CHAPTER 4:

1974

Sawal Das v. State of Bihar1

The whole case against the appellant depends upon circumstantial evidence. There is no eye
witness- of the murder which was alleged to have been committed by the appellant, his
father, and step-mother conjointly. So far as the case of quick disposal of the body by the
appellant is concerned, the circumstantial evidence was rightly believed and held to be
conclusive by both the Courts below. This evidence was too damaging to admit of any doubt
that the appellant took the leading part in doing away with the remains of the body of his wife
after she had been murdered.

Sk. Amir v. The State of Maharashtra2

misbranded intoxicant - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Trial Court acquitted appellant for
stock of misbranded drug on ground that charges merely raised suspicion - High Court
reversed decision and convicted appellant - Trial Court appreciated circumstantial evidences
wrongly - appellant could not explain conscious possession of parcel containing misbranded
drug - appellant had no valid licence of stock for sale of drug - possession of appellant
amounted to stock of drug for sale - Supreme Court confirmed decision of High Court.

Som Prakash v. State of Delhi3

illegal gratification - Section 161 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Trial Court convicted
appellant under Section 161 for bribing public functionary - appellant caught on spot by trap
laid down by police - High Court confirmed decision - circumstantial evidences sufficiently

1
(09.01.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0201/1974
2
(09.01.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0196/1974
3
(25.01.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0213/1974
corroborated by witnesses - appellant could not contradict evidences - appellant could not
explain payment of money - Supreme Court upheld decision of High Court.

Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh4

finding the case hanging on a retracted extra-judicial confession from a person who does not
necessarily inspire great confidence, corroborated only by circumstantial evidence we
thought it proper to make a conscientious search to see if truth had been reached and
miscarriage of justice averted.

conviction - Sections 201 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - accused convicted for
offences under Sections 302 and 201 and was sentenced to death - testimony of witnesses
proved that deceased along with her child was last seen with accused - accused made extra-
judicial confession to PW.16 which finds corroboration from other circumstantial evidences

Sampat Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra5

The evidence of test identification is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act; it is, at
best supporting evidence. It can be used only to corroborate the substantive evidence given
by the witnesses in court regarding identification of the accused as the order of the criminal
act. The earlier identification made by the witnesses at the test identification parade, by itself,
has no independent value. Nor is test identification the only type of evidence that can be
tendered to confirm the evidence of a witness regarding identification of the accused, in
court, as the perpetrator of the crime. The identity of the culprit can be fixed by
circumstantial evidence also.

The presence of all the three eye-witnesses (P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4) at the time and place of
occurrence was highly natural and probable. They had no animus whatsoever against the
appellant. Their evidence with regard to identification of the appellant as the assailant of the
deceased had been amply corroborated by reliable circumstantial evidence of a clinching
character.

4
(11.02.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0128/1974
5
(14.02.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0197/1974
murder - Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Trial Court convicted appellant under
Section 302 - High Court affirmed decision - witnesses amply corroborated by reliable
circumstantial evidences - prosecution established case beyond reasonable doubt - Supreme
Court affirmed decision of Trial Court.

Kesar Singh v. State of Punjab6

Criminal - death sentence - Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - appeal against Order of
High Court - by impugned Order sentence awarded to appellant for offence under Section
302 enhanced to death sentence - conviction and sentence challenged - evidence established
beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was at least one of possibly several murderers -
statements of two eye-witnesses find corroboration from FIR - version of two eye-witnesses
true so far as participation of appellant in murder of three men by shooting was concerned -
participation of appellant in occurrence corroborated by other circumstantial evidence -
nothing produced to justify interference with Order of conviction under Section 302 - so far
as death sentence was concerned nothing apart from occurrence proved about character of
appellant - nothing was disclosed about antecedents of appellant - though conviction of
appellant under Section 302 upheld but death sentence awarded to him set aside.

Mohinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana7

Criminal - breach of trust - Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - appellants convicted for
criminal breach of trust and misappropriation by Trial Court - High Court confirmed decision
- appeal - conviction of appellant based on long drawn witnesses and complicated
circumstantial evidences - inferences drawn by Trial Court not sufficient to sustain charges -
prosecution's case suffer from infirmities and not able to prove charges beyond reasonable
doubt - appeal allowed.

