THE STATE OF ODISHAversusBANABIHARI MOHAPATRA AND ANR.

612                       [2021]
               SUPREME COURT     1 S.C.R. 612
                              REPORTS                      [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A                          THE STATE OF ODISHA
                                        v.
                  BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA AND ANR.
                 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1156 of 2021)
B                            FEBRUARY 12, 2021
           [INDIRA BANERJEE AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
             Penal Code, 1860: ss.302/201 r/w s.34 – Prosecution case
      was that the victim-deceased was found dead in shop of accused
      with a swollen belly and deep burn injury on right foot and blood
C
      was oozing out of his mouth and nostrils – In the FIR lodged by
      complainant-wife of the deceased, she had stated that on the fateful
      day, the first accused-respondenthad come to her house and told
      her that the deceased was lying motionless and not responding to
      calls and thereafter younger son of first accused also came and
D     gave similar information – Complainant alleged that first accused
      and his son committed murder of her husband by applying electric
      shock after administering poisonous substances to him – As per
      post mortem report, cause of death was electric shock, suffered by
      the deceased within 24 hours from the time of examination – The
      post mortem doctor opined that the deceased was intoxicated with
E
      alcohol and the death was either accidental, or homicidal, but not
      suicidal – Acquittal by trial court – High Court dismissed state’s
      application for leave to appeal on the ground of delay of 41 days
      but after considering the merits of application for leave to appeal –
      State’s appeal against acquittal – Held: The mere fact that the
F     deceased was lying dead at a room held by accused respondent
      No.1 and that the accused had informed the complainant that the
      deceased had been lying motionless and still, and not responding
      to shouts and calls, would not establish that the respondents
      murdered the deceased – The post mortem report suggests that the
      death could have been accidental – Of the nine prosecution
G
      witnesses, three witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution
      – There were apparent inconsistencies, inaccuracies and inherent
      improbabilities in the statements of witnesses – Prosecution miserably
      failed to establish the guilt of the accused Respondents – The
      impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the
H
                                       612
   THE STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA                          613


ground of delay did not call for interference under Art.136 of the      A
Constitution of India.
      Appeal against acquittal: An appeal against acquittal has
always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal
against conviction – In an appeal against acquittal, where the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced,        B
the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only
when there is perversity – In this case, it cannot be said that the
reasons given by the High Court to reverse the conviction of the
accused were flimsy, untenable or bordering on perverse
appreciation of evidence.
                                                                        C
       Criminal law: Case based on circumstantial evidence – Before
a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of
the accused – There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as       D
not to leave any reasonable doubt for any 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.
      Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court
                                                                        E
      HELD: 1.1 The prosecution appears to have examined 9
witnesses. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The
deceased had apparently died in a room held by the Accused
Respondent No.1. The Accused Respondents did not abscond.
The Accused Respondents themselves informed the complainant
that the deceased was lying still and motionless, not responding        F
to calls. [Para 14][618-E-F]
      1.2 The post mortem Report of the deceased reveals that
the cause of death was electric shock, suffered by the deceased
within 24 hours from the time of examination. On post mortem
examination, the Doctor found food particles including meat in          G
the stomach of the deceased, and also detected smell of alcohol.
The post mortem doctor opined that the deceased was intoxicated
with alcohol and the death was either accidental, or homicidal,

