http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 20  

PETITIONER: MOHAN LAL & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AJIT SINGH AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/05/1978

BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:  1978 AIR 1183            1978 SCR  (3) 823  1978 SCC  (3) 249  CITATOR INFO :  R          1979 SC1284  (5)  F          1989 SC1205  (18)

ACT: Evidence Act, 1872-S.114 (a)-Presumption to be drawn against the  accused is a matter which depends on the  circumstances of each case. Criminal  Procedure Code, 1973, s. 313-It is permissible  to accept  that  part of the statement which accords  with  the evidence on the record and to act upon  it--Evidence--Finger print evidence at crime, scenes, reliability of.

HEADNOTE: Nishan  Chand  (deceased),  son  of  appellant  Mohan   Lal, resident  of Roranwali, was the Secretary of Roranwali,  and Phulukhere  Co-operative Societies.  Respondent Ajit  Singh, Nishan Chand’s friend, was the Secretary of Roranwall  Patti Sikhan  Co-operative  Society.   He also  lived  in  village Roranwali, with his maternal uncle Gurdial Singh who was the village  Chairman.  On June 17, 1974 both Nishan  Chand  and the  respondent  left for villages Lambi and Malaut  on  the former’s  bicycle  for  depositing the  moneys  realised  on account of the dues of the Co-operative societies.  They did not,  however, return to Roranwali that night.  On the  next day, Satpal, the younger brother of Nishan Chand, found  the bicycle  of  his  brother lying at some  distance  from  the boundary  of  the village near a culvert and  his  brother’s body in a field at a short distance from there and  informed his  father  Mohan Lal.  Mohan Lal and  his  brother  Dharam Chand  went to the place where the dead body lay.  The  dead body had many injuries, and a blood stained blade of a knife (Ex.  P3) was lying near it.  A black piece of cloth "fifty" was  lying at some distance on the road, and as it was  worn by Ajit Singh the-previous day, a report was lodged with the police.   Ajit Singh was arrested on 21st June, 1974 and  on his  information that he had buried a sum of 41.00/-  and  a gold  ring  in his purse, tied in a handkerchief,  near  the water lift, and had concealed the blood stained clothes  and a  shoe  inside the heap of cotton ’sticks’ in a kiln  on  a road,  the Police recovered those articles at his  instance. The  bundle  of currency notes which was  recovered  at  the instance  of the respondent contained one currency  note  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 20  

Rs.  100/- which was suspected to have  fingerprints.   Ajit Singh was tried and was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge  of  offences under ss. 302, 392 and  397  I.P.C.  The Additional  Sessions  Judge sentenced him to death  for  the offence under secton 302 I.P.C. and to rigorous imprisonment for five years and seven years respectively for the offences under sections 392 and 397 I.P.C. On appeal, the High  Court gave him the benefit of doubt and acquitted him.  Mohan  Lal (father  of the deceased) and one Surinder Kumar  filed  the present appeal, by special leave. Allowing the appeal, the Court, HELD  : (1) While considering the statement of  the  accused under  section  313 Crl.  P.C., 1973 it  is  permissible  to reject  the  exculpatory  part of the  statement  if  it  is disproved  by the evidence on record, and to acts  upon  it. [832 BC] Nishikant Jha V. State of Bihar [1969] 2 SCR 1033; Applied. (2)The evidence on record was sufficient to show that  the statement  of  the respondent which led to the  recovery  of certain articles was not only voluntary but fell within  the purview of section 27 of the Evidence Act in as much as  the "fact  discovered"  was  the place from  which  the  various articles  were produced by the respondent and his  knowledge of it.  Moreover the actual recovery of the currency  notes, the  ring  (bearing the initials of the  deceased)  and  the purse  (containing a library card having the address of  the respondent)  in  pursuance of the information given  by  the respondent, and at his instance, was sufficient guarantee of the truth of that information and it could safely have  been relied upon by the High Court. [834 C-D] (3)There  is  no gainsaying the fact that  a  majority  of fingerprints  found  at crime scenes or crime  articles  are partially smudged, and it is for the experienced and skilled fingerprint  expert  to  say whether a  mark  is  usable  as fingerprint 824 evidence.   Similarly  it is for a competent  technician  to examine  and  give his opinion whether the identity  can  be established, and if so whether that can be done on eight  or even less identical characteristics in an appropriate  case. In  this  case there was the categorical  statement  of  the Director, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, that one particular impression   on  the  currency  note  was   photographically enlarged alongwith the right middle finger impression of the respondent,  that it was comparable, and there  existed  not less   than   eight  points-of  similarity   i.e.   matching characteristic details in their identical sequence,  without any  discordance,  between its comparable  portion  and  the corresponding portion of the photographically enlarged right middle  finger impression.  The Director graphically  showed the  eight  points  of similarity, in their  same  form  and position and indicated the nature, direction and sequence of each  point.   He  clearly stated that  so  many  points  of similarity  could  not be found to occur in  impressions  of different  thumbs and fingers and that they  were  identical and were of one and the same person. [840 F-G, 841 D-E] (4)The recovery of incriminating articles in pursuance  of the  respondent’s  information  is  an  important  piece  of evidence  against him.  The question whether  a  presumption should  be  drawn  against him  under  illustration  (a)  of section 114 of the Evidence Act is a matter with depends  on the evidence and the circumstances of each case.  The nature of  the recovered articles, the manner of their  acquisition by  the  owner,  the  nature of  the  evidence  about  their identification, the manner in which the articles were  dealt

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 20  

with  by  the accused, the place and  the  circumstances  of their recovery, the length of the intervening period and the ability or otherwise of the accused to explain the recovery, are  some  of those circumstances.  All these  factors  were against the respondent.[841 G-H, 842 A] Baiju  Bharosa v. State of Madhya Pradesh  [1978] 2 SCR  594 reiterated. (5)The  ring  (Ex.   PI) was made of  gold  and  bore  the initials  of  the deceased, and the goldsmith  was  able  to establish  that it belonged to the deceased.  It  was  found tied   in   a  handkerchief  alongwith  other   two   highly incriminating  articles, namely, the finger marked  currency note  and  the respondent’s own purse about  whose  identity there  could  possibly  be no reason  for  any  doubt.   The respondent  knew  that he would be suspected  of  the  crime because  the deceased was last seen in his company, and  the fact that he buried the articles near the water lift in  the middle  of the way leading from Khankanwali to  his  village shows  that  he wanted the articles to lie  there  until  he could feel reassured enough to dig them out.  It so happened however  that he was suspected from the very beginning,  was arrested  within four days and gave the  information  within the next two days which led to the discovery of an important fact  within the meaning of section 27 of the Evidence  Act. It  must therefore be held that the  incriminating  articles were acquired by the respondent at one and the same time and that  it was he and no one else who had robbed the  deceased of the money and the ring and had hidden them at a place and in  a  manner  which was known to him.  Then  there  is  the further  fact that the respondent was unable to explain  his possession.  All these facts were not only proof of  robbery but  were  presumptive evidence of the charge of  murder  as well.[842 B-F] Wasim  Khan  v. The State of U.P. [1956] SCR  191;  Tulsiram Nanu v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 1; Sunderlal v. The State  of M.P.,  AIR 1954 SC 28 Alisher V. State of U.P. [1974] 4  SCR 254; and Baiju @ Bharosa v. State of M.P., [1978] 2 SCR  594 reiterated. (6)The High Court committed serious errors in reading  the evidence on the record and very often based its findings  on mere  conjectures.   Its finding that  the  prosecution  had failed  to "connect the accused with the commission  of  the crime" was quite incorrect and must be set aside.  Reasoning of  High  Court examined with reference to  the  direct  and circumstantial evidence on record. [838-C-D]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 1975. From the Judgment and Order dt. 9th July, 1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1423 of 1974. 825 S.   C. Manchanda and N. K. Agarwal for the Appellants. D.   Mookerjee,  S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and P. N.  Puri for Respondent No. 1 Hardev Singh for Respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL,  J.-This  appeal  by  special  leave  is  directed against  the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana  High  Court dated  July 9, 1975, giving benefit of doubt  to  respondent Ajit  Singh (hereinafter referred to as the respondent)  and acquitting  him of offences under sections 302, 392 and  397 I.P.C. for which he was convicted by the Additional Sessions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 20  