Dharm Das Wadhwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh8

6
(04.03.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0156/1974
7
(05.03.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0172/1974
15. counsel for the appellant, rightly stressed that the prosecution edifice was built on
circumstantial evidence only since no one had seen the accused mix strychnine with aspirin
before serving the doctor. The critical rule of proof by circumstantial evidence, counsel
reminded us, is that such testimony can be the probative basis for conviction only if one
rigorous test is satisfied. The circumstances must make so strong a mesh that the innocence
of the accused is wholly excluded and on every reasonable hypothesis the guilt of the accused
must be the only inference.

counsel for the appellant suggested some maybes in the case excluding his client's
culpability, and contended that the test of incompatibility with the innocence of the accused
had not been fulfilled at all here. As a proposition of law and commonsense, we agree that
unlike direct evidence the indirect light circumstances may throw may vary from suspicion to
certitude and care must be taken to avoided subjective pitfalls of exaggerating a conjecture
into a conviction.

16. Every evidentiary circumstance is a probative link, strong or weak, and must be made out
with certainty. Link after link forged firmly by credible testimony may form a strong chain of
sure guilt binding the accused. Each link taken separately may just suggest but when hooked
on to the next and on again may manacle the accused inescapably. Only then can a
concatenation of incriminating facts suffice to convict a man. Short of that is insufficient.

Bhagwandas Keshwani and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan9

We think' that although, Vishnu Kumar did not prove his defence yet, he is entitled to the
benefit of the principle that circumstantial evidence must be of such a nature as to exclude
any other inference except that of guilt advanced by the prosecution to sustain a conviction.
Consequently, we give Vishnu Kumar the benefit of doubt.

8
(14.03.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0123/1974

9
(03.04.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0107/1974
Khem Karan and Ors. vs. The State of U.P. and Ors. (08.04.1974 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0158/1974

The principle of law is well settled that merely because a different view of the evidence
evidence is possible minds, differ as rivers differ-you cannot cancel a finding against guilt.
But the appellate Court is untrammeled in its power to re-evaluate the evidence bearing in
mind the seriousness of overthrowing an acquittal once recorded. In that view we cannot find
any error of law in the High Court reconsidering the probative value of the oral and
circumstantial evidence in the case. Nor are we persuaded to think that the appellate Court
has failed to observe the built in restraints on exercise of power while upsetting an acquittal.
On the other hand, the Court has made the correct approach that only those accused against
whom there was additional probative reinforcement could be convicted. So, it found that the
injuries on the persons of the three appellants and the fact that Siya Ram, appellant No. 2, had
a gun in his hands at the time of the occurrence were sufficient, together with the other
evidence, to hold the appellants guilty.

What remains is the question of sentence. It is true that those assailants who did not receive
injuries have escaped punishment and conviction has been clamped down on those who have
sustained injuries in the course of the clash. It is equally true that those who have allegedly
committed the substantive offences have jumped the gauntlet of the law and the appellants
have been held guilty only constructively. We also notice that the case has been pending for
around ten years and the accused must have been in jail for some time, a circumstance which
is relevant under the new Criminal Procedure Code though it has come into operation only
from April 1, 1974. Taking a conspectus of the various circumstances in the case, some of
which are indicated above, we are satisfied that the ends of justice, would be met by reducing
the sentence to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307, read with Section 149,
and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, I.P.C., the two terms running
concurrently. Wish this modification regarding sentence, we dismiss the appeal.

Mohan Lal Pangasa vs. The State of U.P. (09.04.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0425/1974
Criminal - Murder - Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against conviction for
offence under Section 302 - Appellant was charged for offence under Section 302 for murder
of his colleague - There was no direct witnesses to the incident and case depended upon
circumstantial evidence - When a person is charged with murder and evidence consist of only
circumstantial evidence it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the
conclusion must be that the accused is guilty; not fantastic possibilities nor fresh inferences
but rational deductions which reasonable minds make from the probative force of facts and
circumstances - The accused was the person last seen with the deceased, his conduct of
running away when challenged and chased and crouching underneath a bogey when the
rakshaks were about to run him down, his wearing clothes which were blood stained, the
recovery of the knife from his trouser pocket and his conduct in telling the rakshaks that he
murdered his companion were too overwhelming for any possible inference of innocence -
Further appellant led the police party to the discovery of the dead body which also has an
incriminating impact - Held, no reason to interfere with conviction - Appeal dismissed.

