Dharampal & Anr. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Bhupesh Sharma, Judge Appellants/convicts, namely, Dharam Pal (A-1), son of Shri Ram Sigh, resident of Village Padmi, P.O. Balia, Tehsil Behaidi, P.S. Shashigarh, District Bareli, U.P. and Chanderpal (A-2), son of Shri Bihari Lal, resident of Village Rahe Pura, P.O. Meerapur, Tehsil Morganj, District Bareli, U.P., calls in question the legality of conviction recorded in terms of Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, in Criminal Trial No. 16-NL/7 of 2015 (CIS No. HPS002000388-2015) titled as ‘State of HP vs. Dharam Pal and Another’, whereby the appellants/accused persons (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) have been sentenced under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of ₹5,000/- each for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 years alongwith a fine of ₹3,000/- each for commission of offence under Section 364 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 years alongwith a fine of ₹3,000/- each for commission of offence under Section 201 of the IPC with default clauses.

The accused persons were sent to face trial for commission of offences under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, in Case FIR No. 218/14, dated 27.09.2014, Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, HP. The accused persons were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were convicted by the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.10.2019 in Sessions trial No. 16-NL/7 of 2015, titled as ‘State of HP vs. Dharam Pal and Another’.

Accusations which form basis of the prosecution, in essence, are as follows:-

3(a) Durgesh, son of Shri Ram Bahadur, resident of Village Kotha, Post Office Sudana, Tehsil Dataganj, Police Station Alapur, District Badayu, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), was residing alongwith his family in a rented accommodation of Shri Sunil Sharma at Village Soban Majra and was running a street cart for selling burgers at Bus Stand Majra, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, HP.

3(b) On the night intervening 20.09.2014 and 21.09.2014, at about 9:00 PM, the deceased left his house on receiving a telephone call from the accused Dharampal (A-1), on the pretext of attending a birthday party at Bharatgarh. Thereafter, the deceased went missing. On 21.09.2014, the accused persons were confronted regarding the whereabouts of the deceased, but they denied being with him on the night intervening 20.09.2014 and 21.09.2014. It is alleged that the accused Chanderpal (A-2), called the deceased Durgesh on his cell phone 97362-74044 from his cell number 97362-32106 to attend a birthday party at Bharatgarh.

3(c) On 23.09.2014, the complainant, Sadhna Devi (wife of the deceased Durgesh), approached the police at Police Post Joghon and filed a missing person's report. The complainant suspected the involvement of the accused persons in the incident since they were having animosity due to business rivalry.

3(d) On 27.09.2014, the complainant Sadhna Devi made a statement under Section 154 Cr.PC alleging the involvement of the accused in the incident, leading to the registration of case FIR No. 218/14, dated 27.09.2014, under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, HP.

3(e) Pursuant to the registration of case FIR No. 218/14, dated 27.09.2014, under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., the investigation commenced and the accused persons were arrested on 27.09.2014. The Investigating Officer, ASI Rattan Singh of Police Station Nalagarh, visited the house of the complainant and prepared the spot map. The accused persons, during their custodial interrogation, disclosed that they accompanied the deceased, Durgesh, on the night of 20.09.2014 on the pretext of attending a birthday party on their Motorcycle to Bharatgarh, where they consumed alcohol and later committed the murder of the deceased by hitting him on his head with an iron rod. Thereafter they disposed of his body in the canal. The accused persons, during the course of investigation, made separate disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, leading to the identification of the spot and recovery of incriminating articles, which were taken into possession vide separate recovery and seizure memos. The police could not recover the weapon of offence i.e. iron rod. However, the decomposed body of the deceased was recovered from the canal on 28.09.2014.

3(f) The police, after completion of the investigation, found complicity of both the accused persons in committing murder of the deceased Durgesh, and were also found to have caused the destruction of evidence of the crime committed by them by throwing the weapon of offence i.e. iron rod and the body of the deceased into the canal with a view to screen themselves from legal punishment.

3(g) Accordingly, accused persons namely Dharampal (A-1) and Chanderpal (A-2) were challaned for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC by SHO, Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

The accused persons were committed for trial by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., vide committal order dated 22.04.2015.

On having put to trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In its endeavor to bring home the offences against the accused persons, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses and also heavily relied upon the documentary evidence collected during the course of investigation.

Learned Trial Court after considering the material on record and hearing the parties, found the accused persons guilty of committing the offences under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Resultantly, they were convicted for the said offences vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.10.2019.

The Trial Court failed to appreciate that the complainant’s version regarding the deceased being called by the appellants was contradicted by the call records.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

The allegations against the accused persons are that during the night intervening 20.09.2014 and 21.09.2014 at Bharatgarh, they committed the murder of Durgesh, son of Sh. Ram Bhadur at Bharatgarh by hitting him with an iron rod on his head. The accused persons pursuant thereto, threw his body and weapon of offence into the canal in order to cause disappearance of the evidence.