Judge  of  Faridkot  on October 31,  1974.   The  Additional Sessions Judge had sentenced the respondent to death for the offence  under section 302 I.P.C. and to rigorous  imprison- ment  for  five years and seven years respectively  for  the offences under, sections 392 and 397 I.P.C. Nishan Chand (deceased); son: of appellant Mohan Lal (P.  W. 5),  was  a  resident of Roranwali.   He  was  Secretary  of Roranwali  and  Phulu  Khera  Co-operative  Societies.   The respondent was Nishan Chand’s friendand was Secretary of Roranwali Patti Sikhan Co-operative Society. He also used to live  in village Roranwali with his  maternal-uncle  Gurdial Singh who was the village Chairman.  It  is  alleged that Nishan Chand and the  respondent  left together on June 17, 1974, for villages Lambi and Malout  on Nishan  Chand’s  bicycle, as they had to deposit  the  money realised by them.  They did not however return to  Roranwali that night.  Mohan Lal’s other son Satpal, who was, studying in Class VIII in a school at Sikhanwala, saw Nishan  Chand’s bicycle lying at some distance from the boundary of  village Roranwali,  near a culvert, on the "Pakka" road  leading  to Sikhanwala, and he also saw a man lying dead in a field at a short distance from there.  As the dead body appeared to  be of Nishan Chand, Satpal went back to his house and informied his father Mohan Lal (P.  W. 5) at about 7 a. m. Mohan  Lal, (P.   W. 5) and his brother Dharam Chand (P.  W. 8) went  to the  place  where  the dead body was  lying.   It  bad  many injuries and a blood stained blade of Knife (Ex’.  P. 3) was lying near it.  A black piece  of cloth ("fifty") was  lying at some distance towards the road.  As Nishan Chand used  to bring home the money of the societies some times, Mohan  Lal suspected  that the respondent might have murdered  him  for the  money.It  seemed  to  him  that  the  black  piece   of cloth ("fifty") belongedto  the  respondent  which  he  was wearing on the previous morning. Mohan Lal therefore  left for police station Lambi, which was at a distance of about 9 miles  from  the  place  of occurance.   As  he  found  Sub- inspector Harnek Singh (P.  W. 19). it Sikhanwala bus stand, he  reported the matter to him at about 9.30 a.m.  The  Sub- Inspector  recorded Mohan Lal’s statement and sent it  along with  constable  Mal  Singh  to  police  station  Lambi  for registering a case. 2 320 SCI/78 826 S.I. Harnek Singh went to the place of occurrence with Mohan Lal  and  found Dharam Chand (P.  W. 8) and  Nishan  Chand’s mother  Smt.  Agyawanti near the dead body.  He found  foot- prints two of bare foot and one with the shoe near the  dead body.   The blade of knife (Ex.  P. 3) was also found  lying near  the dead body and a shoe was found lying in the  water channel at a distance of 7 or 8 ’karams’ The small piece  of black  cloth  ("fifty")  (Ex.  P. 4) was found  lying  at  a distance of 25 or 30 ’karams’ from the dead body.  The  Sub- Inspector  recorded  the statement of Smt.   Agyawanti.   He lifted  moulds  of  the foot-prints and  took  them  in  his possession.   The blood stained blade of knife (Ex.   P.  3) was  also taken in possession vide memorandum (Ex.   P.  K.) and was sealed.  The Sub-Inspector took the shoe also in his possession.  He prepared, an inquest report and sent  Nishan Chand’s  dead  body for postmortem examination.  Dr.  P.  K. Narang (P.  W. 1) of Civil Hospital Gidderbaha examined  the dead  body  and found 12 injuries, all of which  were  ante- mortem.  The doctor found that Nishan Chand’s death was  due to the injuries to vital organs of the brain as a result  of injuries Nos. 1 and 2 which were as follows,-               (i)A stab wound with clean cut edges 2. 5 X

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 20  

             0. 5 cm. on the front of left side of forehead               just above the eye brow.   Blood stained brain               matter  was  coming out of  the  wound.   Bone               underneath was cut, and the wound was directed               backwards and downwards.               (ii)A stab wound 3.5 X 1 cm. with clean  cut               edges on the left temporal region of head  7.5               cm.  above  the ear,  directed  downwards  and               inwards.  Bone underneath was cut." The  medical  officer expressed the opinion that  these  two injuries were individually sufficient to cause death in  the ordinary course of nature. it  was  found during the course of the  investigation  that Nishan  Chand  had collected the dues  of  the  co-operative societies from Atma Singh., Avtar Singh and Balli Singh  and others on June 17, 1974, and had gone with the respondent to deposit  the same in the Central Cooperative  Bank,  Malout. Inspector  Gurdial  Singh (P.  W. 14)  of  the  Co-operative department  had also gone there to attend a meeting  of  his department.  Nishan Chand and the respondent met him after 3 P.M.  and  asked  him to get the sum  of  about  Rs.  2000/- deposited  in  the Bank.  He could not  however  succeed  in depositing  the  money as the cash had been closed  by  that time.  It is alleged that Nishan Chand collected Rs.  4156/- and that be and the respondent met Darshan Lai (P.  W. 6) at Lambi  at  6.30  p.m.  The prosecution  has  relied  on  the statement  of  Darshan  Lal (P.  W. 6)  for  the  subsequent conduct  of the respondent and has led its evidence to  show that  he  was  searched  but could not  be  found.   He  was arrested  on  June 21, 1974, at about 8  p.m,  near  village Fatuekhera.   He  was  interrogated  by  the   Investigating Officer  and  is alleged to have made statement  Ex.P.O.  on June  23,  1974, to the effect that he had buried a  sum  of about Rs. 4100/- and 827 a  gold  ring in his purse tied in a handkerchief  near  the water  lift  in the middle of the way leading  from  village Khankhanwali  to Roranwali which he could recover, and  that he  had  kept concealed his clothes and one shoe  under  the heap  of  cotton  "sticks" in a kiln  on  the  road  outside Khankhanwali  village  which  also he  could  recover.   The respondent’s  statement to that effect was recorded  in  the presence  of  witnesses Balbir Singh (P.  W.  7)  and  Avtar Singh.  The respondent then went to the place near the  heap of  cotton "sticks" and recovered the blood stained  clothes Ex.   P.  5 to P. 7, which were in jhola’ Ex.  P.  8,  along with  a shoe.  The recovered articles were taken  in  police custody  vide  memorandum Ex.  P. 0. It is  further  alleged that  the respondent went to the, place near the water  lift and dug out a handkerchief which contained currency notes of Rs.  4142/gold  ring  Ex.  P. 1 and purse  Ex.   P.  9.  One currency  note  No. AD 53007632 of Rs. 100/- (Ex.   P.  10), which  was at the ton of the bundle of currency  notes,  had some blood stained fingerprints.  The purse (Ex.  P. 9)  was of  plastic  on  which  Government  College,  Mukhtsar,  was written  in Punjabi and English and it contained  a  library card  of  R.S.D.  College, Ferozepur,  which  contained  the address of the respondent written in English.  The ring  was of  gold and weighed about 3 grams.  The initials  ’N.   C., were inscribed on it.  All the articles were sealed and were taken in possession vide memorandum Ex.  PR.  Mohan Lal  (P. W.  5) has identified the ring to be that of his son  Nishan Chand  which he was wearing when he left the house.   Kartar Singh  (P.   W.  17) of village Lambi has  stated  that  lie prepared the ring for Nishan Chand 8 or 9 months before  his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 20  

