 (ASI-Jagbir Singh), PW-4 (Sobhat
H     Singh [A-1]) and PW-5 (Dharampal son of Nanak Ram [A-2]). While
            SURESH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                 985
                     [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

the defense had led DW-1 (Kamla), DW-2 (Umed Singh), DW-3 (Zile                 A
Singh), DW-4 (Mewa Singh) and DW-5 (Bhim Singh).
       54. We have considered the reasoning of the court below in this
case, which we accept. Although this case was foisted to be a case of
direct evidence, there is no credibility in the statements of the accused-
appellant as the surrounding circumstances have shown, as already               B
indicated in the earlier parts of the judgment, to be against them. We
may note the golden rule of evidence that ‘men may tell a lie, but the
circumstances do not’, which is squarely applicable in this case at hand.
Therefore, we cannot also accept the narrative of the accused-appellant
in the other appeals, as a gospel of truth.
                                                                                C
       55. In view of the discussion above, we allow the Criminal Appeal
No (s). 1445-1446 of 2012, before us and simultaneously set aside the
conviction and punishment as provided by the Trial Court in Sessions
Case No. 60 of 1995 in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1995, and dismiss the
Criminal Appeal No. 1458 of 2012.Further the concerned authorities are
directed to release the appellants-accused, if not required in any other        D
case.
Devika Gujral                                            Appeals disposed of.



                                                                                E




                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H