Mr. Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. - This criminal appeal has been filed by accused Dara Singh alias Didar Singh against the judgment dated 23.1.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Aklera, District Jhalawar. Appellant Dara Singh @ Didar Singh was convicted and sentenced as follows :
u/s 397 IPC - Seven years'' rigorous imprisonment.
U/s 404 IPC - Two years'' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo one month''s imprisonment.
U/s 302 IPC - Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo six months'' RI.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are that one Surendar Singh S/o Shri Charan Singh, R/o Kagwal, P.S. Hajipur, District Hoshiyarpur (Punjab) with Khalasi (cleaner) Sikandar lodged a verbal report at Police Station Aklera (Jhalawar) on 26.12.2005 alleging, inter alia, that he is driver of truck bearing No. PB-23D-6797. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Pooran Singh is owner of the truck. Mahendra Singh has another truck bearing No. PB-23D-3997 whose driver is Dara Singh @ Didar Singh and Khalasi is Shambhu Bihari. Both these trucks proceeded on 21.12.2005 after loading cement-sheets from Katni Transport Corporation of India Limited to Chandigarh. The owner was with them in truck No. PB-23D-3997. He was possessing about Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- for diesel and other expenses. On 25.12.2005 at about 8-9 PM, they entered into Rajasthan and stopped for taking meal at Dhaba situated near Reliance petrol pump. Some hot discussions among owner, driver and Khalasi of truck No. PB-23D-3997 took place there. Thereafter both, driver Dara Singh @ Didar Singh and Khalasi Shambhu, without taking meal, boarded back in the truck. Rest of three persons took the meal. Thereafter, the owner Mahendra Singh boarded in truck No. PB-23D-3997. Both the trucks departed and crossed the boarder check post at about 11.00 PM. Thereafter, complainant, who was plying his truck ahead, parked the truck at new bridge near Dhaba at some distance from Aklera and went to a sleep. In the morning, when he reached at a place where mile stone was showing Aklera � 19 Kms., he saw the other truck No. PB-23D-3997 standing with engine on and wind sheet of the truck was broken. They stopped their truck and saw that blood was flowing from driver side towards tyre. One stone was lying in front of the truck. The Khalasi Sikandar peeked into truck and informed that Mahendra Singh is lying dead on the seat behind driver seat, having injury on his head and bleeding. The complainant parked his truck and saw that his owner Mahendra Singh was lying dead and a big stone was there in the truck. Both, driver and Khalasi of that truck, were missing and indicators of the truck were on and hand breaks were found in use. He got the address of Aklera police station from one Sardarji''s Dhaba and came to the police station by taking private vehicle. Due to hot discussions for money, driver Dara Singh @ Didar Singh and Khalasi Shambhu Bihari of truck No. PB-23D-3997 have murdered his owner Mahendra Singh in the truck and fled away.
3. On receipt of the report, FIR No. 347/2005 was registered at Police Station Aklera for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC. Postmortem was conducted of the dead body. The accused appellant was arrested. After investigation, charge-sheet for the offences u/s 302, 397 and 404 IPC was filed against the accused Dara Singh @ Didar Singh and while keeping the investigation pending u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. An incomplete charge-sheet u/s 299 Cr.P.C. was filed against co-accused Shambhu Bihari. The charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aklera, who in turn committed the case for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aklera.
4. Learned trial court framed charges for the offence u/s 397, 404 and 302, in alternate 302/34 IPC against the accused appellant. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. In all, 15 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 38 documents were exhibited. The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. No oral evidence, in defence, was adduced by the accused. However, statements of Surender Singh and Sikandar Khan were exhibited as Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2. The learned trial court, after hearing the arguments and appreciating the evidence, observed vide judgment dated 23.1.2008 that with the circumstance of last seen against appellant Dara Singh @ Didar Singh, the fact of hot discussion prior to the fateful incident and amount of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- to be in possession of Mahendra Singh (deceased), proved by the prosecution and, conduct of the accused appellant in running away from incident after the occurrence, persuade to believe that the accused appellant committed the offence. Thus, the trial court held the accused appellant convict and sentenced.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the hot discussion took place, the deceased Mahendra Singh certainly would not have proceeded further in the truck driven by the accused when other truck was available to him. From this, it is clear that the incident did not take place as alleged, but it had taken place in some other way and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that except the testimony of Surendar Singh (PW-12) and Sikandar Khan (PW-13), there is no evidence with regard to the deceased being in possession of Rs.30,000/- to 40,000/-. Moreover, no such amount has been recovered from the accused.