statement and had made the inscription as desired by him. The  Sub-Inspector  made an  application  before  Magistrate Mukhtiar  Singh (P.  W. 3) on June 28, 1974, for taking  the moulds  of  the foot-prints of the respondent.   The  moulds prepared  by him were not found fit for comparison and  wire again  taken on July 4, 1974 in the presence  of  Magistrate Dina Nath (P.  W. 2).  They were sent for comparison to  the Director of Forensic Laboratory who has made his report  Ex. P.  FF stating that the impressions on the crime mould  were found to tally with the test moulds.  Finger impressions (Ex.  PF/2) of the respondent were  also taken by Magistrate, Mukhtsar, and were sent for  comparison along with the finger impression on the currency note of Rs. 100/-  (Ex.   P.  10) to the  Director  Fingerprint  Bureau, Phillaur.  The Director’s report Ex. P. BB is on the record. He  photographically enlarged the impressions and  expressed the  opinion that there were eight points of  Similarity  in respect of the form and the position, which were graphically shown  by him in his report, and that the nature,  direction and  sequence  of  each  point had  been  indicated  in  its relevant circle.  According to the expert, so many points of similarity could not be found to occur in the impressions of different  fingers and that they were "identical or  are  of one  and  the same person".  The expert  ignored  the  other impressions  which were sufficiently smudged or were  partly interfered with by the design and the printed writing of the currency note or were faint. 828 The  respondent was medically examined an the very next  day of his arrest and the medical officer’s report Ex.  P.F  has been  placed on the record, according to which he had  three simple lacerated wounds of a duration of more-than 48  hours on the left ring finger. As  has  been  stated,  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge  of Faridkot  found the respondent guilty of the offences  under sections  302, 392 and 397 I.P.C. As the High Court has  set aside the conviction by its impugned judgment dated July  9, 1975,  by  giving the benefit of doubt  to  the  respondent, Mohan Lal (P.  W. 5), father of Nishan Chand (deceased), and one Surinder Kumar have filed the present appeal by  special leave. The High Court has examined the question of motive first  of all  and  has  referred to the good  relations  between  the respondent and the deceased.  It has also made a mention  of the  statement  of the respondent that he and  the  deceased left  village Roranwali on the bicycle of the deceased,  for Malout, on June 17, 1974, at about 7.30 a.m. The High  Court has then examined the evidence of the prosecution  regarding the  alleged collection of Rs. 4256/- by Nishan  Chand  from four  persons on June 17, 1974, and his failure  to  deposit the same in the Central Co-operative Bank at Malout and  has taken  the view that the collection of the money  by  Nishan Chand had not been proved and that the motive for the  crime had not been established. The first item of collection relates to the recovery of  Rs. 2000/from  Avtar  Singh (P.  W. 10) at Malout  on  June  17, 1974.  Avtar Singh has stated that he had taken a loan  from the  Co-opcrative Society of his village and had been  asked by  the  deceased  to repay it.  He  promised  to  make  the repayment  at Malout Mandi. He took his wheat there on  June 17,  1974, and asked his commission agent to pay Rs.  2000/- to  the deceased.  Rs. 2000/- were accordingly paid  by  his commission agent to the deceased. He has further stated that one Atma Singh (P.  W. 12) paid Rs. 623/- in his presence to Nishan Chand.  Avtar Singh however did not obtain a  receipt

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 20  

for  the  payment  from Nishan Chand.  The  High  Court  has disbelieved  the payment because the name of the  commission agent was not disclosed by Avtar Singh and he" did not take. any receipt or the signature of Nishan Chand in his bahi  in token  of the payment.  The prosecution examined Behari  Lal (P.  W. 26) as the commission agent who had made the payment of Rs. 2000/- on behalf of Avtar Singh to the deceased.  The witness  produced his bahi entry Ex.  P. W. 26/A in  respect of  the  payment, but the High Court rejected  the  evidence because  the signature of Nishan Chand Was not  obtained  by Behari  Lal.  As it was possible for the High Court to  take that view. we would leave it at that Atma Singh (P.  W.  12) has  stated that he paid Rs. 623/- to the deceased  on  June 17, 1974, at 2 p.m. after obtaining the money from the  firm of Shadi Ram Amar Nath of Malout. Avtar Singh (P. W. 10) has also  stated about the making of that payment by Atma  Singh in  his  presence,  but  the High  Court  has  rejected  the evidence for want of Nishan Chand’s receipt for the payment, and the failure 829 to examine someone on behalf of the firm which had made  the payment.  Here again, it cannot be said that the view  taken by  the High Court was not possible, and we would  therefore not disturb its finding in this respect also. The prosecution, however, examined Balli Singh (P.  W. 1  1) who  stated that he paid Rs. 856/- to the deceased  on  June 17,  1974,  vide receipt Ex.  PS at Malout at 2  p.m.  after obtaining  the  money  from his commission  agent.   It  was stated in the receipt that the payment had been made by  way of  recovery  of  the loan from Balli  Singh.   It  was  not disputed that the receipt was signed by Nishan Chand, and it is  not  disputed before us that the name has  wrongly  been printed  as Nishan Singh in the paper book.  The High  Court however rejected the evidence on the ground that Balli Singh did  not  state who  wrote the receipt Ex.  PS and  that  it bore  the signature of Nishan Chand.  We have  gone  through the  statement of Balli Singh and we have no doubt  that  it shows that the payment of Rs. 856/- was made to the deceased vide  receipt Ex.  PS.  There was as such  no  justification for  insisting on the disclosure of the name of, the  scribe of the receipt, or the production of other evidence to prove the  signature of Nishan Chand thereon.  There was  also  no justification  for  the High Court to  reject  the  evidence merely because of the failure to examine a witness from  the shop  of the commission agent who had made the payment.   It has  to  be  appreciated that there was in  fact  no  cross- examination worth the name regarding Balli Singh’s statement about  his liability to pay Rs. 856/- to  the,  Co-operative Society,  and  the  payment  of that money  by  him  to  the deceased against receipt Ex.  PS. The  prosecution has, all the same, relied on the  statement of Inspector Gurdev Singh (P.W. 14) who was Inspector of Co- operative Societies at Lambi, to prove the signature of  the deceased  on receipt Ex.  PS.  The High Court  has  rejected his  evidence to this effect on the ground that the  witness did  not  state that he had seen Nishan  Chand  signing  and writing, and could identify his signature, and also  because he  did not state that "in the ordinary course  of  business documents  purported to be written by Nishan Chand had  been habitually  submitted  to  him." We have  gone  through  the statement  of Gurdev Singh (P.W. 14).  He was the  Inspector of Co-operative ’Societies, Lambi, and Nishan Chand was  the Secretary of two Cooperative Societies within his area.  The witness  was therefore in a position to state  that  receipt Ex.   PS was in the hand writing of Nishan Chand and  he  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 20  