Jagta vs. State of Haryana (23.04.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0420/1974

In the circumstances the presence of the accused in his field at 1 p.m. cannot take the
prosecution case very far. So far as the evidence of Chattar Singh PW is concerned, we find
that all that the witness has deposed is that the accused was found walking towards his village
on a pucca road at a fast speed at sunset tune. On being accosted by the witness, the accused
did not stop and stated that he had some work. This circumstance would also not necessarily
point to the guilt of the accused. Lastly, we have the evidence about the injuries which were
found on the person of the accused. The explanation of the accused is that those injuries were
caused to him by the police. Assuming that the explanation of the accused with regard to
those injuries is not trustworthy, this circumstance as well as the circumstance about his
being present in his fields at 1 p.m. on the day of occurrence and about his going at sunset
time on a pucca road towards his village are hardly sufficient to warrant the conviction of the
accused in a serious offence entailing death penalty.
It is well established that circumstantial evidence in order to warrant conviction should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The same cannot be said to be
true of the circumstantial evidence adduced in this case

Vasant Laxman More vs. State of Maharashtra (19.07.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0234/1974

Criminal - murder - Sections 302 and 309 of Indian Penal Code,1860 - appeal against
conviction of accused under Sections 302 and 309 and award of death penalty by High Court
on ground that accused had previous conviction for murder for which he had undergone
sentence of life imprisonment - offence of murder proved against accused so conviction
under Section 302 and 309 confirmed but sentence of death penalty set aside and converted to
life imprisonment by Supreme Court.’

The circumstantial evidence in support of the charges for which the appellant has been
convicted is of the clearest kind. The deceased Indira, a young widow, developed friendship
with the appellant after the death of her husband. They lived together for a few months and
later the appellant shifted to another room for securing which the deceased pledged her
ornaments with a moneylender. Separate residence meant separate interests and the appellant
feared that he was being jilted. He resented that the deceased should go to cinema houses in
the company of others in preference to him.

The circumstances thus conclusively establish that Indira was murdered by the appellant. But
there is something to say on the sentence of death. Were the High Court right that the murder
was "pre-planned, we would have hesitated to interfere with the discretion exercised by it in
confirming the death sentence. But, on the evidence we see no warrant for the conclusion that
the murder was preplanned.

The High Court confirmed the death sentence partly on the ground that the appellant had a
previous conviction for murder for which he had undergone the sentence of life
imprisonment. The circumstances relating to the previous conviction are not on the record
and the bare fact of a previous conviction for murder cannot by itself justify the imposition of
death sentence.
Mulkh Raj Sikka vs. Delhi Administration10

Criminal - murder - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Trial Court convicted appellant for
murdering his brother on basis of circumstantial evidences - High Court confirmed decision -
circumstantial evidences sufficient in itself to sustain charges - evidence fully corroborated
by witnesses - Supreme Court upheld decision of High Court.

The examination of the appellant under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code lasted
for four months and runs into 397 printed pages. The substance thereof is that the appellant
denied every material circumstance including his differences with the deceased.

9. The case rests for its success on circumstantial evidence but not often does one come
across a case in which the circumstances are as telling as here.

State of U.P. vs. Sheo Ram11

Criminal - indistinguishable offence - Sections 149, 323, 324 and 325 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Trial Court convicted respondent under Sections 334/149 and 325/149 along with
other accused in case of murder - on appeal some accused including respondent acquitted by
High Court whereas conviction of others upheld - appeal against acquittal - case of
respondent indistinguishable from case of accused convicted - no evidence to justify
reasoning of High Court that respondent involved on account of suspicion - circumstantial
evidences established offence of respondent beyond reasonable doubt - Supreme Court
convicted respondent under Sections 324/149 and 325/149.