                                                                        H
614           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A     but not suicidal. There is no conclusive evidence that the death
      was homicidal. [Para 15][618-F-H]
            1.3 The complaint lodged by the complainant is apparently
      based on suspicion. Since the Accused Respondents had informed
      the complainant that the deceased was lying still and motionless,
B     not responding to calls and the body of the deceased was found
      at the premises of the Accused Respondent No.1, the complainant
      has assumed that the Accused Respondents killed the deceased.
      [Para 16][619-A-B]
            1.4 In evidence, the complainant said that the Accused
C     Respondent No.1, Banabihari, had taken a loan of Rs.20,000/-
      from the deceased which he had not repaid even though the
      deceased had asked him to repay the amount. Significantly, there
      is no whisper in the FIR, of any loan taken by the Accused
      Respondent No.1 from the deceased. The reference to the alleged
      loan appears to be an afterthought, in an attempt to insinuate a
D     motive for killing the deceased. [Para 17][619-B-C]
           1.5 The mere fact that the deceased was lying dead at a
      room held by the the Accused Respondent No.1 and that the
      Accused Respondents had informed the complainant that the
      deceased had been lying motionless and still and not responding
E     to shouts and calls, does not establish that the Accused
      Respondents murdered the deceased. The post mortem report
      suggests that the death could have been accidental. [Para 18]
      [619-C-E]
            2.1 All the three witnesses related to the deceased, that is
F     the second Prosecution Witness, being the wife of the deceased,
      the first Prosecution Witness, being the younger brother of the
      deceased and the fourth Prosecution Witness, being the sister of
      the deceased have more or less reiterated what has been stated
      in the FIR with embellishments. There are, however, apparent
G     inconsistencies, inaccuracies and inherent improbabilities in the
      statements of these witnesses. These three witnesses deposed
      that they suspected that the accused Respondents had killed the
      deceased as the deceased was asking the Accused Respondents
      to repay Rs.20,000/- which the deceased had advanced to the
      Accused Respondents by way of loan. However, there is no
H
   THE STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA                          615


whisper of the alleged loan in the FIR lodged by the complainant        A
wife being the second Prosecution Witness. [Paras 25, 26]
[620-G-H; 621-A-B]
       2.2 The Medical Officer found electrical wounds in the leg
which were sufficient to cause death. He opined that the injuries
sustained by the deceased might have been due to contact with           B
live electric wire. He opined that the contact was prolonged. The
injuries were ante mortem. This witness was of the opinion that
the death may have been accidental or homicidal, but not suicidal.
Nothing significant has emerged from the oral evidence of the
Investigating Officer, to establish the guilt of the Accused
Respondents. In her deposition, the Investigating Officer also          C
said that some local persons had stated that the first Accused
Respondent, out of animosity, killed the deceased by applying
electric current. The oral evidence of the Investigating Officer
in this regard is totally vague and devoid of particulars. The
Investigating Officer had neither named the local persons nor           D
enquired into the source of their information if any. The local
persons have not been examined as witnesses. The Prosecution
miserably failed to establish the guilt of the Accused Respondents.
The Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents.
[Paras 30, 32, 33][622-D-E; 623-A-C]
                                                                        E
      3. An appeal against acquittal has always been on an
altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction.
In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate
court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there
is perversity. In this case, it cannot be said that the reasons given   F
by the High Court to reverse the conviction of the accused are
flimsy, untenable or bordering on perverse appreciation of
evidence. [Para 34][623-C-E]
      4. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully
established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from          G
which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be
established and the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There has to be a
chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable
                                                                        H
616             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A     doubt for any 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 35][623-E-F]
            Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. 2016 (4) SCC 357 :
            [2016] 1 SCR 913; Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan
B           (2012) 12 SCC 158 : [2012] 9 SCR 226; Sujit Biswas
            v. State of Assam AIR 2013 SC 3817 : [2013] 3
            SCR 830; Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR
            1973 SC 2773 : [1974] 1 SCR 722 –relied on.
                               Case Law Reference
C     [2016] 1 SCR 913                   relied on                  Para 34
      [2012] 9 SCR 226                   relied on                  Para 36
      [2013] 3 SCR 830                   relied on                  Para 38
      [1974] 1 SCR 722                   relied on                  Para 39
D
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
      Petition (Crl.) No.1156 of 2021.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2020 of the High Court
      of Orissa at Cuttack in CRLLP No. 14 of 2020.
E           Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Ankit Agarwal, Advs. for the petitioner.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
             1. This Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Odisha is against
F     a final judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2020 passed by the
      High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dismissing an application for leave to
      appeal being CRLLP No.14 of 2020 filed by the Petitioner State, against
      a judgment dated 14th January, 2020 passed by the Sessions Judge,
      Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents
      from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian
G     Penal Code (IPC).
            2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner State
      forcefully contended that the High Court committed gross error in
      dismissing the application for leave to appeal filed by the Petitioner State