fact  made  a clear statement to that effect  in  the  trial court.   If the defence had any reason to think that he  was not  a  competent witness for the purpose of  expressing  an opinion under section 47 of the Evidence Act, it was open to it  to  cross-examine him on the point.   The  fact  however remains that this was not done. It  would  thus appear that the High Court  could  not  have rejected the evidence which was furnished by the prosecution in  regard  to the payment of Rs. 856/- by  examining  Balli Singh (P.W. 11) and Gurdev Singh (P.W. 14) and by  producing the original receipt 830 Ex.  PS,  and  we have no hesitation in  holding  that  the, finding  of  the trial court in regard to that  payment  was correct and must be restored. Evidence has also been led to prove the payment of Rs. 667/- to  the  deceased by one Budh Singh on June 17,  1974,  vide pass  book entry Ex.  P. II.  It was stated by Gurdev  Singh (P.W.  14) that the entry in the pass book had been made  in the  hand  writing  of  Nishan Chand,  but  the  High  Court rejected  that evidence for the reason already  stated.   As there  was no justification for doing so, we  would  restore the  finding  of  the trial court  regarding  that  item  of payment as, well. The High Court has gone to the extent of basing its  finding to the contrary for the further reason that Mohan Lal  (P.W. 5),  who was the father of the deceased, did not state  that receipt  Ex.   PS and the pass book Entry Ex.  P. 1  1  were written and signed by his son Nishan Chand.  The High  Court however forgot that Mohan Lal was an illiterate man who  had thumb-marked even. the first information report Ex.   P.G./1 and was not in a position to make a statement regarding  the hand-writing  or  the  signature  of  his  son  on  the  two documents. So  even if the items of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 623/- are  left out, the fact would still remain that the deceased had a sum of about Rs. 1533/- with him at the time of his murder.  The High  Court  has brushed aside the prosecution  evidence  in this  respect  by observing that none of the  witnesses  has deposed  that  the respondent was with the deceased  at  the time  when the payments were made to him.  Here  again,  the High  Court lost sight of the statement of Inspector  Gurdev Singh  (P.   W.  14) who as the  Inspector  of  Co-operative Societies  must have known the Secretaries or the  societies within  his jurisdiction.  He has stated that a meeting  was called  by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies  at Malout  on  June  17, 1974, and that the  deceased  and  the respondent met him in the Central Cooperative Bank at Malout after  3 p.m. The deceased asked him to get the sum of  more than Rs. 2,000/- deposited in the bank and the witness  told him that as the cash had been closed by that time, the money could  not  be deposited.. He has further  stated  that  the deceased  then told him that he would deposit the amount  of Rs.  5,000/- the next day as he had some more recoveries  to make.   No effective cross-examination was directed  against the  statement  of  the Inspector to  this  effect,  and  no effective argument has been made before us why he should not have been believed.  The High Court thus failed to read  the statement  of  Gurdev Singh correctly even though it  had  a direct bearing on the question of the respondent’s knowledge of the money in the possession of the deceased.  Its finding to  the contrary must be set aside and it must be held  that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case about  the respondent’s  knowledge that the deceased had  collected  at least Rs. 2,000/- by the time he met Inspector Gurdev  Singh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 20  

some time after 3 p.m. 831 The  High Court has examined the question whether there  was evidence  to prove that the respondent had  absconded  after the  incident, and has found that it could not be said  that he did so to conceal his guilt.  He was arrested on June 21, 1974, and it appears that the intervening delay would not by itself be evidence of his guilt. While  dealing with the evidence that the deceased was  last seen  in the company of the respondent, the High  Court  has made a reference to the statement of Mohan Lal (P.W. 5)  and to  the  respondent’s admission that he had  gone  with  the deceased, on his bicycle, to Malout, on June 17, 1974.   The prosecution  has examined Darshan Lal (P.W. 6) in regard  to their  movements  at about 6 p.m. in Lambi  and  has  placed reliance  on  the statement of Prita Singh  (P.W.  9)  about their   movements  within  a  short  distance   of   village Roranwali.   We think that the view taken by the High  Court in  regard  to  the  evidence  of  these  two  witnesses  is justified and does not call for interference. But  the High Court went wrong in finding that there was  no evidence  to  prove  that  the accused  was  seen  with  the deceased  "before  or  after the  occurrence."  There  could possibly  be  no evidence to prove that the  respondent  was seen with the deceased "after" the occurrence i.e. after his death and the prosecution cannot be blamed for its inability to  produce any such evidence.  The prosecution has  however led its evidence to prove that the deceased was last seen in the  company  of the respondent, and it will  be  enough  to refer  to  two basic facts in this  respect.   Firstly,  the respondent has admitted in his statement in the trial  court that  he  and Nishan Chand first went to Lambi on  June  17, 1974;  and  he did not deny that they went there  on  Nishan Chand’s bicycle at about 7.30 a.m. He has also admitted that he  was with Nishan Chand at Malout upto 10 a.m. He  claimed that  he  went to village Ferozepur thereafter to  meet  his elder  brother, but that was a matter for him to prove,  and thereby establish a good defence.  The fact however  remains that  he  did  not do so and his  leaned   counsel  has  not thought it possible to explain why he could not examine  his own  brother  to  establish  that plea,  or  to  invite  our attention  to any other evidence that may have been  led  in that  behalf.  Secondly, the High.  Court lost sight of  the fact  that  Inspector Gurdev Singh (P.  W. 14)  of  the  Co- operative Societies.  Department had clearly stated that  he went to Malout on June 17, 1974 to attend the meeting  which had  been  called  by the Joint  Registrar  of  Co-operative Societies  and that the respondent and the deceased met  him there after 3 p.m. in the Central Co-operative Bank.  He has further stated that the deceased asked him to get the sum of Rs.  2,000/-  deposited in the bank, but that could  not  be done  as the cash had been closed.  The witness  has  stated that a meeting was actually held in the Rest House that  day and that he had gone to the Bank to- collect the figures  of recovery for purposes of that meeting.  The presence of  the deceased  and the respondent was therefore quite natural  as it  explains  their  anxiety to make  as  much  recovery  as possible  before the meeting.  As has been shown, there  was no  reason for disbelieving the statement of  Gurdev  Singh, and 832 the  High Court clearly misread the record in respect  of  a material particular in holding that there was no evidence to prove  that the respondent was last seen in the  company  of the deceased.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 20  

