IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1307  OF 2005

Roop Singh @ Rupa ...Appellant

Versus

The State of Punjab  ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. In this appeal challenge is to the judgment of a Division

Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the

conviction  of  the  appellant  for  offence  punishable  under

Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 449 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).

The  co-accused  persons  who  were  similarly  convicted  were

acquitted by the High Court.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Jarnail  Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’)

and his wife Nasib Kaur immigrated to Canada about 12 years

earlier  but  had  both  returned  to  Kotla  about  two  months

before Jarnail Singh’s murder on April 10, 2001.  Pala Singh

(PW 7) was deceased’s brother in law being the husband of

Nasib Kaur’s sister.  He also belonged to Kotla.  Jarnail Singh

lived in his house in the fields, about half a kilometre from the

village, on the passage leading to Baghapurana. According to

Pala  Singh, he and Jarnail  Singh used  to sleep at  night at

Jarnail Singh's farm house while Nasib Kaur would sleep with

her sister in Pala Singh's house.

On the evening of April 10, 2001 Nasib Kaur and Pala

Singh's son Darshan Singh had gone to visit  Jarnail Singh's

2

sister in Bukhanwala. Pala Singh's grand son Jaswant Singh

had taken food for Jarnail Singh to his  house at about 7.30

P.M. But Jarnail Singh was not there. Later at about 9 P.M.

Gurnam Singh (PW 5) came to Pala Singh and told him that

someone  had  inflicted  injuries  on  Jarnail  Singh.  Gurnam

Singh  had  learnt  about  this  from  Assa  Singh,  who  was

employed as a guard at Jarnail  Singh’s house.   Pala Singh

alongwith  Lambarder  Gurmit  Singh  of  the  village  went  to

Jarnail  Singh’s  house  and found Jarnail  Singh’s  dead body

lying on a cot.  Assa Singh told Pala Singh that Jarnail Singh

had come home at about 8 P.M. on a scooter and about half

an hour later Jarnail Singh had come to him and told him that

he had been stabbed.

Pala Singh went to the courtyard and saw Jarnail Singh's

chappals lying there and a trail of blood from the courtyard to

Assa  Singh’s  cot  where Jarnail  Singh’s  dead body  lay.  Pala

Singh immediately  went  to  Bukanwala  to  fetch  Nasib  Kaur

and his son.  According to Pala Singh, Jarnail Singh was fond

3

of drinking and would indulge even in this habit during day

time.

The  matter  was  reported  by  Pala  Singh  to  Inspector

Joginder  Singh  and  his  statement  was  recorded  by  the

Investigating officer at Rajeana bus stand at 6 A.M. on April

11,  2001.   The  statement  was  sent  to  the  Police  Station,

Baghapurana, and on its basis F.I.R. was registered at 6.30

A.M. under Section 302 IPC. Special  report  of the case was

received by Judicial Magistrate, Moga at 10 A.M. on the same

day.

Immediately thereafter Inspector Joginder Singh (PW 19)

set out for the spot, which was inspected whereafter inquest

report  was  prepared  in  the  presence  of  Ajaib  Singh  and

Lambardar  Gurmit  Singh.   The  statements  of  these  two

witnesses were also incorporated in the inquest report.  After

completion  of  the  inquest  proceedings,  the  dead  body  of

Jarnail  Singh was  sent  for  post-mortem examination which

4

was  conducted  by  Dr.  Navraj  Singh  (PW4),  Civil  Hospital,

Moga at 12.45 PM.

After  sending  the  dead  body  for  post-mortem

examination,  Inspector  Joginder  Singh  continued  his

investigation at the spot.  He lifted bloodstained earth from the

spot,  blood stained quilt,  mattress and bed sheet  were also

taken into possession from the cot on which Jarnail Singh’s

dead body was lying.  The Investigating officer had actually

cut the blood stained portions of the above items before taking

them separately into possession.  A bottle containing 100 ml

of liquor, which was lying up stairs, was also recovered and

taken  into  possession.   Three  foot  prints  moulds  were

prepared of the foot prints found at the spot.  One of these

was of a right shoe and the other two were of left bare feet.

Moulds  were  separately  taken  into  possession.   A  pair  of

chappals was also picked up from the spot.  The site plan of

the place of the occurrence was prepared.

5

On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed

and since the accused persons abjured guilt, they faced trial.

The  trial  court,  as  noted  above,  directed  conviction  and

imposed sentence.  According to the trial court the case rested

on circumstantial evidence and four factors weighed with the

trial court to record conviction.  They were (a) finding of the

left foot print of the appellant on the spot of occurrence, (b)

finger print on the bottle of liquor which was found near the

place of occurrence matched with the right index finger of the

appellant, (3) there was extra judicial confession before PWs 2

and 4 evidence of Wazir Singh (PW3) having seen all the three

accused persons together.  

The High Court did not accept the conclusions of the trial

court relating to the relevance of the evidence of PWs 2 & 3.   

The High Court found the same was not credible and cogent.

However,  relying  on the  other  two  circumstances,  the  High

Court upheld the conviction of the appellant while directing

acquittal  of  the co-accused persons.   The High Court noted

that the chain of the circumstances was not complete so far as

6

PWs 2 & 3 are concerned,  but it  is  complete  so far as the

present appellant is concerned.

3. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  the

conclusions  of  the  High  Court  are  based  on  surmises  and

conjectures and having held that the evidence of PWs 2 & 3 so

far  as  the  alleged  confession,  or  to  have  seen  the  accused

persons altogether, to be unreliable, should not have directed

conviction.

4. Learned counsel  for the respondent-State on the other

hand supported the judgment of the High Court.

5. It  has  been  consistently  laid  down by  this  Court  that

where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence,  the

inference  of  guilt  can  be  justified  only  when  all  the

incriminating  facts  and  circumstances  are  found  to  be

incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of

any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR

(1977 SC 1063);  Eradu and Ors. v.  State of Hyderabad (AIR

7

1956 SC 316);  Earabhadrappa v.  State of  Karnataka   (AIR

1983 SC 446);  State of U.P. v.  Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985

SC 1224);  Balwinder Singh v.  State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC

350);  Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v.  State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC

1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the

guilt  of  the  accused  is  drawn  have  to  be  proved  beyond

reasonable  doubt  and  have  to  be  shown  to  be  closely

connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from

those circumstances. In  Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR

1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends

upon  the  conclusion  drawn  from  circumstances  the

cumulative  effect  of  the  circumstances  must  be  such  as  to

negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences

home beyond any reasonable doubt.

6. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court

in  C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC

193, wherein it has been observed thus:

“In  a case  based on circumstantial  evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from

8

which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be  conclusive  in  nature.  Moreover,  all  the circumstances  should be  complete  and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further  the  proved  circumstances  must  be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of  the  accused  and  totally  inconsistent  with his innocence....”.

7. In  Padala  Veera  Reddy v.  State  of A.P.  and Ors.   (AIR

1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon

circumstantial  evidence,  such  evidence  must  satisfy  the

following tests:  

“(1) the  circumstances  from  which  an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(2) those  circumstances  should  be  of  a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(3) the  circumstances,  taken  cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability  the  crime  was  committed by the accused and none else; and     

(4) the  circumstantial  evidence  in  order  to sustain  conviction  must  be  complete  and incapable  of  explanation  of  any  other

9

hypothesis  than  that  of  the  guilt  of  the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent  with  the  guilt  of  the  accused  but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”

8. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ

1104),  it  was pointed out that great care must be taken in

evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied

on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour

of the accused must be accepted.  It was also pointed out that

the circumstances  relied upon must be found to have been

fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so

established  must  be  consistent  only  with  the  hypothesis  of

guilt.

9. Sir  Alfred  Wills  in  his  admirable  book  “Wills’

Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following

rules  specially  to be  observed  in  the  case  of  circumstantial

evidence:  (1)  the  facts  alleged  as  the  basis  of  any  legal

inference  must  be  clearly  proved  and  beyond  reasonable

doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden

10

of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of

any  fact,  which  infers  legal  accountability;  (3)  in  all  cases,

whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence

must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in

order  to  justify  the  inference  of  guilt,  the  inculpatory  facts

must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and

incapable  of  explanation,  upon  any  other  reasonable

hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable

doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to

be acquitted”.

10. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on

circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-

stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by

the this Court as far back as in 1952.   

11. In  Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V.  State of

Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed

thus:

11

“It  is  well  to remember  that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt  is  to  be  drawn  should  be  in  the  first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the  hypothesis  of  the  guilt  of  the  accused. Again,  the  circumstances  should  be  of  a conclusive  nature  and  tendency  and  they should  be  such  as  to  exclude  every hypothesis  but  the  one  proposed  to  be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be  such  as  to  show that  within  all  human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”

12. A reference may be made to a later decision in  Sharad

Birdhichand  Sarda v.  State  of  Maharashtra, (AIR  1984  SC

1622).  Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it

has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that

the  chain  is  complete  and  the  infirmity  of  lacuna  in

prosecution cannot be  cured by false  defence  or plea.   The

conditions  precedent  in  the  words  of  this  Court,  before

conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be

fully established. They are:

12

(1) the  circumstances  from  which  the conclusion of  guilt  is to be drawn should be fully  established.   The  circumstances concerned  must  or  should  and  not  may  be established;

(2) the  facts  so  established  should  be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

(3) the  circumstances  should  be  of  a conclusive nature and tendency;

(4) they  should  exclude  every  possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

(5) there  must  be  a  chain  of  evidence  so compete as not to leave any reasonable ground for  the  conclusion  consistent  with  the innocence of the accused and must show that in  all  human  probability  the  act  must  have been done by the accused.     

13. As  rightly  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  the

appellant that the two circumstances highlighted by the High

Court while upholding the conviction of the appellant do not

present  a complete  chain of  circumstances  which ruled out

the possibility of any other person being the assailant and/or

13

unerringly points to the accused appellant as being guilty of

the  charged  offences.   There  was  no  evidence  led  by  the

prosecution  to  show  that  the  prints  in  question  came  into

existence at the time the alleged incident took place.

14. We, therefore, find merit in this appeal, which is allowed.

Conviction  as  recorded  by  the  High  Court  cannot  be

maintained.   The  appellant  is  in  custody.  He  be  released

forthwith unless required to be in custody in connection with

any  other  case.   We  record  our  appreciation  for  the  able

manner in which learned Amicus Curiae assisted the court.

15. Appeal is allowed.

…………………………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…………………..…….J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

New Delhi, June 20, 2008

14