1

AFR

Reserved.

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3022 of 1984

Appellant :- Mishrilal And Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- V.K. Shukla,Bhuwan Raj,Gaurav Singh,Gaurav

Singh,Gavrav Singh,Kamlesh Shukla,Utkarsh Tripathi,Vinay Saran

Counsel for Respondent :- D.G.A.

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

(Per: Hon. Vivek Varma, J.)

1.This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 30.10.1984 passed by the VII

Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in S.T. No. 36 of 1982

convicting the appellants Chhabboo Lal, Modi and Mishrilal

under Section 302/34 and 201 of IPC and sentencing them to

undergo imprisonment for life and to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for three years under Section 201 IPC.

2.The prosecution case states that Sri Chandrama Singh

(P.W.-9) submitted a written report (Ex-Ka-6) at P.S. Ghoorpur

on 5.9.1981 with assertion that his cousin brother Sheo Sagar

Singh @ Matar Singh (deceased), resident of village Neebi,

P.S. Ghoorpur, District Allahabad on 3.9.1981 left his home in

the afternoon for Sewar, but did not return. It came to his

knowledge that on the same day at about 3 p.m., deceased

was seen with Mishrilal at his house along with accused

Chhabbu Lal and Modi. He suspected that Sheo Sagar Singh

@ Matar Singh has been killed by the accused appellants and

thereafter the dead body has been removed. As per the details

given the deceased was wearing a white sando vest and a

white pyjama.

3.The First Information Report (Ex-ka-9) was lodged on

2

5.9.1981 at about 21.45 P.M. at Police Station Ghoorpur,

District Allahabad. After investigation, the police submitted a

charge sheet (Ex-Ka 22) on 21.10.1981 against the

accused/appellants under sections 302, 201,120 B IPC. The

trial court framed the charges and charged the appellants

Chhabboo Lal and Modi with the commission of offences under

Section 302, 201 IPC while the appellant Mishrilal was charged

under section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 201 IPC. On

denial of charges by the accused trial commenced.

4.In support of its case, the prosecution produced 15

witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The accused-

appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they

were confronted with the incriminating evidence adduced

against them during the course of trial, which they denied and

pleaded innocence and false implication.

5.The trial Court after examining the evidence available on

record found that the circumstantial evidence available on

record makes a chain of events that indicate definite

involvement of the accused appellants in the crime in question

and by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the

appellants Chhabboo Lal, Mishrilal and Modi. Hence this appeal

at the behest of convicted accused persons.

6.It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that

there is no eyewitness account of the incident and the

conviction rests on circumstantial evidence but none of the

circumstances from which inference of guilt can be drawn has

been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged confession

made by the appellant Chhabboo before P.W.-4 Gajraj Singh is

not corroborated by other cogent and reliable evidence and the

recovery of dead body and seizure of various articles were not

3

in accordance with law.

7.On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the submission

of the appellants and supporting the impugned judgment

submitted that chain of circumstances established on basis of

adequate evidence clearly indicates involvement of the accused

appellant in committing the crime in question. It is pointed out

that the accused appellants committed the murder of Sheo

Sagar Singh and threw his body. The dead body and several

articles were discovered at the pointing out of the accused

appellants. All these circumstances have adequately been

established by the prosecution evidence which is sufficient to

prove involvement of the accused appellants in the crime in

question.

8.Heard learned counsels for the appellants, learned AGA

and scanned the entire record and considered the arguments

advanced.

9.The case of the prosecution consisted of following

circumstances:-

(i)evidence of last seen of the deceased Shiv Sagar

Singh in the company of the appellants,

(ii)extra judicial confession of the appellant Chhabboo

Lal, and

(iii)discovery of incriminating articles relating to the

offence at the instance of the appellants, while in police

custody.