H
    THE STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA                                617
                 [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

on the ground of delay of 41 days, even though, there were serious             A
charges against the Accused Respondents, including charges of murder
under Section 302 of the IPC.
      3. It is true that the appeal has, by the impugned judgment and
order dated 2nd November 2020, been dismissed on the ground of delay
of only 41 days in filing the CRLLP.                                           B
       4. In a criminal case involving the serious offence of murder, the
Courts do not ordinarily dismiss an appeal against a judgment and order
of the Trial Court, whether of conviction or of acquittal, on the sole
ground of some delay. This is to prevent miscarriage of justice.
       5. However, in this case the application of the Petitioner State, for   C
leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal of the
Respondent Accused, has been rejected on the ground of delay, but
after considering the merits of application for leave to appeal.
      6. We have considered the contentions of the State of Odisha
being the petitioner before us. As per an FIR lodged with the police by        D
one Gitanjali Tadu, hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”, her
husband Bijay Kumar Tadu, hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”,
had been working in the Home Guard, Chandabali and deputed at
Chandabali Police Station.
       7. According to the Complainant, the deceased used to move              E
around with the first accused, Banabihari Mohapatra, who had an electric
sales and repairing shop styled “Raja Electricals” at the Ferry Ghat area
near the Chandabali bus stand.
        8. In the FIR, it is alleged that the first accused came to the
residence of the deceased at around 7.30 a.m. on 23rd June, 2014 and           F
told the Complainant that the deceased had been lying motionless and
still, not responding to calls. Later his younger son Luja alias Smruti
Ranjan Mohapatra being the second Respondent also came and informed
the complainant that the deceased was lying motionless.
       9. On hearing this, the Complainant along with her family members       G
went to the Ferry Ghat near the Chandabali Bus Stand and found her
husband lying dead inside a room which was locked, with a swollen belly
and a deep burn injury on his right foot which was apparently caused by
electric shock. The body of the deceased appeared black and blood was
oozing out from the mouth and nostril of the deceased.
                                                                               H
618             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A           10. In the FIR, the complainant has alleged that on 22nd June,
      2016, the deceased had left the house to go to the house of a relative.
      He had been wearing a gold chain on his neck and two gold rings on his
      fingers, and had been carrying Rs.800 for purchase of a new pair of
      pants and shirt and Rs.5,000/- for purchase of articles for a marriage.
B            11. On making enquiries the complainant learnt that the deceased
      had not visited the house of the relative on that day. The complainant
      has alleged that the Accused No.1 Banabihari Mohapatra, his son Luja
      alias Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra, being the Accused No.2, and other
      accomplices committed murder of her husband by applying electric shock
      to him after administering some poisonous substances to him.
C
            12. The Sessions Judge Bhadrak framed charges against the
      Accused Respondents Banabihari Mohapatra and Luja @ Smruti Ranjan
      Mohapatra alleging that, together they had intentionally caused the death
      of the deceased, thereby committing murder and had caused
      disappearance of evidence and thus been guilty of offences under Sections
D     302/201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
            13. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Sessions
      Judge, Bhadrak, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the
      charges against the Accused Respondents or either of them under
      Section 302, or Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and acquitting
E     them under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C.
             14. The prosecution appears to have examined 9 witnesses. There
      are no eye witnesses to the incident. The deceased had apparently died
      in a room held by the Accused Respondent No.1. The Accused
      Respondents did not abscond. The Accused Respondents themselves
F     informed the complainant that the deceased was lying still and motionless,
      not responding to calls.
             15. The post mortem Report of the deceased reveals that the
      cause of death was electric shock, suffered by the deceased within 24
      hours from the time of examination. On post mortem examination, the
G     Doctor found food particles including meat in the stomach of the
      deceased, and also detected smell of alcohol. The post mortem doctor
      opined that the deceased was intoxicated with alcohol and the death
      was either accidental, or homicidal, but not suicidal. There is no conclusive
      evidence that the death was homicidal.
H
    THE STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA                               619
                 [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

