iminal Appeal No 67 of 1969
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 12 1969 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No 68 of 1967 and Murder Reference No 1 of 1967
H R Khanna and R N Sachthey for the appellant
Har Pershad and O N Mohindroo for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P Jaganmohan Reddy J
This Appeal is by Special leave against the Judgment of the Himachal Bench of The High Court of Delhi acquitting the accused who had been sentenced to death for an offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
The accused Respondent was a Manager at the Kotkhai Branch of the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank of which Sunder Lal Chaturvedi the deceased was the General Manager
It appears that during the period the accused was working in that Bank there was a fire in the Kotkhai Branch in which the records of the Bank were burnt and a sum of Rs 10000A was found missing
The deceased had suspended the accused from the service and subsequently he was dismissed
In or about 1964 the deceased retired from the Bank and in 1965 started a Private Limited Company under the name of Himprasth Financiers with the Head Office at Nagina Singh Building which was situated in the Mall at Shimla of which he was the Managing Director
He used to also live in the same building in one of the rooms of the office and have his meals in the Mansarovar Hotel
The other Directors of this Company were Gurucharan Singh Puran Chand Sood and Kailasli Devi wife of I C Gupta PW 2 who was at one time also Manager in the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank
After the accused was dismissed from the Bank he had applied to the deceased for a job and was appointed as an Accountant in the Finance Company but later when his request for increase in his pay was not sanctioned he sent in his resignation by a letter dated 31 12 66 Exh
P 8 and it was accepted on 3 1 67 by a resolution of the Board of Directors Exh
P 43
On the night of 30th January 1967 the deceased had his dinner at the Hotel and when lie came out after taking his food it was alleged that he was met by the accused
This was witnessed by Romesh Chand PW 7 the Proprietor of the Hotel who saw them both going towards the Mall
Thereafter at the betel shop which is near Nagina Singh Building Lal Chand PW 9 who was purchasing cigarettes at that shop saw them together and going towards the Nagina Singh Building
It 768 was the last time he was seen alive
On the 31st January 67 at about 930 am I C Gupta PW 2 came to visit the deceased and found that the main door was bolted from inside
He then peeped through the glass of the window panes through the adjoining room and saw that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood
He immediately telephoned to the Police
In response to this call the Station House Officer of the Saddar Police Station Inder Raj Malik PW 28 came to the building broke open the room through the kitchen door and saw that the back door of the bath room was open
At that time there were present PW 2
Amar chand PW 8 Raidev Krishan PW 13 and others
The deceased had on him four incised wounds one on the neck and 3 on the hands
On inspection of the room he found on the nearby table a key exhibit 4 stained with blood and under the table there was a biscuit colour Coat button exhibit 1
Inside the shelf of an Almirah there was a water flask which appeared to have on its neck 3 finger impressions
On the glass pane of the door leading to the kitchen were also found two finger marks
The curtain near the kitchen door showed that someone had wiped his blood stained hands on it
The key and the button were seized and a panchnama was made
There were also found two bunches of the keys underneath the pillow of the deceased
Des Raj PW 6 the Police Photograph took photographs not only of the various objects in the room but also of the finer marks on the flask and the window panes after the same were dusted with some prey powder
Thereafter the Investigating Officer PW 28 requested PW 2 PW 8 and PW 13 to ascertain if any of the things belonging to the deceased were missing
These three persons informed him after inspection list two loan registers one general ledger one cash book and vouchers from April 66 to December 66 were missing
They further informed him that one blanket of the deceased one tea poy cove  and one canvas bag was missing
An inquest on the dead body was held and the blood found was also seized
Thereafter p
W 28 went to Mansarover Hotel and recorded the statement of PW 7
On 1 2 6  at about 1130 am PW 28 accompanied by the Assistant Sub Inspector and Constables met PW 2 PW 8 and boarded the jeep of PW 2 driven by Roshan Lal and went towards the house of Om Prakash
On the way PW 2 saw Kala Ram PW 5 who was waiting for a bus and asked him to get into the jeep
Thereafter they went to the house of the accused situated at Anandale and there PW 28 went inside the house and saw the accused in one of his rooms and brought him outside
After interrogating him he arrested him and pursuant to a statement made by him seized from him one sweater one coat one blanket which was hidden inside the nivar of his cot lying inside his room
The sweater and the coat were stated by the accused to be his
The accused also gave them the pair of boots and socks which he was wearing and informed them that he had concealed one blood 769 stained dagger under a stone slab below the Maidan of Burnt Market and over the bakeries which was by the side of a pipe and offered to have it recovered