EVIDENCE OF LAST SEEN OF THE DECEASED IN

THE COMPANY OF APPELLANTS

10.The original story as set up in the FIR is at variance with

the story set up by the prosecution at the trial. In the FIR only

this much had been stated by the informant that on 3.9.1981 at

4

about 3 p.m. deceased was seen sitting at the door of appellant

Mishrilal along with other two appellants. This part of the FIR is

extracted below:-

“mlh fnu f'ko lkxj yxHkx rhu cts fnu feJh yky iq=

fcgkjh dsoV xzke uhch ds lkFk mlh ds njokts ij Nccw yky iq=

jke yky ;kno o eksnh iq= jke dsoy dsoV xzke uhch ds lkFk cSBs

ns[ks x;s Fks eq>s lansg gS fd bUgha rhuksa O;fDr;ksa us feydj f'ko

lkxj dh gR;k djds yk'k dks dgha fNik fn;k gS ftl le; ?kj ls

f'kolkxj ?kj ls fudys Fks ”

11.From the aforequoted version, it is clearly evident that the

informant Chandrama Singh (P.W.-9) had himself not seen the

deceased sitting alongwith the appellants at the house of

appellant Mishrilal. Therefore from the said contents of the FIR,

it is evident that the FIR version is based on some one else's

information and the informant is not the witness of that fact.

Before the trial court in his examination-in-chief, the informant

(P.W-9) stated that he had seen the deceased at the house of

appellant Mishrilal in the company of the appellants. However,

under cross examination as to why did he not mention this fact

in the FIR, what he is deposing in the court, he stated that what

has been deposed by him in the Court had been written as

such in the FIR. He infact admitted that he knew the said fact.

When asked as to why did he not mention that fact in the FIR,

he gave a strange answer that he did not write that fact

because he did not want to raise a storm (rwQku) in the report.

This was an absurd answer given by the said witness,

therefore, on being further cross examined in that regard, he

gave a different reason stating that in his understanding the

said fact an important fact but he did not write that fact in the

FIR as he could not recollect it when he wrote the FIR. He

further stated that he did not tell this fact to the Investigating

Officer during investigation, i.e. in his statement recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C.

5

12.Smt Panchraje (P.W.-8), is the mother of the deceased,

claims to have last seen the deceased before his murder. She

deposed that the accused Modi came to her house. Sheo

Sagar Singh and Modi both left for Sewar and thereafter Sheo

Sagar Singh did not return. In the cross-examination this

witness stated that she had told this fact to the informant (P.W.-

9) in the evening at about 6-7 p.m. on that day itself, i.e. on

3.9.1981. The FIR was lodged after two days on 5.9.1981 at

9.45 p.m. If at all, it were a fact that P.W.-8 had told P.W.-9 that

her deceased son had gone for Sewar alongwith the appellant

Modi there is no reason why the informant P.W.-9 (who is none

else than her own nephew) would neither have lodged the FIR

nor mention that fact in the FIR nor stated that fact to the

Investigating Officer during investigation. It is highly improbable

that such an important fact of the case (i.e. the deceased was

taken by the accused from the latters' house) would not be

revealed by the informant in the FIR as well as during the

investigation of the case.

13.Since this story of the prosecution that the mother of the

deceased, P.W.-8 had seen appellant Modi at her house and

the deceased had gone alongwith him for Sewar that she had

told this fact to the informant before lodging of the FIR was

coming for the first time in the trial, therefore, when the

informant (P.W.-9) appeared in the witness box he was

questioned about this fact in the cross-examination. It was quite

probable that the prosecution had introduced P.W.-8 in the

case as no other person of the village was coming forward to

state that he had seen the deceased in the company of the

appellants before the death of the deceased. It is doubtful that

the P.W.-8 had last seen the deceased Sheo Sagar Singh in the

company of appellant-Modi.

6

14.The statement of P.W.-9 in the court contradicts the

version of the FIR. This appears to be a case where the witness

was trying to improve upon the story as had been set up

originally in the FIR and as such the deposition of P.W-9 in the

court, regarding his having seen the deceased the last in the

company of appellants does not appears to be trustworthy and

thus he is not a reliable witness. His credit as a witness thus

stood impeached.

15.However, even if it is accepted that P.W.-8 had last seen

the deceased in the company of appellant Modi, that fact, itself

is not sufficient to prove the charge of murder against Modi.

Further, that evidence is not against the other two accused.

Even otherwise it is a settled position of law that accused

cannot be convicted unless there is some other corroborative

pieces of evidence. The Supreme Court in the matter of State

of Goa Vs Sanjay Thakran, 2007) 3 SCC 755, Brahm

Swaroop Vs State of UP, 6 SCC 288 and Anjan Kumar

Sharma and others Vs State of Assam, (2017) SCC online

622 has held as under:-

“In the absence of proof of other circumstances,

the only circumstance of last seen together and

absence of satisfactory explanation cannot be made

the basis of conviction.”

EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION OF APPELLANT

CHHABBOO LAL

16.The prosecution witness Gajraj Singh (P.W.-4) has been

examined to prove extra-judicial confession alleged to have

been made to him by the appellant Chhabboo Lal. This witness

had deposed that in the night of 5.9.1981 at about 1/1.30 while

he was sleeping, the appellant Chhabboo Lal came to him and

woke him up and told him that he and other two appellants, on

7

the asking of Satyawan, had murdered the deceased Sheo

Sagar Singh in the house of appellant Mishrilal and requested

him to save him from the police as the police was camping in

the village and it had already arrested the other two appellants.

He has further deposed in the examination in chief that after

hearing the confessional statement of appellant Chhabboo Lal

he was perturbed and he had asked the appellant to go away

from him and he would not help him. Having said so he again

slept. Later on in the morning the police arrested Chhabboo Lal

at the door of his house. In the cross-examination, this witness

has categorically stated that he had no friendship with the

police and he could not have helped the accused Chhabboo

Lal. He has also stated that his house is nearly 1 km away from

the house of Chhabboo Lal. There is no other corroborative

evidence about this extra judicial confession.

17.The testimony of witness P.W.-4 does not inspire

confidence. Firstly, because, there is no evidence that this

witness is such a man, whom one would approach for help. The

statement and the evidence do not suggest that any one would

fall upon him in the hours of need or when placed in a difficult

situation. Secondly, there is no evidence on record to even

feebly suggest that he is a close associate of appellant

Chhabboo Lal and that he used to help him or had even helped

this appellant in the past. On the contrary, as already noted

above, this witness had himself admitted in the cross-

examination that he could not have helped the appellant

Chhabboo Lal as he had no friendship with the police. In this

set of facts it is highly improbable that the appellant Chhabboo

Lal would make any confession whatsoever before such a

person.

8

18.Law on extra judicial confession is well settled by the

Apex Court. In State of Punjab Vs Bhajan Singh, AIR 1975

SC 258, it has been held that extra-judicial confession by itself

is a very weak evidence which requires corroboration which

would inspire utmost confidence. Thus, it would not at all safe to

rely upon it. As regards extra-judicial confession, relevant

paragraph of the Apex Court judgment in Makhan Singh Vs

State of Punjab, 1988 (Supp) SCC 526 is as under:-

“ On 10 August, 1985 F.I.R. was lodged by Nihal Singh (PW-

2)1 and on 13.8.85 the appellant went to Amrik Singh (PW-

3) to make an extra judicial confession. Amrik Singh says

that the appellant told him that as the Police was after him

he had come and confessed the fact so that he might not be

unnecessarily harassed. There is nothing to indicate that

this Amrik Singh was a person having some influence with

the Police or a person of some status to protect the

appellant from harassment. In his cross- examination he

admits that he is neither the Lumbardar or Sarpanch nor a

person who is frequently visiting the Police Station. He

further admits that when he produced the appellant there

was a crowd of 10 to 12 persons. There is no other

corroborative evidence about the extra judicial confession.

As rightly conceded by the learned counsel for the State that

extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence

and is hardly of any consequence.”

19.In Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, 1996 SCC (Cri)

59, while considering the evidentiary value of extra-judicial

confession, the Supreme Court has held as under.

"10.An extrajudicial confession by its very nature is rather

a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a

great deal of care and caution. Where an extrajudicial

confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances,

its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its

importance. The courts generally look for independent

reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon

an extra judicial confession."

20.Thus, the extra-judicial confession made by appellant

Chhabboo before P.W-4, is tested on the touchstone of

aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it is rendered unworthy of

credence, and being so does not inspire confidence of this

9

court.

EVIDENCE OF DISCOVERY OF INCRIMINATING

ARTICLES AT THE INSTANCE OF APPELLANTS.