       16. The complaint lodged by the complainant is apparently based        A
on suspicion. Since the Accused Respondents had informed the
complainant that the deceased was lying still and motionless, not
responding to calls and the body of the deceased was found at the
premises of the Accused Respondent No.1, the complainant has assumed
that the Accused Respondents killed the deceased.
                                                                              B
       17. In evidence, the complainant said that the Accused Respondent
No.1, Banabihari, had taken a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the deceased
which he had not repaid even though the deceased had asked him to
repay the amount. Significantly, there is no whisper in the FIR, of any
loan taken by the Accused Respondent No.1 from the deceased. The
reference to the alleged loan appears to be an afterthought, in an attempt    C
to insinuate a motive for killing the deceased.
       18. The mere fact that the deceased was lying dead at a room
held by the the Accused Respondent No.1 and that the Accused
Respondents had informed the complainant that the deceased had been
lying motionless and still and not responding to shouts and calls, does not   D
establish that the Accused Respondents murdered the deceased. At the
cost of repetition it is reiterated that the post mortem report suggests
that the death could have been accidental.
       19. We have perused the evidence of the nine Prosecution
Witnesses, namely, the first Prosecution Witness Dhanjaya Tadu, younger       E
brother of the deceased, the second Prosecution Witness Gitanjali Tadu,
wife of the deceased, the third Prosecution Witness, Ajay Sahoo, a Shop
Keeper at the locality where dead body of the deceased was found, the
fourth Prosecution Witness, Smt. Bijayalaxmi Tadu, sister of the
deceased, the fifth Prosecution Witness, Bailochan Bej, a Barber by           F
profession who knew the complainant and the deceased as also the
accused persons who resided in the Chandabali Police Station area, the
sixth Prosecution Witness, Manmohan Sutar, an auto driver, the seventh
Prosecution Witness, Aswini Kumar Nayak, a cultivator residing at
Nayahat in the Chandabali Police Station area of Bhadrak, the 8th
Prosecution Witness, Dr. Bhisma Parida, being the Doctor who conducted        G
the autopsy/ post mortem examination of the deceased and the ninth
Prosecution Witness Smt. Kumari Behera, Sub Inspector of Police, who
was the Investigating Officer.

                                                                              H
620             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A            20. Of the nine Prosecution Witnesses, three witnesses namely,
      the third Prosecution Witness, Ajay Sahoo, the fifth Prosecution Witness,
      Bailochan Bej and the seventh Prosecution Witness, Durga Charan Nayak
      were declared hostile by the Prosecution.
            21. The third Prosecution Witness said that he had only seen the
B     police shifting the dead body of the deceased and knew nothing more
      about the case. Nothing has emerged from his cross-examination by the
      Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the defence, he said there
      was no electric connection in the house from which the body of the
      deceased was brought out. He even said that the Accused Respondents
      did not own any shop dealing with electric appliances. No credence can
C     be given to this witness.
            22. The fifth Prosecution Witness, Bailochan Bej, denied
      knowledge of the case. He said that the police had not examined him,
      nor recorded any statement made by him. In cross-examination by the
      prosecution, he only said that he had a saloon at Chandabali Police Station,
D     Bhadrak. He categorically denied having made the statements attributed
      to him by the police.
             23. The seventh Prosecution Witness, Durga Charan Nayak only
      said that he had seen the body of the deceased in the rented place near
      the Chandabali bus stand with bleeding injury on his right leg and blood
E     oozing from his mouth and nostrils. He said he did not know how the
      deceased suffered the injury or died. Nothing significant has emerged
      from his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor.
             24. The sixth Prosecution Witness, Manmohan Sutar deposed that
      he knew the informant, the deceased as also the Accused Respondents.
F     In a nutshell, he only confirmed that the dead body was in the shop of
      the Accused Respondents in Home Guard uniform. Inquest of the body
      was conducted in his presence. He identified his signature in the Inquest
      Report. He also said he had noticed a bleeding injury in the right foot of
      the deceased and blood oozing from the mouth and nostrils.
G            25. All the three witnesses related to the deceased, that is the
      second Prosecution Witness, being the wife of the deceased, the first
      Prosecution Witness, being the younger brother of the deceased and the
      fourth Prosecution Witness, being the sister of the deceased have more
      or less reiterated what has been stated in the FIR with embellishments.
H
    THE STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA                                621
                 [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

