tition C No 118 of 1987
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
OP Sharma KR Gupta Vivek Sharma RC Gubrele and Ms Nanita Sharma for the Petitioners
M Chander Sekhran Additional Solicitor General I P Parmeshwaran section N Terda Ms Kitty Kumaramangalam Ms A Subhashini and Ms Sangeeta Aggarwal for the Respondents
837 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J
BP Singh and nine other teachers employed in the schools run by the Ordnance Factories at Kanpur and Muradnagar have filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging their retirement from service on attaining the age of 58 years
They claim that they are entitled to have the age of superannuation fixed at 60 years instead of 58 years
Mr OP Sharma learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the age of superannuation of the teachers working in the schools controlled by various departments of Government of India other than the Defence Department has been enhanced to 60 years and according to him there is no justification to single out the teachers working in the schools run by the Ordnance Factories under the control of the Defence Department of Government of India Mr Sharma has relied upon a Memorandum issued by the Government of India Ministry of Education dated September 6 1983 by which the age of Retirement of Delhi School Teachers and teachers in other Union Territories was raised to 60 years
He has also relied on a Memorandum dated March 9 1984 issued by the Railway Board wherein the age of superannuation of the teachers working in the Railway schools was also enhanced to 60 years
Mr Sharma has thus argued that the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioners at the age of 58 years whereas retaining similarly situated teachers working in other departments of Government of India upto the age of 60 Years is discriminatory and as such violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
Prima facie there seems to be force in the argument but in view of the Office Memorandum dated March 10 1989 issued by the Government of India Ministry of Personnel New Delhi it is not necessary to examine the same
Shri N Siva Subramaniam Joint Secretary Ministry of Defence has alongwith an additional affidavit dated March 16 1989 filed the said Memorandum in this court which is reproduced hereunder As the Ministry of Human Resource Development etc
are aware the age of superannuation for all Central Government employees save with the exception of a few categories has been fixed at 58 years and they are to retire on the last day of the month in which they attain that age
838 However there is no uniformity in the age of superannuation of teachers in various schoolsinstitutions in the Central Government
In the light of the observations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission regarding the age of retirement of Central Government employees the Government has reviewed the entire question de novo and it has now been decided that the age of retirement on superannuation of all teachers working in Central Government Departments and Organisations including Union Territories may be uniformly fixed at 58 years whether they are in the Ministry of Education Ministry of Railways Ministry of Defence or any other MinistryDepartment or in Delhi Administration
Consequently in schoolsinstitutions where the age of retirement on superannuation for teachers in presently fixed at 58 years no change is required to be made and the incumbents as well as future recruits shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years
However in regard to schoolsinstitutions where the age of retirement on superannuation for teachers is presently fixed at 60 yearsthe same shall be lowered to 58 years wef
1st April 1989 with the exception that the teachers who had joined such schoolsinstitutions prior to this date shall continue to enjoy the existing benefit and superannuate on attaining the age of 60 years
Further in respect of such schoolsinstitutions no new appointment either on regular or ad hoc basis shall be made between the date of this Office Memorandum and 141989
 It is thus obvious that with effect from April 1 1989 the age of superannuation of all teachers working in Central Government Departments and Organisations including Union Territories has been uniformly fixed at 58 years
The only argument advanced by Mr Sharma has thus been completely answered by the above quoted Office Memorandum
The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs
VPR Petition dismissed


Summary:
Appellants 1 and 2 along with other co accused were prosecuted for the offence of murder
The entire evidence was circumstantial a The murder was committed by Appel lant 2 in the dispensary of the Appellant 1 a doctor with his connivance b the dead body was taken out of the dispensary of the appellant 1 and the same was kept on an ekka and carried to a village Dibbi where it was placed in the courtyard of one of the co accused and c Recovery of the dead body from the courtyard of a co accused
The Trial Court acquitted the accused from whose house the dead body was recovered but convicted the remaining four accused for the offences under section 30234 of the Indian Penal Code
On appeal by the accused persons the High Court acquitted the other two coaccused but upheld the conviction of the two appellants
Against their conviction the appel lants filed appeals in this Court By an order dated 35 1991 this Court allowed their appeals and set aside their conviction
Giving reasons in support of its judgment this Court HELD 1
It is a cardinal principle of criminal juris prudence that circumstantial evidence must be fully estab lished from which there should be inevitable conclusion of the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and the facts so established should be consistent only 55 with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused ruling out any hypothesis of innocence of the accused
58B 2
There is yet another basic rule of criminal jurispru dence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence the Court should adopt the latter view favourable to the ac cused
59C 3
The prosecution has to succeed on the basis of its own evidence and it can not rely on the absence of defence to sustain the guilt as there is no justification for rais ing such assumption against the appellants
63B Hanumant vs The State of Madhya Pradesh 1952 3 SCR 1091 Shivaji Saheb Rao Bobde  Anr
vs State of Maharash tra  and Sharad B Chand vs Maharashtra   referred to
In the instant case there are glaring circumstances which are fatal to the prosecution case
The prosecution has produced evidence only to the effect that a dead body was taken out of the dispensary of Appellant 1 by Appellant 2 and other accused persons and the same was carried on the ekka to village Dibbi
The prosecution witnesses have merely deposed that they had seen a dead body being placed on the ekka and taken to village Dibbi
None of the prosecution witness has however deposed that he had seen the face of the dead body or identified the same
In the absence of such evidence it would not be reasonable to assume that the dead body which was taken out from the dispensary and placed on the ekka was that of the deceased
In the absence of identi fication of dead body by the witnesses it is not legitimate to hold that the dead body which was taken out from the dispensary of Appellant 1 was that of deceased
62E F G 41 There is another vital defect in the prosecution case
The prosecution failed to produce any evidence that the deceased was taken to the dispensary for treatment by Appellant 2 and other accused persons while she was alive and that she was admitted to the dispensary of Appellant 1 for treatment at a time when she was alive
In the absence of any such evidence there are various possibilities and probabilities one of them being that the deceased may have been brought to the dispensary for medical assistance after she was found to be strangulated by some one
Further there is no evidence of the fact 56 that when the deceased was inside the dispensary no other person had access to her except the appellants
In the absence of any such evidence it would not be legitimate to assume that the deceased was strangulated in the dispensary by Appellant 2 with the connivance of Appellant 1 Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the necessary facts and the circumstances established by it are not sufficient to con clusively point to the appellants as the perpetrator of the crime or to rule out the hypothesis of their innocence
Accordingly the High Court and the Trial Court both commit ted error in convicting the appellants
The High Court was also not justified in drawing adverse inference for complet ing the chain of circumstances to uphold the appellant s conviction merely on the appellant s false explnaton in defence
62G H 63A C D