He further stated that he had kept the five registers in a canvas bag which lie had hidden below a stone at Krishna Nagar on the bank of Ganda Nala and that he had thrown 8 or 9 bundles of the vouchers tied in a tea poy cloth and his blood stained pants in the Ganda Nala and would get them recovered
The Investigating Officer reduced the statements to writing in the presence of the Panchas and took their signatures
This Panchnama is exhibit P 6
The coat and sweater and the blanket inside he nivar of his cot were handed over by the accused to the police
These were found to contain blood and were seized through a Panchnama
The accused then took them to the market and on the way were met by Bhag Singh PW 12 and in the presence of all these persons he
removed a piece of stone which was near a pipe and brought out a blood stained dagger from under it and gave it to PW 28
He then took them to the Tekri of one Ganga Singh P W II in the Lower Bazar who sells daggers and there PW 28 recorded his statement that on the day of the incident the accused had purchased the dagger recovered from under the stone which was identified by PW 11 as the one sold to him
On the next day namely 2 2 67 PW 28 got a plan of the rooms and the office where the deceased was working and living prepared and from there accompanied by PW 2 PW 13 went to Krishna Nagar taking with them on the way Manohar Lal PW 14 from Krishna Nagar to Ganda Nala which was flowing in the khud
From near there the accused pointed out a stone slab from where a canvas bag which contained five registers said to be missing from the residence of the deceased were recovered and then the accused went into the Ganda Nala brought out a tea poy cloth which contained vouchers and also recovered a blood stained pant which was lying under the water
The button and the coat were sent to the forensic laboratory at Chandigarh for examination
The flash and the glass panes were sent to the Finger Print Examiner at Phillor and the button to the Forensic Laboratory which gavel a report that it was similar to the button on the coat from which it was missing
The Chemical Examiner and Serologist found human blood on the key
the dagger blanket coat sweater and pant the shoes and socks
The blood grouping could only be found on the pajama and shirt of the deceased which is of O  group while no blood grouping was possible in respect of the other articles referred to
Vide exhibit P 60 and exhibit P 48
The finger print expert found on the flask and the glass pane reported as per exhibit P 59 that they are the same as those of the accused and have more than 12 points of similarity ie matching ridge characteristic details
The High Court grouped the circumstances relied against the accused Under 4 broad heads namely 770 i that there was a motive for committing the murder ii that the deceased Chaturvedi was seen last in the Company of the accused iii that in pursuance of the statement said to have been made by the accused as per exhibit P 6 a recovery of blood stained sweater coat blanket
shoes and socks and blood stained dagger were made as per exhibit P 6A on 1 2 67 the date given in the Judgment as 2 2 67 is not correct and that on 2 2 67 five registers contained in a bag and 12 bundles of vouchers were recovered and iv that the finger marks of the accused were found on the flask as well as on the glass panes at the place where the murder took place
If the circumstantial evidence as relied upon by the prosecution is credible and acceptable the offence with which the accused is charged can be held to be established beyond reasonable doubt
The High Court however did not accept these circumstances as having been established by any independent and reliable evidence
In so far as motive suggested byu the prosecution is concerned it was of the view that while no doubt the accused was suspended by an order of the deceased on 21 6 63 that suspension must have been as a consequence of the action taken by the authorities of the Bank with the approval of the Board of Directors and this does not indicater that he could have any grievance against him that the accused had no grievance against the deceased is also shown by the fact that the deceas ed had given him employment in the Finance Company
The second circumstance against the accused that lie was last seen in the Company of the deceased on 30 1 67 at 930 pm was also held not to incriminate him for the reason that even if Lal Chand PW 9 s statement was true it only goes to show that the accused was seen going with the deceased towards the Nagina Singh Building but that does not mean that they had gone into that Building together but on the other hand there was a possibility of the accused taking leave of the deceased and going away to his house without entering into the Nagina Singh Building
With respect to the third circumstance relating to the seizure and recovery of articles and their admissibility under Sec
27 of the Evidence Act it was observed that the evidence adduced by the prosecution for establishing these circumstances reveals a number of irregularities and is suspicious firstly because the prosecuting officer took with him all the witnesses who were neither independent nor impartial and even the witness PW 5 Kala Ram cannot be considered to be independent or impartial as he was not a stranger but was known to the Enquiry Officer
A reading of Kala Ram s evidence gives the impression that he is a person willing to be an agent of the police