An  attempt was made to argue that if the statement  of  the respondent is to be considered at all, it must be taken as a whole and that it is not permissible to act upon one portion of the statement which shows the presence of the  respondent in the company of the deceased, and leave out those portions which  are exculpatory.  It will be enough to say  that  the matter has been examined by this Court in Nishi Kant Jha  v. State  of  Bihar(1),  and  as the  evidence  on  the  record disproves the exculpatory part of the respondent’s statement in the trial court, it is clearly permissible to accept that part of the statement which accords with the evidence on the record, and to act upon it. Another  important piece of evidence against the  respondent was  his  statement  Ex.  P.O. dated June  21,  1974,  under section 27 of the Evidence Act and the recoveries which were made  in pursuance thereof.  The statement was  recorded  by Sub-Inspector  Harnek  Singh (P.W. 19) in  the  presence  of Avtar Singh and Balbir Singh (P.W. 7). The prosecution  gave up Avtar Singh on the ground that lie had been won over, but Balbir  Singh  and Harnek Singh were examined in  the  trial court.   The.  High Court however rejected the  entire  evi- dence  in that respect on the ground that the statements  of these two witnesses were contradictory and inconsistent with each other and held that the making of disclosure  statement and the alleged recovery were "concocted by the police." The only  contradiction which has been pointed out by  the  High Court   is  that  while  according  to  Harnek   Singh   the interrogation of the respondent started on June 23, 1974  at about 12 noon and continued for two, hours, Balbir Singh has stated that he and Avtar Singh reached the police station at about  12.30  p.m. and the respondent was  interrogated  for about  5 or 7 minutes in their presence and that he did  not make  the disclosure statement.  The High Court  has  stated further  that Balbir Singh has claimed that he  advised  the respondent  to  give  the  articles  which  he  had  in  his possession,  and then he made the disclosure  statement.   A reference  to  the statements of Hamek Singh (P.W.  19)  and Balbir  Singh  (P.W.  7)  shows however  that  there  is  no contradiction  or inconsistency between them.  Balbir  Singh (P.W. 7) has clearly stated that when be reached the  police Station  at  about  12.30  p.m.  the  respondent  was  being interrogated   there.   His  further  statement   that   the respondent was interrogated for five or seven minutes in his presence,  cannot  therefore belie the statement  of  Harnek Singh  that  the interrogation lasted for about  two  hours. The  High  Court  therefore misread  the  evidence  in  this respect.   The  High  Court also misread  the  statement  of Balbir  Singh when it observed that he bad admitted that  he did not "know" whether the disclosure statement (Ex.   P.O.) was recorded at the police station before the articles  were recovered  or thereafter.  Here again a reference to  Balbir Singh’s statement shows that what be stated was that he  did not "remember" (1)  [1969] 2 S.C.R. 1033. 833 if   the  disclosure statement was recorded before or  after the recovery. He    however  proved statement Ex.  P.O.  and admitted that he attested it.He  also stated that  his  own statement was recorded after the recovery.  It was not found possible  to point out any inconsistency in his  version  in that  statement and his statement in the trial court.   The, High Court, therefore, clearly fell into an error of  record in  reaching the conclusion that the statement of  the  Sub- Inspector was belied by the statement of the witness.  The High Court has observed in this connection that  Balbir

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 20  

Singh (P.W. 7) has stated that there were certain footprints near the place where the money was recovered, but no  moulds were prepared by the police even though it was incumbent for it  to do so.  We have gone through the statement of  Balbir Singh,  but he has not made any such statement.  If  however anything  turned  on the failure to take the moulds  of  the footprints  at the place where the money was recovered,  the proper  course  for  the defence was  to  cross-examine  the Investigating  Officer concerned in that respect,  but  that was not done.  The High Court has disbelieved the  statement of ’Balbir Singh (P.W. 7) for the further reason that he had been convicted on some occasions and his explanation that he had  gone  to the police station to inquire  from  the  Sub- Inspector whether they should continue to depute men to keep watch  on electricity installations and the  Sub-Inspector’s reply in the negative, had not been entered in the record of the police station.  The High Court has obviously relied  in this  respect on Balbir Singh’s statement that no entry  was made in the daily diary about his visit and inquiry from the Sub-Inspector, but it was not noticed by the High Court that Balbir Singh was not in a position to depose anything  about the  making or not making of an entry in the  police  diary. That  was  a  matter which could be  established  by  cross- examining  the  Sub-Inspector  or  by  producing  any  other evidence  which could show that the entry had not been  made in the daily diary.  So here again the High Court cannot  be said to have read the evidence on the record correctly. The High Court has gone to the extent of recording a finding that  the disclosure statement Ex.  P.O. was involuntary  as the respondent was "interrogated for several hours after his arrest", and was hit by section 24 of the Evidence Act.  The fact however remains that even the respondent has not stated that he was compelled to make the disclosure statement,  and there  is no other evidence to show that this was  so.   The High Court has arrived at its conclusion to the contrary  on the  basis of the statement of Harnek Singh (P.W. 19).   The relevant portion of that statement reads as follows,-               "On 21st June, 1974, 1 interrogated him  where               he  was  arrested.   He  was  then  taken   to               Roranwali  and was interrogated there  in  the               presence  of  many  persons.   From  there  we               returned  to police station at 10-30  P.M.  On               22nd  June, 1974 he was again interrogated  at               the  police station.  But no other person  was               present at the time of the interrogation.   He               did  not  give any disclosure  statement  that               day.               834               He  was interrogated regarding the  handle  of               the  knife.   On  23rd June,  1974  I  started               interrogating  the, accused at about 12  noon.               The  witnesses came to the police  station  of               their  own  accord.  I  interrogated  him  for               about two hours." Three  facts therefore emerge from the statement : (i)  that the total period of interrogation was about two hours,  (ii) the interrogation was made in the presence of many  persons, and  (iii) the interrogation was regarding the discovery  of the  handle of the knife of which the blade was found  lying near  the  dead  body.  There was thus no  evidence  on  the record  to justify the finding of the High’ Court  that  the respondent  was interrogated for several hours and that  his disclosure  statement  was  involuntary  so  as  to  attract section  24 of the Evidence Act.  As it is, the evidence  on the record was sufficient to show that the statement was not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 20  

only voluntary but it fell within the purview of section  27 of the Evidence Act in as much as the "fact discovered"  was the  place from which the various articles were produced  by the respondent and his knowledge of it.  As the  information given  by the respondent related to that important fact,  it was clearly admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Moreover the actual recovery of the currency notes, the ring and  the purse in pursuance of the information given by  the respondent, and at his instance, was sufficient guarantee of the truth of that information and it could safely have  been relied  upon by the High Court.  The High Court misread  the evidence on the record in taking a contrary view.  The disclosure statement led to the recovery of clothes  in bag  Ex. P. 8 and a shoe underneath the cotton  ’sticks’  in the  kiln  near the ’phirni’ of  village  Khankhanwali  vide memorandum Ex.  P.O. Then there was the recovery of a bundle of currency notes of the value of Rs. 4142/- on top of which was  the  currency note Ex.  P. 10 of Rs.  100/-  which  was suspected  to  have  some fingerprints, the ring  Ex.  P.  1 bearing the initials of Nishan Chand, and the purse Ex.   P. 9 containing the library card of R.S.D. College,  Ferozepur, with  the address of the respondent.  All these  were  found tied  in a handkerchief which was dug out by the  respondent at  a  place near the water lift in the middle  of  the  way leading from village Khankhanwali vide memorandum Ex.   P.R. The  High Court brushed aside all this highly  incriminating evidence simply on the ground that the respondent had stated (in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.) that the  purse was taken by the Sub-Inspector at the time of his arrest and he had obtained Rs. 4000/- from his relations on the pretext that  he  would get him discharged but later on  fastened  a false  case on him.  The High Court went on to say  that  it was highly doubtful if the respondent would have buried such a  big amount of money and the ring in a field  situated  in another  village  when he could have concealed them  in  the land or building of his maternal-uncle in village Roranwali. The High Court lost sight of the fact that while on one side there  was  the  testimony on oath which  was  subjected  to cross-examination on the other there was the bare  statement of  the accused.  The High Court could not  reasonably  have doubted the recoveries simply because the property was found buried in a field in 835 another  village  and  not in the land or  building  of  his maternal  uncle.  As is obvious, the reasoning of  the  High Court  was nothing more than a conjecture, for  which  there was  no  evidence  or  justification.   The  respondent  was anxious to hide the ill gotten property as soon as possible, and  the fact that it was recovered in pursuance of his  in- formation  under section 27 of the Evidence Act, and at  his instance, by his digging out the place where it lay  buried, was  quite  sufficient  to  prove  the  genuineness  of  the recovery.  It appears that as the High Court had reached the conclusion  that  the  information  under  section  27   was involuntary  and was not admissible in evidence, it did  not find it possible to attach any importance to the recovery of the articles in pursuance of that information. The  High Court has disbelieved the statements of Mohan  Lal (P.W. 5) father of the deceased, and Kartar Singh (P.W.  17) goldsmith  of  Lambi, that ring Ex.  P. 1  belonged  to  the deceased.   The statement of Mohan Lal has been  disbelieved on  the ground that he did not know the name of  the  person who  prepared  it,  he  could  not  tell  the  date  of  its preparation,  he  did  not  identify  the  ring  at   attest identification and he did not state in the first information