21.Before appreciating the testimony of the prosecution

witnesses of recovery we may record an important fact relating

to recovery of the body of the deceased. The dead body was

recovered from the paddy field of one Sumer of the village

Neebi, i.e the village where deceased lived. From the site plan

Ex-ka-20, it is evident that adjacent to the field of Sumer, on the

three sides, there are fields of other persons, wherein paddy

had been sown. These paddy fields lay at a distance of only

one and half furlongs from the Abadi of village Neebi. It is thus

clear that the field wherefrom dead body of deceased Sheo

Sagar Singh was recovered was an open field accessible to all

and sundry and visible from all sides and was quite close to the

village Abadi. The Investigating Officer (P.W-12) had himself

stated in the cross-examination that the field where the dead

body was lying is open from three sides. He had further stated

that when he went towards the paddy field where the dead

body was lying it was visible from 10-12 steps from where he

was standing. Thus, it cannot be said that the dead body of the

deceased was discovered at the pointing out of the appellants

Mishrilal and Modi.

22.The other incriminating articles which were alleged to

have been recovered at the pointing of the appellants were

gandasa, ashes of half burnt pieces of baniyan, pieces of

pyjama of the deceased, bamboo sticks, gamacha, dhoti and

rope by which the body was allegedly tied.

23.The offence of murder is alleged to have been committed

in village Neebi and the incriminating articles are alleged to

10

have been recovered from this village.

24.The prosecution has produced Manik Chand Singh, P.W.-

5, Genda Singh P.W.-6 and Investigating officer P.W.-12 to

prove discovery of dead body of deceased and other

incriminating articles, mentioned above, at the instance of

pointing out of the appellants.

25.So far as the prosecution witnesses P.W-5 and P.W.-6 are

concerned they do not belong to Village Neebi. They belong to

another village- Baramar. P.W.-6 has deposed that he and P.W.-

5 belong to the same village. P.W.-5 has deposed in his

examination in chief that his village is 4-5 furlongs away from

village Neebi.

26.The testimony of these two witnesses are to the effect

that it was in their presence that the appellants Modi and

Mishrilal, being in police custody, had allegedly confessed

before the police that they had killed Sheo Sagar Singh and

they may show the places where they had kept his dead body

and other incriminating articles relating to the offence. These

two witnesses have also stated that appellant Chhabboo Lal

was arrested on 6.9.1981 and being in police custody he had

got the recoveries made of the pyjama, gamacha, dhoti and

rope.

27.P.W-5 has deposed that he was sitting in his village at the

tea shop of Mahangoo where 3-4 persons came from the side

of village Neebi for taking paan and biri at the shop. They were

talking that lot of police had come in the village Neebi. On

hearing this he guessed that as Shiv Sagar Singh was missing

the police might have come to the village in that connection. He

then set out for village Neebi along with Rajendra and Lal

Singh. When he reached village Neebi he saw that police

11

personnel, appellants Modi and Mishrilal were sitting alongwith

villagers. Investigating Officer was interrogating the appellants

Modi and Mishrilal about the murder of the deceased Sheo

Sagar Singh. The said two appellants had told the police before

him that they had killed the deceased and that they can get

dead body and other incriminating article recovered from the

places where they are lying.

28.It is an admitted case of the prosecution that after lodging

of the FIR on 5.9.1981 at about 9.45 p.m. the Investigating

Officer (P.W.-12) reached village Neebi at about 11.15 p.m on

the same date and he reached the house of appellants Modi

and Mishrilal and any time after 12 in the mid night and started

interrogating them. P.W-5 had stated in the cross-examination

that he had reached village Neebi about 12 or 12.15 in the

night.