7. Learned counsel submits that the hammer (weapon of the offence) was recovered from an open place, accessible to everybody. Recovery and seizure memo of the hammer (Ex.P-1) could not be proved as the attesting witnesses - Om Prakash (PW-1) and Madan Lal (PW-4) have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Recovery has been made about 13 days after the occurrence of the offence. As per FSL report (Ex.P-24), the hammer was having blood of "A" group but there is no evidence that the blood group of the deceased was also of "A" group.
8. Surendar Singh (PW-12) and Sikandar (PW-13) are admitting in cross examination that they cannot say who assaulted Mahender Singh. On the contrary, Madan Lal (PW-4) has admitted in his cross examination by the defence that in the valley where the incident took place, road robberies are common. Khemraj (PW-11) who is Investigating Officer of the case has also admitted in cross examination that sometimes guards are deputed on the highway. In such circumstances, it is highly probable that the offence may have been committed by road robbers and not by the accused appellant. The accused appellant may have run away from the spot due to fear of robbers.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment. He submits that there is evidence on record and circumstances are also against the accused appellant. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant and appropriately sentenced.
10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
11. The evidence available on record is establishing that in the night of 26.12.2005, Mahendar Singh was beaten and he succumbed to the injuries. It has not been disputed that on the fateful night of 26.12.2005, Mahendar Singh was murdered. Only issue remains is as to who committed the murder. Surendar Singh (PW-12) and Sikandar (PW-13) are the persons who last saw the deceased. As per their statements, on the last occasion, they saw the deceased boarding the truck whose driver was Dara Singh @ Didar Singh and Khalasi Shambhu Bihari. Both these witnesses have admitted in cross examination that they cannot say who assaulted the deceased. Though evidence of last seen is against the accused appellant but it is simply a circumstance. It is also proved from the testimony of these two witnesses that when they saw Mahendar Singh again, he was killed and driver Dara Singh @ Didar Singh and Khalasi Shambhu Bihari were not there. The driver and the Khalasi might have fled away, is another circumstance available against the appellant. It is well settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove each and every link of the story beyond all doubts.
12. In the instant case, the police has arrested appellant Dara Singh @ Didar Singh on 6.1.2006 i.e. eleven days after the incident. As per prosecution story, the appellant gave an information u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and accordingly took the police to an open place nearby the place of occurrence. As per seizure memo (Ex.P-1), a hammer was taken out by the accused after digging the earth about one feet deep. Om Prakash (PW-1) and Madan Lal (PW-4) were attesting witnesses before whom this recovery was made. However, Om Prakash (PW-1) and Madan Lal (PW-4) are not corroborating this fact and turned hostile. Thus, recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused, is not proved. Moreover, such recovery after 12-13 days of the occurrence from an open place, accessible to anybody, raises serious doubt about veracity of the prosecution case.
13. As per report of the FSL (Ex.24) human blood of "A" group was found on the hammer but the prosecution did not adduce any evidence that the deceased Mahendra Singh was also having blood of "A" group.
14. It is said that hot discussion of deceased Mahendra Singh with appellant Dara Singh @ Didar Singh took place for some money matter. The prosecution has not explained where Rs.30,000/- to 40,000/- had gone which were in possession of the deceased. Recovery of money has not been made at the instance of accused. In the instant matter, if the motive was money, then the prosecution is required to prove what happened to the money.
15. On the other hand, the defence of the accused appellant, right from initial stage, is that at the place of occurrence, the incidents of road robbery are common. Deceased Mahendra Singh might have been murdered by the highway robbers. Though no witness of prosecution has admitted such theory, however Khemraj (PW-11), the Investigating Officer has admitted that sometimes the police guards are deputed for petrolling in the night at that place.