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 20  

report  that his son Nishan Chand was wearing the ring.   We have gone through the evidence and it appears that the  High Court did not read it correctly.  Mohan Lal has stated  that the ring was got prepared by his son Nishan Chand in village Lambi  two or four months before the incident.  He  was  not therefore in a position to name the goldsmith or to give the date  of its preparation.  The ring was not put up for  test identification  and there was therefore no evidence to  show that Mohan Lal did not identify it "from the other rings  of the  same  kind".  As regards the omission  from  the  first information report of the fact regarding the wearing of  the ring  by  Nishan  Chand, the High Court did  not  take  into consideration  that part of Mohan Lal’s statement  where  he had  stated  that as his wife did not tell him  that  Nishan Chand  was wearing the ring, he could not mention that  fact in  the report.  Moreover his wife did not accompany him  to the police station. The  High  Court disbelieved the statement of  Kartar  Singh (P.W. 17) for  the reason that he did not pay income-tax  or sales-tax and had   admitted that there was no special  mark on  the ring to show that it had been prepared by  him.   In taking that view the High Court lost sight of the fact  that Kartar Singh was a goldsmith of a village like Lambi and, in the  absence of the evidence to the contrary, he  could  not have been disbelieved merely because he did not pay  income- tax  or  sales-tax.  The statement of Kartar Singh  that  he prepared  ring  Ex. P. 1, eight or nine  months  before  the recording of his statements at the instance of Nishan Chand, and  that  the  inscription thereon was  made  under  Nishan Chand’s  instructions, was quite clear and categorical,  and could  not have been rejected in the absence of evidence  to the  contrary.   It is true that the ring did not  bear  any special mark to show its preparation by the witness, but the High  Court  did  not  read  that  part  of  Kartar  Singh’s statement where he had stated that he had started working as a goldsmith from the age of 12 years 836 and that although he had prepared many rings, he could  tell which  ring  was  prepared by him on seeing  it.  there  was therefore  no,  justification for rejecting  Kartar  Singh’s evidence  and  for  dubbing him  as  a  "highly  unreliable" witness. As has been stated, the purse Ex.  P.9 was also recovered at the instance of the respondent along with ring Ex.  P. 1 and the  currency notes and the fact of its recovery  could  not have  been rejected merely on the basis of the  respondent’s statement  under  section  313  of  the  Code  of   Criminal Procedure  that it had been taken by the Sub-Inspector  from his  pocket at the time of his arrest.  Apart from the  fact that the explanation of the respondent was quite improbable, we find that he has not found it possible to establish it by any evidence on the record.  The purse was of black coloured plastic  on which Government College, Mukhtsar, was  written in  Punjabi and English and it contained a library  card  of R.S.D.  College,  Ferozepur.  on which the  address  of  the respondent was written in English.  The fact that the  purse was found tied in the same handkerchief along with the  ring Ex.   P. 1 and the currency notes, could leave no  room  for doubt  that  it  belonged  to the  respondent  and  all  the recovered  articles  were in his possession soon  after  the incident. As has been stated, the bundle of currency notes, which  was recovered  at the instance of the respondent  contained  the hundred  rupee  currency note (Ex.  P. 10) No.  AD  53007632 with  fingerprints  thereon.  The High Court  rejected  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 20  

important piece of evidence on the ground that Balbir  Singh (P.   W.  7)  did  not state  that  the  currency  note  had fingerprints, it was not explained why the currency note was not  sent to the Finger Print Bureau immediately why it  was sent there after the arrest of the respondent alongwith  his specimen  impressions, and also because there was  no  proof that  the  specimen  fingerprint  impressions  were  of  the respondent  and there was no evidence to show on  what  date they  were  taken.   The High Court has once  again  made  a reference  to the statement of the respondent under  section 313  of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Police  took his  fingerprint impressions on the currency note  while  be was in police custody, and rejected the report (Ex.  P.  BB) of the Director Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur. We have gone through the statement of Balbir Singh (P.W.  7) and  we find that he has clearly stated that  "one  currency note contains fingerprint marks".  The High Court  therefore misread the evidence in this respect also. The other reason about not sending the currency note to  the Finger   Print  Bureau  until  after  the  arrest   of   the respondent, is equally untenable because the High Court lost sight  of the fact that the currency note was  recovered  on June 23, 1974, only after the arrest of the respondent,  and there  was  nothing  wrong  if it  was  sent  alongwith  his specimen  fingerprints which had necessarily to be  obtained by making an application to a magistrate. 837 The  specimen  impressions Ex.  PF/2 of the fingers  of  the respondent were taken by the Muktsar Magistrate on June  28, 1974.   Question No. 28 was asked of the respondent  whether that  was  so,  and lie gave a categorical  reply  that  the evidence  in  that respect was "correct".   The  High  Court therefore  again did not read a material part of the  record in  taking the contrary view.  The High Court seems to  have accepted  the  statement of the respondent that  the  Police took  his finger impressions on the currency note  while  he was  in  Police custody, but it not only lost sight  of  the fact that there was no evidence to that effect, but also  of the  fact that the prosecution had succeeded in proving  the recovery by the reliable evidence, on the record.   Moreover if  the Police had forcibly taken the fingerprints, none  of them  would have been faint or smudged or on the printed  or written portion of the note. It will be recalled that Dr. P. K. Narang (P.W. 1) performed the  post-mortem- examination on the body of  Nishan  Chand, and  the  High Court has taken the view  that  his  evidence showed that the injuries could not have been inflicted  with the knife of which Ex.P. 3 was the blade and that  "possibly three  types  of weapons were used to cause  injuries".   We have  gone  through the statement of Dr’  Narang  (P.W.  1). What he has stated is that some of the injuries were  caused by  a  sharp  pointed weapon, one injury  by  a  sharp-edged weapon  and injuries Nos. 10, 11 and 12 by a  blunt  weapon. The witness clarified that injuries Nos. 11 and 12 could  be caused by a fall, and injury No. 10 being a linear  abrasion could  be caused by the point of any substance.  As  regards the incised injuries, the witness has stated that it was not necessary  that the stab wounds could have been caused by  a weapon of which both the edges were sharp.  The presence  of those injuries could not therefore justify the inference  of the  High Court that they required three types  of  weapons. Blade  (Ex.P.  3) was sent to the Chemical Examiner  to  the Government  of  Punjab and his report Ex.P.  AA  contains  a diagram  of  its shape, which clearly shows that  it  was  a peculiar blade with a pointed end as well as a sharp  blade.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 20  