29.We may at the very outset state that it is highly

improbable that P.W.-5 in the mid night, would take the trouble

to go from his village Baramar to another village Neebi, that too

just to see why the police is camping there. This witness has

stated in his cross-examination that when he was taking tea in

his village shop, few person came there from the side of village

Neebi and it was from their conversation that he learnt that in

village Neebi lot of police has come and then he set out for

village Neebi. It would be significant to mention here that this

witness had admitted in the cross-examination that he had not

told the Investigating Officer during the investigation about the

fact that he was taking tea in his village and that few persons

from the side of Village Neebi had come and from them he

learnt that police had come to village Neebi. This would mean

that it is an afterthought of the prosecution and surely a

12

deliberate attempt to improve the prosecution case in the trial to

explain and justify the presence of this witness in village Neebi

for being a witness of the case. We may, therefore, hold that it

is unbelievable that P.W.-5 was taking tea at the tea shop of his

village at about 11 or 12 in the night. The reason is that it is

common knowledge that even these days tea shops in the

villages are not open at such a dead hours of night, what to say

of the times of 38 years back in the year 1981, when the

present incident had taken place. We, therefore, hold that P.W-

5 is a got up witness of police and the prosecution has chosen

him witness as no witness of village Neebi was coming forward

to support the prosecution case. The suggestion given to this

witness by the defence that he is a stooge of police and has

made deposition under the influence of police appears to be

correct. The incriminating articles were definitely not recovered

in his presence. For all these reasons we hold that P.W-5 is not

at all a reliable witness.

30.Another witness P.W-6 is also of the village of P.W.-5. His

presence in village Neebi at the time of recovery is also

unbelievable. This witness, for his presence in village Neebi,

had given explanation in the trial that the millstone of his grist

mill was not working so he had gone to village Neebi in the

night at about 9 p.m. to call a mechanic named, Ganga Teli,

who lived in village Neebi. He also stated that he went to the

house of mechanic Ganga Teli who met him and thereafter he

stayed whole night at the house of the said mechanic. He did

so because the said mechanic asked him to stay at his home

and in the morning he would accompany him to the place

where the flour-mill of PW-6 was situated. He further stated that

during his stay at the house of mechanic, the appellants had

come to the village and at 12 to 12-30 in the night he reached

13

at the house of the appellants. The appellant Modi was also

present there and both the appellants told the SHO that they

can show the place where they have hidden the dead body of

the deceased. Thereafter PW-6 stated that he alongwith

appellants and police went to the place where the dead body

was lying. He had seen the dead body at the place where the

appellants had indicated. This witness is also a witness of

recovery of half burnt piece of baniyan of the deceased. He is

also a witness of recovery of Gandasa and bamboo sticks from

the house of the appellant Mishrilal. He is also a witness of

recovery of pieces of pyjama, Dhoti, Gamcha etc. at the

pointing out of appellant Chabbu Lal. These recoveries were

made on 06.09.1981.

31.The statement of this witness does not inspire confidence

particularly to the explanation that he had shown his presence

in village Neebi. The deposition that this witness had gone to

village Neebi to call mechanic Ganga Teli and he stayed at the

house of the said mechanic is not believable. It is highly

improbable that a person whose gristmill was not working,

chose in the night by 9.00 P.M. to go to the village to call a

mechanic of his choice for repairs. More so, when the repair

could not have been undertaken in the night, there is no

evidence of the fact that alleged repair work of the system was

very urgent. To the contrary, the evidence is that there was no

such urgency, otherwise this witness would not have stayed

there whole night at the house of the said mechanic. It is also

not comprehensible that a person who has gone to call the

mechanic, has stayed in the night and would not return to his

own village, which is only at a distance of a furlong from his

village Neebi. The most significant fact that needs to be pointed

out is that whatever explanation or reason that PW-6 has given

14

about his presence is coming for the first time in the court and

not during investigation. This is enough to suggest that said

explanation of PW-6 about his presence in village Neebi is

nothing but an after-thought of the prosecution. Therefore, we

hold that PW-6 is a wholly unreliable witness. Therefore, the

prosecution has failed to prove the discovery of incriminating

articles at the instance of the appellant from the evidence of

P.Ws.-5 and 6.

32.Now remains the evidence of PW-12, the Investigating

Officer of the case.