There are, however, apparent inconsistencies, inaccuracies and inherent        A
improbabilities in the statements of these witnesses.
        26. These three witnesses deposed that they suspected that the
accused Respondents had killed the deceased as the deceased was asking
the Accused Respondents to repay Rs.20,000/- which the deceased had
advanced to the Accused Respondents by way of loan. However, as                B
observed above, there is no whisper of the alleged loan in the FIR lodged
by the complainant wife being the second Prosecution Witness.
       27. That apart, the first and fourth Prosecution Witnesseshave
admitted in cross-examination that they did not have first hand knowledge
of the loan alleged to be advanced by the deceased to the Accused              C
Respondent No.1. The first Prosecution Witness said that the complainant
(PW2) had told him that the Accused Respondent No.1 had not repaid
loan of Rs.20,000/- to the deceased. The fourth Respondent said she
had heard about the loan from her deceased brother. Though she said
that the loan was given to the Accused Respondent No.1 at the time of
his daughter’s marriage she could not say how long ago the loan was            D
given. She could not even tell the approximate date or year of marriage
of the Accused Respondent No.1’s daughter.
        28. From the evidence of the first and the second Prosecution
Witnesses it transpires that the deceased had left his house at around
10.00 a.m. on 22nd June 2014, to go to his Aunt’s house in connection          E
with his Aunt’s daughter’s marriage. He was wearing a gold chain and
two gold rings and carried Rs.800/- with him for buying a pair of trousers
and shirt and Rs.5000/- for articles for the marriage. Enquiries, however,
revealed that he had not gone to his Aunt’s house. It is, however, difficult
to understand why the deceased should have been wearing his home               F
guard uniform if he were going to visit his Aunt in connection with the
marriage of his Aunt’s daughter. There is evidence to show that the
deceased was found in his home guard uniform. The relevance of the
plan of the deceased to go to his Aunt’s house or his plan to buy clothes
etc. is also not clear. This is in no way linked to the incident of death of
the deceased. Prosecution has failed to show a link between the proposed       G
visit of the deceased to his Aunt’s house with the guilt, if any, of the
Accused Respondents.
      29. The evidence of the first Prosecution Witness Dhanjaya Tadu,
brother of the deceased, that he had found the motor cycle of the
                                                                               H
622            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A     deceased in front of the shop of the accused persons on the evening of
      the 22nd June 2014, is difficult to accept. He said he had asked the
      second accused about whereabouts of his brother to which the second
      accused had expressed ignorance, but on the next day, the second
      Accused Respondent and his father informed them that his brother was
      lying senseless. It seems rather unnatural that this witness, who was the
B
      brother of the deceased, should have chosen not to make any inquiry
      either in the police station or in the neighbourhood, even after seeing the
      motor cycle of the deceased in front of the shop, and after being told his
      brother was not in the shop. No attempt was made to look for the deceased
      even though he did not return home all night.
C            30. The eighth Prosecution Witness, Dr. Bhisma Parida, who had
      at the time of death of the deceased been posted as Medical Officer at
      CHC Chandabali and had conducted the autopsy/post mortem
      examination of the deceased at around 1.00 p.m. on 24th June 2014,
      deposed that the deceased died due to electrical injury, suffered within
D     24 hours of the autopsy. The stomach of the deceased was full of food
      particles including meat and there was smell of alcohol. The deceased
      had been intoxicated with alcohol. The Medical Officer found electrical
      wounds in the leg which were sufficient to cause death. He opined that
      the injuries sustained by the deceased might have been due to contact
      with live electric wire. He opined that the contact was prolonged. The
E     injuries were ante mortem. This witness was of the opinion that the
      death may have been accidental or homicidal, but not suicidal.
              31. Nothing significant has emerged from the oral evidence of the
      ninth Prosecution Witness, Smt. Kumari Behera, the Investigating Officer,
      to establish the guilt of the Accused Respondents. She only stated that
F     the fifth Prosecution Witness had in course of examination stated before
      her that the first Accused Respondent and the deceased used one of the
      quarters where they regularly took tiffin and they were both present
      there on the date of the incident in Court. The fifth Prosecution Witness,
      however, denied having made any such statement to the Police and
G     remained unshaken in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor. He
      only admitted that he had a saloon in the area, but denied knowing the
      deceased, the Accused Respondents or the informant. The fifth
      Prosecution Witness said that the Police had neither examined him, nor
      recorded his statement.