The High Court therefore erred in holding that the  injuries which  were  found on the person of the deceased  could  not have been inflicted with a knife having Ex.P.1 as its blade. The  High  Court rejected the prosecution evidence  for  the further  reason that the bicycle of the deceased, which  was lying  on the road, was not in a damaged condition  and  did not have blood stains, and also because the respondent could not  have dragged the deceased alone to a distance of 50  or 60  ’karams’ and inflicted all the injuries with his  knife. Here again, the High Court went beyond the record because it was  not  the case of the prosecution that the  bicycle  was damaged at the time of the incident, or that it was  stained with  blood, or that the incident took place near the  place where  the bicycle was found by the witnesses so as to  have blood  stains  near  it. It was also not  the  case  of  the prosecution  that the respondent dragged the deceased  to  a distance of 50 or 60 ’karams’ from the road.  As regards the infliction  of the injuries by the respondent singly,  there was  no  reason  for the High Court to think  that  was  not possible.   Blade of the knife was recovered near  the  dead body of Nishan 838 Chand, without the handle, and it is not disputed before  us that  it  was  stained with human blood.   We  have  made  a reference  of the diagram of the knife and the fact that  it had a pointed end and a sharp edge.  Dr. Narang (P.W. 1) has stated  that the first two injuries were stab wounds on  the left side of the fore-head and the left temporal region, and were individually sufficient to cause death.  They could  be caused  by a sharp pointed weapon and there was  nothing  to prevent  a  single  person  from  inflicting  one  of  those injuries initially and disabling the victim of his  capacity to  resist  thereafter.  It is the case of  the  prosecution that  the deceased and the respondent were friends and  were moving about on the bicycle of the deceased.  ’The  deceased must therefore have been caught unawares when the respondent dealt  him the first fatal blow on a vital part of the  body and  would  not  have  been in  a  position  to  resist  him thereafter.  The handle of the knife gave way, and that also showed that it was used with force. It  would  thus  appear that the High  Court  committed  the aforesaid  serious  errors in reading the  evidence  on  the record   and   very  often  based  its  findings   on   mere conjectures.  Its finding that the prosecution had failed to "connect  the accused with the commission of the  crime"  is quite incorrect and must be set aside". The  evidence  against  the  respondent  in  this  case   is circumstantial.   We  have  discussed a  part  of  it  while examining  the  findings of the High Court, and it  will  be enough  to mention those facts and circumstances which  have been established against the respondent beyond any doubt. It has been stated by Mohan Lal (P.W. 5) that his son Nishan Chand and the respondent had good relations with each  other and that they left for Malout on June 17, 1974, together, on Nishan Chand’s bicycle.  This has in fact not been  disputed before  us.   We have examined the  evidence  regarding  the collection of at least Rs. 1523/- by Nishan Chand from Balli Singh  (P.W. 11) and Budh Singh and have given  our  reasons for the finding that the deceased had   at  least that  much money  with  him when he and the  respondent  met  Inspector Gurdev  Singh  (P.W. 14) at Malout. The prosecution  has  in fact  led  its  evidence  to prove  that  the  deceased  bad collected  Rs. 4156/-  on  that  day, but  as  a  matter  of abundant caution we have leftout  two of those  collections in holding that at least Rs. 1523/- bad been  collected   by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 20  

him.   We  have  also  made  a  mention  of  Gurdev  Singh’s statement  that the deceased asked him to get a sum of  more than  Rs. 2000/- deposited in the Central Co-operative  Bank at  Malout  in  the  presence  of  the  respondent  and  his inability  to  do  so. as the cash  had  been  closed.   The allegation of the prosecution that the respondent  committed the murder of Nishan Chand for the purpose of robbing him of the  money has been established by the fact that Rs.  4142/- were  actually recovered at the instance of the  respondent. in pursuance of the information furnished by him in Ex.   P. O. on June 23, 1974, and at his instance within two days  of his arrest. 839 The respondent has himself admitted that he and the deceased went  to  village Lambi on June 17, 1974, at 7.30  a.m.  and then went to Malout.  Inspector Gurdev Singh (P.W. 14)  has, stated  that  his aforesaid talk with Nishan  Chand  in  the presence  of the respondent took place when they met him  at Malout after 3 p.m. on June 17, 1974.  The respondent stated in the trial court that he left Nishan Chand at Malout at 10 a.m.  He  did  not however lead any evidence  to  prove  his contention,  which  has  in  fact  been  disproved  by   the statement of Inspector Gurdev Singh that they were  together with  him  until  some  time after 3  p.m.  that  day.   The deceased  was  not  seen alive after he  had  met  Inspector Gurdev  Singh  in  the company of  the  respondent  and  the categorical  statement  of the Inspector Gurdev  Singh  that they  both went away leaves no room for doubt that  was  the last  occasion  when they were, seen  together.   Mohan  Lal (P.W.  5) has stated that neither his son Nishan  Chand  nor the  respondent returned to the village in the evening,  and the  next  day  his son’s bicycle was  found  lying  on  the "pakka"  road going from Roranwali to Sikhanwala and  Nishan Chand’s dead body was also found nearby. The  respondent tried to take the plea, in his statement  in the  trial court, that he was at Ferozepur on the  night  of the alleged incident ’as he had gone there to meet his elder brother who was a conductor in the Punjab Roadways.  He  did not however lead any evidence in support of that  statement. On the other hand, Sub-Inspector Harnek Singh (P.W. 19)  has stated that after recording the first information report  he made  a search for the respondent in villages Roranwali  and Khankbanwali and even stayed in village Khankhanwali for the night,  He has stated further that the respondent  could  be arrested only on June 21, 1974, at about 8 p.m. near village Fatuekhera.  The respondent has not succeeded in  explaining his  absence or his movements during the intervening  period and  has failed in his attempt to establish his presence  at Ferozepur on the fateful night.  A halting attempt was  made by  the  respondent to set up the explanation  that  he  was produced before the police on June 18, 1974, by his relation Hazra Singh, but he did not find it possible to establish it also. We  have  referred  to  our  finding  that  the   respondent voluntarily  made the disclosure statement Ex.P.O.  on  June 23,  1974,  and  Rs. 4142/-  in  currency  notes  (including currency note Ex.P. 10 having fingerprints), ring Ex.P.1 and purse   Ex.P.  9  were  recovered  in  pursuance   of   that information, tied in a handkerchief, when the respondent dug them  out from a place near the water lift in the middle  of the  way  going from Khankhanwali to  Roranwall.   The  ring Ex.P.1 bore the initials of the name of the deceased and the purse Ex. P. 9 contained enough particulars to show that  it belonged to the respondent and to no one else.  In fact  the identity  of  the  purse,  as his  own  property,  has  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 20  

admitted  by  the respondent in his statement in  the  trial court  where be merely contended that the  purse  containing his  address was taken by the Sub-Inspector from his  pocket at the time of his arrest.  As has been stated, he could not establish  that contention, and we have no doubt that it  is quite false. 840 As  regards  the  recovery  of  Rs.  4142/-,  all  that  the respondent could contend was that after his arrest the  Sub- Inspector asked his relations to give him Rs. 4000/- on  the pretext that he would get him discharged from the case,  and that his relations contributed the amount and handed it over to the Sub-Inspector who later on "foisted the amount on  me to  implicate me falsely in this case." Apart from the  fact that  the respondent has not led any evidence to  prove  his contention,  we find that the prosecution has  succeeded  in proving  beyond doubt that the hundred rupee  currency  note No.   AD 53007632, which was on the top of all the  currency notes   which  were  recovered  at  the  instance   of   the respondent, bore fingerprints at least one of which has been found to be of the respondent and of no one else. We have given our reasons for rejecting the statement of the respondent that the police got his finger impression on  the currency  not,.-  while  he was in  custody  at  the  police station.   The  respondent  was  an  educated  man  who  was employed as the Secretary of the local Co-operative  Society and  who  had an influential maternal  uncle.   The,  police could  not therefore have obtained his fingerprints  in  the manner  alleged  by  him  and  the  respondent  would   have resisted,  any such attempt to create irrebuttable  evidence against  him of a serious charge, like murder and he or  his uncle would have exposed it immediately. We  have examined the evidence of the prosecution  regarding the taking of specimen fingerprints of the respondent, their comparison  and  examination  with the  fingerprint  on  the currency  note  by  the  Director,  Finger  Print,   Bureau, Phillaur, and his report Ex.  P. BB.  As the impression mark A on the currency note was partly smudged and partly on  the design  and  the printed writing,  it  was  photographically enlarged  along with the right middle finger  impression  of the  respondent, and the two photographic enlargements  were marked A/A and 1/1 respectively.  The Director has given the opinion that the photographically enlarged impression marked A/A was "partly smudged but, otherwise, it is comparable and there   exist  sufficient  (not  less  than  8)  points   of similarity  i.e.  matching ridge characteristic  details  in their identical sequence, without any discordances,  between its comparable portion and the corresponding portion of  the photographically enlarged right middle finger impression  of Ajit Singh marked 1/1." The Director has further stated that he  had  graphically shown the 8 points  of  similarity  "in their same form and position" and had indicated the "nature, direction  and  sequence  of each point"  in  it’s  relevant circle.   He has expressed the categorical opinion  that  so many  points  of similarity could not be found to  occur  in impressions  of different thumbs and fingers and  that  they were  therefore  "identical" or were "of one  and  the  same person."  There were other impressions also on the  currency notes, but they were either sufficiently smudged and  partly interfered with by the design and the printed matter or were sufficiently   faint   and  were  rejected  as   unfit   for comparison. Nothing- substantial has been urged to challenge the opinion of  the, Director of the Finger Print Bureau, and  all  that has been argued is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 20  