33.The testimony of investigating officer PW-12 shows that

he has not stated the actual words spoken by the appellants

leading to the discovery of dead body of the deceased and

other incriminating articles of the case. It would be worthwhile

to extract the examination in chief of this witness with regard to

the discovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the

appellants. He has deposed in his examination in chief as

follows:-

“fnukad 5-9-81 dks eSa ,l-vks- /kwjiqj rS;kukr Fkk ;g eqdnek esjs

ekStwnxh esa dk;e gqvk] rQrh'k eSaus [kqn yh mlh le; mlh fnu eSaus oknh

eqdnek pUnjek flag dk c;ku fy;k mlds ckn e; QkslZ o ljdkjh thi ds

eSkds ij xzke uhoh x;k ogk e`rd dh eka Jherh iapjktk dk c;ku fy;k

fnukad 6-9-81 dks yxkrkj jkr esa gh 12 cts ds ckn lafnX/k vfHk;qDr feJh

yky o eksnh ls iwNrkN djus ds xjt ls muds fuokl LFkku ij x;k rks ;g

yksx iqfyl dks ns[kdj Hkkxs fd iqfyl us ?ksj ekjdj idM fy;k vkSj muls

iwNrkN dh xbZ nksuksa vknfe;ksa us vyx vyx iwNrkN ij tqeZ ls ,doky

djds fer`d f'ko lkxj flag ds yk'k dh cjkenxh djkus dks dgk fd muds

fulku nsgh ij gejkg xokgku ftuds lkeus bdoky fd;k Fkk] xokgku ekfud

pUn] xsank flag o eqdhe ds lkFk vUrjxr /kkjk 27 evidence Act cktkQrk

ykl dh cjkenxh dh xbZA”

34.From the deposition of Investigating Officer (P.W.-12), it is

clear that leave alone the material particulars of the place

where the dead body was resting, even the substance of the

whereabouts of the dead body and other recovered materials

were not provided by the accused appellants. This deficiency in

15

the evidence tendered by the Investigating Officer is itself fatal

to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the ingredients of a

recovery which would incriminate the appellants under Section

27 of the Indian Evidence Act are not made out. The most

essential ingredients of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is that

accused had given the information to the police and it was upon

that information something incriminating articles has been

discovered. The prosecution has, thus, failed to prove that dead

body and other incriminating articles were recovered at the

pointing out of the appellants. From the aforesaid quotation, it is

clear that this witness has not stated the actual words spoken

by the appellants leading to discovery of dead body and other

articles what he had stated is that he had made the alleged

recovery according to Section 27 of Evidence Act.

35.In the case in hand, admittedly no motive has been

established by the prosecution and further from the facts and

circumstances of the case, it comes out that other

circumstances are not constituting a chain of circumstance to

record conviction of the appellants.

36.It may also be noted that the Apex Court recently in the

case of Devi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No.

148 of 2010 decided on 8.1.2019 while dealing with

circumstantial evidence, observed as under:-

“14.The classic enunciation of law pertaining to

circumstantial evidence, its relevance and decisiveness, as

a proof of charge of a criminal offence, is amongst others

traceable decision of the court in Sharad Birdhichand

Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116. The

relevant excerpts from para 153 of the decision is assuredly

apposite:-

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show

that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a

case against an accused can be said to be fully

established:

16

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of

guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that

the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not

“may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but

a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be

or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji

Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs State of

Maharashtra (1973) 2 CC 793 where the observations

were made:

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the

accused must be and not merely may be guilty

before a court can convict and the mental distance

between 'may be' and must be' is long and divides

vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with

the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,

they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis

except that the accused is guilty;

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature

and tendency;

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except

the one to be proved; and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so 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.”

15.It has further been considered by this Court in Sujit

Biswas Vs State of Assam, 2013(12) SCC 406 and Raja

Alias Rajinder Vs State of Haryana, 2015 (11) SCC 43.

It has been propounded that while scrutinizing the

circumstantial evidence, a court has to evaluate it to

ensure the chain of events is established clearly and

completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood of

innocence of the accused. The underlying principle is

whether the chain is complete or not, indeed it would

depend on the facts of each case emanating from the

evidence and there cannot be a straight jacket formula

which can be laid down for the purpose. But the

circumstances adduced when considered collectively, it

must lead only to the conclusion that there cannot be a

person other than the accused who alone is the

perpetrator of the crime alleged and the circumstances

must establish the conclusive nature consistent only with

the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.

37.In view of the settled legal position as well from the facts

17

as stated above, we are of the considered opinion that this

appeal deserves acceptance. Hence, the same is allowed. The

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.1984

passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in S.T.

No. 36 of 1982 is set aside. The accused appellants be

acquitted from the charges under which they were found guilty.

As per record, appellants Chhabboo Lal and Mishrilal are on

bail, therefore, their bail bonds and sureties stand discharged.

Appellant Modi who had been taken into custody pursuant to

Non Bailable Warrant dated 21.2.2018, is directed to be set at

liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

The record of the court below be returned forthwith.

Order Date :- 6.9.2019

RavindraKSingh

(Vivek Varma, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)