As is evincible, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence.

Before adverting to the material on record in the form of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, it may be pertinent to enumerate the principles of law relating to the appreciation of circumstantial evidence.

Needless to emphasis that for a crime to be proved, it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inference drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum.

It is equally well established by now that the motive as alleged could be used only as a circumstance. It cannot prove or disprove the case in the fact situation. In fact the “motive” is something which prompts a man to form an intention and “knowledge” is an awareness of the consequences of the act. “Motive” is that which makes a man to do a particular voluntary act. Previous threats, previous litigations, or previous altercations and bad relations between the parties are admitted to show motive.

When there is direct evidence about murder, “motive” loses its significance, but still then motive is relevant to know the intention of the culprit. In criminal trial, the question of motive is of very little importance when there is direct and reliable evidence to prove crime.

The prosecution case heavily hinges on the following circumstances:-

Before adverting to and analyzing the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, it may be fruitful to refer to case laws where the case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence.

It has been consistently laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme 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 Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1977) 2 SCC 99), Eradu Vs. State of Hyderabad, (AIR 1956 SC 316), Earabhadrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, 1983 (1) RCR (Criminal ) 292: [(1983) 2 SCC 330], State of U.P Vs. Sukhbasi [ AIR 1985 Sc 1224], Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1987 (1) RCR (Criminal) 517: [AIR 1987 SC 350] and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee Vs. 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 Vs. 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 as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.

In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, a three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down five golden principles which constitute the "panchsheel" in respect of a case based on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the decision in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, Air 1973 SC 2622= (1973) 2 SCC 793, it was opined that it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. Thereafter, the bench proceeded to lay down that 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; that the circumstance should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

In Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1989 Supp (20 SCC 706 : 1991 SCC (CRI) 407, the Hon'ble Supreme court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence the following tests must be satisfied:

The similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another Vs. State of A.P, (2006) 10 SCC 172.

In Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 607, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, The court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations, however strong they may be, to take the place of proof.

In Harishchandra Ladaku Thange Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 2957, while dealing with the validity of inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, it has been emphasized 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 and further 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 State of U.P Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SCW 640=AIR 1992 SC 840, emphasis has been laid by the Hon'ble Supreme court that it is the duty of the Court to take care while evaluating circumstantial evidence. If the evidence adduced by the prosecution is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. That apart, the circumstances relied upon must be established and the cumulative effect of the established facts must lead to a singular hypothesis that the accused is guilty.

In Ram Singh Vs. Sonia and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1218, while referring to the settled proof pertaining to circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles about the caution to be kept in mind by Court. It has been stated therein that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

In Ujagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 90, after referring to the aforesaid principles pertaining to the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that it must nonetheless be emphasized that whether a chain is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be attempted.

The above position was highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram, 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 238: 2004(1) Apex Criminal 471: [2003 (8) SCC 180].

Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2600.

It would be appropriate to consider some of the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases where conviction was based on the circumstantial evidence. In G.Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 593; (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1027, the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborately dealt with the subject and held as under:

In Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) SCC 37; (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 30, while dealing with the case based on circumstantial evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

Last but not the least, in Brajendrasingh v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 289 ; (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 409, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while reiterating the above principles further added that:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 16 SCC 510, has elaborately set out the principles of law relating to the appreciation of circumstantial evidence.

As discussed hereinabove, there is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence as laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments referred (supra). In such a case, all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only person who has committed the crime and none else.

Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we shall proceed to scrutinize the circumstances, which have been highlighted by the prosecution and heavily relied upon by the learned Trial Court, whereby the accused persons stood convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the impugned judgment.

As per the prosecution case, on 20.09.2014, at about 9:00 PM, the deceased Durgesh left from his home after receiving a telephone call on his cell number 97362-74044 from the cell number 97362-32106 of the accused Chanderpal (A-2). The deceased, before leaving his house told his wife Sadhna Devi (PW-1) that he was going alongwith the accused to attend a birthday party at Bharatgarh.

The police, during the course of the investigation, vide email (Ext. PW25/A) sought the billing address, call detail records (CDR) and tower location of cell number 97362-74044 (belonging to the deceased Durgesh) and 97362-32106 (belonging to the accused, Chandrapal [A-2]). The call detail records of cell No. 97362-32106 is Ext.PW-25/B and the call detail records of cell number 97362-74044 is Ext. PW25/C.

The relevant witness examined by the prosecution in order to prove the said document is Shashi Kant Verma, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Limited (PW-25).

The aforesaid witness has failed to produce the billing address and Consumer Application Form (CAF) of the respective cell numbers 97362-74044 and 97362-32106. Apart from this, there is no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in support of the said digital/electronic evidence.