841 that  as there were only,, 8; points, of  similarity,  there was  not  enough basic for the expert’s  opinion  about  the identity of the fingerprints. Reference in, this  connection has,  been made to B. L. Saxena’s. fixation of  Handwriting, Disputed   Documents,  Finger  Prints,  Foot   Print.$   and Detection, of Foregeries", 1968 edition, page 247, Walter R. Scott’s  "Fingerprint Mechanics" page 62, and, M. K  Mehta’s "The  Identification  of Thumb Impressions and,  the  Cross- Examination of Finger Print Experts" 2nd edition page  28.We have gone through these books but they do not really support the  argument  of- the learned counsel for  the  respondent. While referring to the old practice of looking for a minimum of 12 identical characteristic details, Saxena has  admitted that  the  modern view is that six points of  similarity  of pattern  are  sufficient to establish the identity  of  the, fingerprints.  Walter Scott has stated that "as a matter  of practice, most experts who work with fingerprints constantly satisfy  themselves  as to identity with eight or  even  six points of identity.  Mehta has also stated that in the  case of  blurred  impressions  the view of  some  of  the  Indian experts  is that if there were three identical points,  they would be sufficient to prove the identity. There  is  no  gainsaying  the  fact  that  a  majority   of fingerprints  found  at crime scene or  crime  articles  are partially smudged, and it is for the experienced and skilled fingerprint  expert  to  say whether a  mark  is  usable  as fingerprint  evidence.   Similarly  it is  for  a  competent technician  to  examine  and give his  opinion  whether  the identity  can be established, and if so whether that can  be done  on eight or even less identical characteristics in  an appropriate  case.  As has been pointed out, the opinion  of the  Director  of the Finger Print Bureau in  this  case  is clear  and  categorical and has been supported  by  adequate reasons.  We have therefore no hesitation in accepting it as correct. It  will be recalled that the explanation of the  respondent about the recovery of Rs. 4142/- from his purse Ex.  P. 9 is quite unsatisfactory.  He has not found it possible to  give any explanation why the deceased’s ring Ex.  P. 1 was  found tied  with those articles in his handkerchief.  We  have  no doubt that the recovery of these articles is a strong piece, of circumstantial evidence against him. The  prosecution  recovered some blood stained  clothes  and shoes also and led its evidence regarding the taking of  the mounds,  and their comparison.  We do not however  think  it necessary  to  examine it as it cannot be said to  be  quite clear. The  recovery of the incriminating articles in pursuance  of the,  respondent’s  information  is an  important  piece  of evidence  against  him.  As has been held by this  Court  in Baiju  alias  Bharosa  v. State of  Madhya  Pradesh(1),  the question  whether a presumption should be drawn against  the respondent  under  illustration (a) of section  114  of  the Evidence  Act is a matter which depends on the evidence  and the circumstances of each case.  The nature of the recovered articles, the, manner of their acquisition by the owner, the nature of the evidence (1) [1978] 2 SCR. 594. 3-329 SCI/78 842 about their identification, the manner in which the articles were,  dealt  with  by  the  accused  the  place  and   the, circumstances   of  their  recovery,  the  length   of   the intervening  period  and  the ability or  otherwise  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 20  

accused   to  explain  the  recovery,  are  some  of   those circumstances.   As the ring Ex.  P. 1 was made of gold  and bore the initials of the deceased, and the goldsmith  Kartar Singh (P.W. 17) bad established its identity, there could be no doubt whatsoever that it belonged to the deceased.  It is also  a matter of great significance that it was found  tied in   a   handkerchief  alongwith  the   other   two   highly incriminating  articles, namely, the finger marked  currency note  Ex.  P. 10 and the respondent’s purse Ex.  P. 9  about whose  identity  there  can possibly be no  reason  for  any doubt.   The respondent knew that he would be  suspected  of the crime because the deceased was last seen in his company, and the fact that he buried the articles near the water lift in  the middle of the way leading from Khankhanwali  to  his village  Roranwali shows that he wanted the articles to  lie there until he could feel reassured enough to dig them  out. It  however so happened that he was suspected from the  very beginning,  was  arrested  within four  days  and  gave  the information  within the next two days which led to the  dis- covery of an important fact within the meaning of section 27 of  the  Evidence Act.  It must therefore be held  that  the incriminating  articles were acquired by the  respondent  at one and the same time and that it was he and no one else who had  robbed the deceased of the money and the ring  and  had hidden  them at a place and in a manner which war, known  to him.  Then there is the further fact that the respondent was unable  to explain his possession of the ring and the  money and  did not even attempt to do so.  The currency  note  Ex. P. 10 was found on the top of the bundle of currency  ’notes of  the value of Rs. 4142/-, and we have given  our  reasons for  holding that it bore the respondent’s fingerprint.   It will  be  recalled  that the  deceased  was  undoubtedly  in possession  of currency notes because of the realisation  he had made from the debtors of the Co-operative Society only a little  while earlier, and the fact that the respondent  hid the notes after tying them in a handkerchief, shows that  he knew that their possessions with him would be  incriminating and unexplainable.  The intervening period between the  loss of the money and the ring by the deceased and their recovery was not more than six days, which was quite a short  period. All  these  facts were not only proof of  robbery  but  were presumptive  evidence  of  the charge  of  murder  as  well. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions in Wasim  Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh(1), Tulsiram  Kanu v.   The  State,(2)  Sunderlal  v.  The  State   of   Madhya Pradesh(3), Alisher v. State of Uttar Pradesh (4) and  Baiju alias Bharosa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra). In  fact  it has, not been disputed before us  that  if  the respondents  possession  of the incriminating  articles  was held proved, the circus stantial evidence against him  would be sufficient to justify the trial (1)  [1956] S.C.R. 191. (2)  AIR 1954 S.C. 1 (3)  A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 28. (4)  [1974] 4 S.C.C. 254. 843 court’s  finding  that he was guilty of  the  offence  under section  302 for committing the murder of Nishan  Chand  and the  offence of robbery under section 392 read with  section 397 I.P.C. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed,  the impugned  judgment  of  the  High Court  is  set  aside  and respondent  Ajit  Singh is convicted of the  offences  under sections 302 and 392/397 I.P.C. In the circumstances of  the case, we think it sufficient to sentence him to imprisonment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 20  

for   life  for  the  offence  under  section  302  and   to imprisonment  for seven years for the offence under  section 392/397 I.P.C, Both the sentences will run concurrently.                                Appeal allowed. S.R. 844