H
    THE STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA                               623
                 [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

       32. In her deposition, the Investigating Officer also said that some   A
local persons had stated that the first Accused Respondent, Banabhihari
had, out of animosity, killed the deceased by applying electric current.
The oral evidence of the Investigating Officer in this regard is totally
vague and devoid of particulars. The Investigating Officer (PW-9) had
neither named the local persons nor enquired into the source of their
                                                                              B
information if any. The local persons have not been examined as
witnesses.
       33. The Prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the
Accused Respondents. The Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused
Respondents. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court,
that calls for interference                                                   C

       34. As held by this Court in Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P.
reported in 2016 (4) SCC 357, an appeal against acquittal has always
been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction.
In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere      D
with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity. In this case, it
cannot be said that the reasons given by the High Court to reverse the
conviction of the accused are flimsy, untenable or bordering on perverse
appreciation of evidence.
       35. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully           E
established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the
facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt
of the accused. There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as not
to leave any reasonable doubt for any conclusion consistent with the          F
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability,
the act must have been done by the Accused.
      36. In Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12
SCC 158, this Court held that the principles for conviction of the accused
based on circumstantial evidence are:                                         G
      “10.1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought
      to be proved must be cogently or firmly established.
      10.2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly
      pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
                                                                              H
624              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A            10.3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain
             so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within
             all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused
             and none else.
             10.4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction
B            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.”
            37. Keeping the above test in mind, we have no iota of doubt that
C     the Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents. There is a
      strong possibility that the accused, who was as per the opinion of the
      doctor who performed the autopsy, intoxicated with alcohol, might have
      accidentally touched a live electrical wire, may be while he was asleep.
      The impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the
      ground of delay does not call for interference under Article 136 of the
D     Constitution of India.
             38. It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of
      this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof.
      An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond
      reasonable doubt. This proposition has been reiterated in Sujit Biswas
E     v. State of Assam reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817.
            39. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR
      1973 SC 2773, this Court observed:-
             “Another golden thread which runs through the web of the
F            administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are
             possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the
             guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which
             is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has
             a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is
             sought is to be established by circumstantial evidence.”
G
             40. For the reasons discussed above, we find no ground to interfere
      with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court under Article
      136 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition
      is dismissed. Pending application stands disposed of.

H     Devika Gujral                                              Petition dismissed.