It is apparent that the call detail records (Ext. PW-25/B and Ext. PW-25/C) produced by the prosecution would be admissible under Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, if it is supported by the necessary requirement of certification as contemplated under the Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1, has held as under:

The digital/electronic evidence adduced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions under the statute and perhaps cannot be looked into. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to connect the accused Chanderpal (A-2) being the registered subscriber and user of cell number. 97362-32106 from which he made call to the deceased (Durgesh) on 20.09.2014 on his cell number 97362-74044. Even otherwise having regard to the oral evidence, it may be pertinent to refer to the statement of Sandhya Devi (wife of the deceased Durgesh), who was examined as PW-1, wherein she failed to disclose the cell no. of accused Chanderpal. Also, there is material variation in the statement of complainant under Section 154 Cr.PC (Ext.PW1/B) and her statement regarding the sequence of events of receiving of the telephone calls. After carefully considering the aforesaid oral as well as documentary evidence, Circumstance No.1, does not find favour of this Court.

It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons took the deceased to Bharatgarh on Motorcycle bearing registration No. PB12H-4985 (TVS Victor) and thereafter committed his murder.

As per the registration certificate (Ext.PW4/B) and Insurance Certificate (Ext.PW4/C) of Motorcycle bearing No. PB12H-4985 (TVS Victor), the same is registered in the name of Ajmer Singh, resident of Mohalla Begampura Ghanauli, District Rupnagar. Apparently, the vehicle at the time of the incident was in possession of Chet Ram (PW-4). The evidence of the said witness alongwith evidence of Shripal (PW-5) fail to suggest that on the night of incident, the said Motorcycle was in possession of the accused persons, which apparently was used for travelling alongwith deceased to Bharatgarh, where the offence was allegedly committed. Although, the police took into possession the said vehicle vide seizure memo (Ext.PW4/A) alongwith its registration certificate (Ext.PW4/B) and Insurance Certificate (Ext.PW4/C) in the presence of witnesses Chet Ram (PW-4) and Shripal (PW-5).

Nevertheless, the evidence of these witnesses does not suggest in any manner that the said vehicle was used by the accused persons for travelling to Bharatgarh. Therefore, the prosecution fails to prove the said circumstance that Motorcycle bearing No. PB12H-4985 (TVS Victor) of Chet Ram was used by the accused persons for the commission of the offence.

Prosecution has heavily relied upon the separate disclosure statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Ext. PW2/A and Ext. PW2/B) and in pursuance thereto, the identification of murder spot vide memo (Ext. PW1/C) and recovery of Chappal (Ext. P-1) vide recovery of seizure memo (Ext.PW1/C) and also recovery of two plastic glasses (Ext.P-3 & Ext.P-4) and recovery of blood stained stones and soil vide recovery and seizure memo (Ext. PW3/B) were carried out.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:-

The conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act are broadly as under:

We may refer to and rely upon a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya reported in AIR (1960) SC 1125, wherein, Paragraph-71 explains the position of law as regards the Section 27 of the Evidence Act:

The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act were illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri Kottaya and Others v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, which have become locus classicus.

Adverting to the statements of the witnesses with respect to the disclosure statement of accused Chanderpal vide Ext. PW2/A and Dharmpal vide Ext. PW2/B as per the aforesaid documents, both the accused persons have disclosed to identify the spot where the offence was allegedly committed by them and the body was thrown in the cannal. However, both the aforesaid statements appear to be confessional in nature and are apparently hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, thereby rendering inadmissible.

Apart from this, recovery of the Chappal (Ext. P-1), empty glasses (Ext P-3 and Ext. P-4), vide recovery and seizure memo Ext. PW3/A and recovery of blood-stained stones and soil vide memo (Ext. PW3/B) are not in consonance with the disclosure statements Ext. PW2/A and Ext. PW2/B. Also, one of the witnesses of recovery and seizure memo, Jasbir Singh, examined as PW3 does not support the prosecution case with regard to the said recoveries.

Having considered the aforesaid evidence and the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred supra, the recovery of the incriminating articles either from the alleged site of occurrence or otherwise is not proved in accordance with law. Therefore, such evidence cannot be relied upon and construed against the accused persons.

As per prosecution evidence, accused persons during the course of investigation got recovered their blood-stained clothes, which they were wearing at the time of the incident, and were taken into possession vide recovery and seizure memo (Ext PW6/A and Ext. PW8/A). The clothes of the accused Chandrapal (A-2) i.e. shirt (Ext. P-1) and Pant (Ext. P-2) were sealed in cloth parcel Ext P-A and the said parcel was taken into possession vide memo (Ext. PW6/A). Similarly, the shirt (Ext.P-5) and Pant Ext.P-6) of the accused Dharampal (A-1) were taken into possession vide recovery and seizure memo (Ext. PW8/A). The aforesaid blood stained clothes of the accused persons were sent for chemical and forensic examination to SFSL, Junga and forensic report in this context is Report No. 2042-B/SFSL/Bio/232, dated 26-11-14 (Ext. PW21/D).