16. In view of above discussions, we find no evidence from the prosecution so as to believe without any doubt that only the appellant committed the charged offence.
17. In Sudesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor � 2014 (3) WLC (Raj.) 421, this Court has observed as under :
"The law on the question of circumstantial evidence is well settled that an accused can be convicted in a case of circumstantial evidence only if the chain of circumstances against him is so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. Standard of proof in a criminal matters is always beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution in every such case is required to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any scope of reasonable doubt, benefit of such doubt has to be extended to the accused. The rival submissions have to be therefore tested on that yardstick to find out whether alleged offences against the accused appellant have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It is trite that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of evidence which should lead to conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed offence and none else. Each of circumstances that is proved against the accused should form a chain so complete so as to rule out every other hypothesis, which may be compatible with innocence of the accused. Though the prosecution sought to produce a large number of independent witnesses to prove the factum of last seen, motive and recovery against accused-appellants but their testimony stands on a shaky ground and has many contradictions, inconsistencies and does not prove any of those three factors, viz., last-seen, recovery and motive, beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution has not been able to prove any of these three circumstances independently beyond reasonable doubt, let alone forming a chain of circumstance. Analysis of the evidence that we have made above, makes it evident that there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances, which cannot be accepted to be so complete as to point to the guilt of the accused and none else and when every single possibility of accused being innocent is ruled out.
The Supreme Court in Ashish Batham v. State of M.P.- 2002 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 616 : (2002) 7 SCC 317, in Para 8 of the judgment, held as under:-
"Realities or Truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between ''may be true'' and ''must be true'' and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between ''conjectures'' and ''sure conclusions'' to be arrived at on the touch stone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record."
It may be noted that in Ashish Batham, supra, the case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence in which recovery of chain of the deceased and knife used in the commission of offence as well as blood stained clothes of the accused crept suspicion about role of the accused but recovery being delayed, having been made after second remand of the accused, was itself held to be doubtful and the factum about motive that accused was in love with the deceased also not accepted. It was held that only for this reason it cannot even remotely presumed that this could be the cause of murder unless it was substantiated by credible evidence that affair broken beyond redemption. Motive factor was held to have no legal basis to constitute sufficient circumstance to connect the appellant with the crime. The accused was therefore acquitted.
In Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2011) 13 SCC 621, the Supreme Court held that each of the circumstances has to be assessed on its own merits. Quality rather than quantity of evidence is crucial factor in a case of circumstantial evidence. The court has to be cautious against imaginary inferences or its prejudices, which may unwittingly creep in. Its verdict must be based on clear and irrefutable logic. Responsibility of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence is more as compared to the cases where ocular testimony or the direct evidence is available.
In Kulvinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2011) 5 SCC 258, also it was held by the Supreme Court that in exceptional cases, conviction of accused can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but in that case the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot derive any strength from weakness of defence put up by accused. Circumstances from which guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should be of a conclusive nature and exclude all possible hypotheses except the one to be proved. Facts so established must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused and chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by accused and none else.
In Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David � 2011 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 680 : (2011) 5 SCC 509, also the Supreme Court sounded a word of caution that the court must be cautious against conjectures and surmises taking place of proof. Circumstances so proved must form a chain of events pointing to guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt without there being possibility of any other hypothesis. Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form chain of proof from which natural and irresistible conclusion could be drawn as to the guilt of accused and no other hypothesis against guilt is possible. It was further observed by their Lordships that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjectures and surmises may take place a legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such complete chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. There is a long mental distance between ''may be true'' and ''must be true'' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. It was further observed that when important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped. This is what has happened in the present case because of failure of the prosecution to conclusively connect the accused with the crime.
In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant, which is entirely based on circumstantial evidence for the reason that chain of circumstances sought to be proved against him has several missing links, which cannot be said to exclude every reasonable possible hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence.
18. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and accused appellant Dara Singh @ Didar Singh is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 397, 404 and 302/34 IPC. The accused appellant be released immediately from jail, if he is not required in any other case.
19. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused appellant Dara Singh @ Didar Singh is directed to forthwith furnish a person bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.