10
(23.07.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0173/1974

11
(14.08.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0219/1974
The State of Punjab vs. Bhajan Singh and Ors.12

Criminal - Murder - Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against acquittal of
respondents by High Court for the offence under Section 302 - Case depended upon
circumstantial evidence and evidence brought on record suffered from various infirmities -
No evidence to show that dead body recovered at the instance of respondent was that of
persons killed by respondents - Cause of death could not be ascertained as they were in
decomposed state - Extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and did not
inspire confidence - Circumstances do create suspicion of involvement of respondents but
was not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused -
Held, no reason to interfere with the decision of High Court - Appeal dismissed.

There is no eye witness of the occurrence and the conviction of the accused is sought to be
accrued on the basis of circumstantial evidence. We, however, find that the evidence which
has been adduced in this case is far from satisfactory and that it suffers from a number of
infirmities.

The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion,
by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a
finding of guilt of the accused.

Nachhittar Singh vs. The State of Punjab 13

Criminal - conviction - Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - appeal challenging
conviction under Section 302 and death sentence passed thereon - conviction of appellant
mainly based on evidence of PW.2 which had been corroborated in material particulars by
independent evidence including that of Ballistic Expert - presence of PW.2 at scene of
occurrence proved by testimony of other witnesses - when deceased dropped on receiving
first gun-shot she rushed out and laid herself on him to shield him from further harm -
nothing improbable in her testimony - autopsy report found that injuries caused to deceased
from close range - testimony of ballistic expert stated crime cartridges fired from gun of
appellant - ballistic evidence confirmed connection of appellant with crime - evidence on
record clearly established that appellant was person who had shot dead deceased in manner
alleged by prosecution - further nothing produced which could justify exercise of special
jurisdiction in matter of sentence - conviction of appellant under Section 302 and sentenced
passed against him upheld - appeal dismissed.

12
. (16.08.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0435/1974
13
(30.09.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0174/1974
Mr. Singh however, con tends that no empty cartridges had. in fact, been found at the spot,
and that this circumstantial evidence had been fabricated after the arrest of the appellant and
seizure of the gun which took place on the 19th December.

Now remains the question of sentence. In this connection Mr. Singh has emphasised two
circumstances: namely, the absence or obscurity of the motive for the crime and the
prolonged period for which the specter of death penalty has been brooding over the head of
the appellant. In view of these twin circumstances, it is urged, the capital sentence should be
commuted to that of imprisonment for life

Labhchand Dhanpat Singh Jain vs. The State of Maharashtra14

Held, dismissing the appeal

B. The argument is that, in order to apply Section 123 of the Act, there must be a "seizure" of
the goods by the proper Customs Officer duly authorised as provided by Section 110 of the
Act. We do not think that the High Court or the Magistrate had used this presumption. We
find that they had relied upon circumstantial evidence in the case to infer the character of the
gold recovered and the accused's guilty knowledge.

Kundan Singh vs. Delhi Administration15

Criminal - Conviction - Appellants was convicted under Section 302/34, Section 364/34 and
Section 325/34, Indian Penal Code, 1908 - Hence, this Appeal - Whether, Appellants were
rightly convicted - Held, circumstantial evidence against accused was enough to bring home
a charge under Section 364/34, I.P.C. or under Section 302/34 beyond reasonable doubt -
Appellants did play a leading part in taking away deceased to the house of Mohinder Singh
and had actually, on an earlier occasion, threatened him with dire, consequences - Trial Court
and High Court correctly concluded that atleast three Appellants before us inflicted the
14
(03.12.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0161/1974
15
(20.12.1974 - SC) : MANU/SC/0160/1974
injuries on the deceased in the occurrence that took place at the house of Mohinder Singh -
Thus, each of Appellants were convicted under Section 325/34and 304 Part II I.P.C and
convictions of Appellants under Section 302/34 and Section 364/, 34, I.P.C. was set aside -
Appeal partly allowed.

After having been taken through the relevant evidence the most significant part of which is
the post-mortem report we are unable to hold that the circumstantial evidence against the
above-mentioned accused is enough to bring home a charge under Section 364/34, I.P.C. or
under Section 302/34 beyond reasonable doubt.

However, we cannot indulge in guess work except to conceive of reasonable possibilities left
open by circumstantial evidence. We think that the possibility of the common intention to
give Ajit Singh only a beating was not excluded by the evidence on record. There were five
injuries on his body

Ratio Decidendi:

"If circumstantial evidence is proved against Accused then conviction can be granted."