The aforesaid report in its sum and substance is of least consequence as it fails to connect the presence of blood on the clothes of accused persons with the blood of the deceased Durgesh. Therefore, the recovery of blood on the clothes of the accused persons, as reflected in the documents (Ext. PW6/A and Ext. PW8/A), is inconsequential evidence to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence.

The deceased, Durgesh, was subjected to post-mortem examination at Civil Hospital, Nalagarh, and his post-mortem report is Ext. PW16/B and the final opinion of the Medical Officer, Dr. Sandhya Gagya (PW16) is Ext. PW16/C. The aforesaid evidence suggests that the cause of death being head injury in the right temporo-parietal region, leading to instantaneous death. Furthermore, the Medical Officer has opined that the possibility of the injuries found on the person of the deceased could not be ruled out by an iron rod. However, the prosecution in the present case could not recover the alleged weapon of offence i.e. the iron rod and since the aforesaid weapon was not shown to the Medical Officer, therefore, no definite opinion regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased by an iron rod can be inferred.

The prosecution has also relied upon the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Ext. PW-21/A, wherein no alcohol was detected in the contents of parcels P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5, and P-6. Therefore, the aforesaid evidence rules out that the deceased prior to his death, had consumed alcohol, which fact is apparently against the prosecution case and the recovery of empty alcohol glasses (Ext. P-3 and Ext. P-4) from the site of the occurrence.

The aforesaid report is inconclusive to assess the relevant facts regarding consumption of alcohol by the accused persons and the deceased prior to the incident.

As per the prosecution case, the deceased Durgesh and the accused persons were not on good terms due to business rivalry, as the deceased was allegedly selling burgers at a lesser price compared to the burgers being sold by the accused persons. The accused persons apparently, eliminated the deceased due to the said enmity. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the aforesaid factors being the motive for committing the crime.

It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance. This Court in various decisions has laid down the principles holding that motive for commission of offence no doubt assumes greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of offence is available. It is equally true that failure to prove motive in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself. However, it is also well settled and it is trite in law that absence of motive could be a missing link of incriminating circumstances, but once the prosecution has established the other incriminating circumstances to its entirety, absence of motive will not give any benefit to the accused.

Having regard to the nature of the evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons had a strong motive to eliminate the deceased.

PW-1 Sandhya Devi (wife of the deceased Durgesh), has testified that the relation of her husband was like a friend with the accused persons. Similarly, PW10 Manohar Lal has no direct knowledge of the facts regarding any enmity inter se the deceased and the accused persons. Furthermore, the evidence of Urmila Devi (PW11) is based upon the version disclosed by Sandhya Devi (PW1). Since she is conspicuously silent regarding any enmity inter se the parties, therefore, no strong motive is emerging on record which could justify the commission of the offence as alleged against the accused persons.

Even if it is believed that the accused persons had a motive to commit the crime, the same may be an important circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence, but cannot take the place of conclusive proof that the person concerned was the author of the crime. One could even say that the presence of motive in the facts and circumstances of the case creates a strong suspicion against the appellants, but suspicion, however strong, cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that we have ruled out the circumstance as enumerated above, therefore, the chain of specific evidence snaps so badly that to consider any other circumstance even like motive would not be necessary.

We may emphasized that except the alleged recoveries, there is no other circumstances worth the name which has proved the involvement of the accused persons. It is a case of blind murder. There are no eye witnesses and the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. In such a case, complete chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the accused persons. The chain should be such that no other conclusion, except the guilt of the accused persons, is discernible without any doubt.

Having considered all the aspects of the prosecution case and the evidence in its entirety, this Court finds that the chain of events are incomplete giving benefit to the accused.

In Mani Versus State of T.N. (2009) 17 SCC 273, Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following pertinent observation on this very aspect: (SCC p. 279, para 26)

There is a reiteration of the same sentiment in Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah Versus State of A.P. (2011)14 SCC 117 in the following manner: (SCC p. 119, para 6)

Likewise in Mustkeem Versus State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: (SCC p.731, paras 24-25)

It is settled position of law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the character of proof.

Keeping in mind the nature of prosecution evidence emerging on record and the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the accused persons are entitled for the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and sentence order dated 23.10.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.16-NL/7 of 2015, is not sustainable and is set aside.

The appellants/accused are ordered to be released forthwith. The fine amount, if deposited by the appellants, be refunded to them but after the expiry of limitation to file an appeal/revision and in case of appeal/revision, the same be dealt with as per the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellants are directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/-each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Registrar (Judicial) within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the appellants on receipt of notice(s) thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

A copy of this judgment along with the record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application, if any.