It also appeared to the High Court that the 771 action of PW 28 in bringing the accused out of the room when he and the other witnesses went to his house gives rise to the suspicion that it might have been done deliberately to clear the way for planting the articles in the cot which was in the room and fourthly the statement exhibit 6 said to have been made by the accused amounted to a confession by the accused and it as the enquiry officer PW 28 claimed that the statement was voluntary instead of recording it himself he could have produced the accused before a Magistrate for recording the same
In view of this the High Court was not satisfied that the statements were freely and voluntarily made by the accused and accordingly neither the portions of those statements which related to the discovery of incriminating facts nor the admissibility under Sec
27 of these Memos exhibit P6  P 6A and P 7 which were signed by PW 2 PW 5 PW 8 and PW 28 both on 1 2 67 as well as on 2 2 67 could be relied upon
Even the handing over of the shoes and socks it was observed cannot be treated as having been discovered because the accused was wearing them at the time when he handed them over to the police and also that it was difficult to believe that the accused will have the coat sweater and blanket which are said to have blood stains on them recovered because he could have discarded them in the same way as he is said to have done with his pants
Moreover the coat and the sweater were not shown to belong to the accused by independent and reliable evidence
For these reasons the alleged discoveries or the recoveries of the coat the sweater the blanket shoes and socks were rejected
Even with respect to the discovery of the dagger the High Court thought that Amar Chand PW 8 was not an independent witness that Bhag Singh PW 12 who was just a worker at the bakery claimed to be present casually did not inspire confidence nor in the absence of independent witnesses who could have been easily procured could the other evidence be relied upon
The identification of the dagger by Ganga Singh PW 11 before the Magistrate was also not accepted because there was nothing to show that the dagger was the one which was purchased by the accused nor is it possible to distinguish the dagger in question from the other 3 daggers with which it was mixed up
Similarly the evidence relating to the recovery of the account books and vouchers was disbelieved
The thumb impressions on the flask and the glass panes was rejected on the ground that no particulars were set out by the Director of the Finger Prints Bureau except the stereotyped statement that there was a similarity of more than 12 points
On this aspect the High Court observed as follows If the accused also had handled the flask as suggested by the prosecution his finger impressions also would be on the flask and there would be quite a good number of finger impressions on the flask
But curiously only three finger impressions and that too of the accused are 772 said to be present on the flask
This in our Opinion is a very suspicious feature
Further the existence of the finger marks is said to have been noticed even at the earliest stage of the inquest and that too not by any expert but by the any vestigating Officer IC Gupta Amar Chand and Baldev Krishan as though they anticipated the presence of the finger marks
There is thus no clear proof that the finger marks alleged to have been found on the flask and the glass pane were those of the accused and we hold accordingly
In possession of articles which bear incriminating blood stains and Court has undoubted power to interfere with the findings of fact no distinction being made between judgments of acquittal and conviction though in the case of acquittals it will not ordinarily interfere with the appreciation cf evidence or on findings of fact unless the High Court acts perversely or otherwise improperly See State of Madras vs Vaidyanatha lyer 1
The case against the accused as already stated depends entirely on circumstantial evidence the credibility of which is very much in issue
It is well established that circumstantial evidence consists in various links in a chain which if complete leads to the undoubted conclusion that the accused and accused alone could have committed the offence with which he is charged
It is said that this evidence is much more dependable than direct evidence provided that no link in the chain is missing
While it is possible that each of these links may not by itself incriminate the accused or be conclusive against him the linking of all of them may forge the chain in arriving at that conclusion The evidence that accused had ill will against the deceased furnishing a motive that he was last seen in the company of the deceased that he was present in the room of the deceased at or about the time he was murdered that he was subsequently found in possession of articles which bear incriminating blood stains and that he had hidden the dagger with blood stains thereon and certain other articles which were discovered on the information furnished by him all of which if believed leads to the conclusion that he was the murderer
In appreciating the evidence against the ac cused the prime duty of a court is firstly to ensure that the evidence is legally admissible that the witnesses who speak to it are credible and have no interest in implicating him or have ulterior motive
At the very outset an attempt was made on behalf of the de fence to suggest that it was PW 2 who was the murderer and not the accused
This suggestion was made to him in the committal court as also in Sessions Court but it was denied
It was submitted that PW 2 had a motive to do away with the deceased because he 1   587 773 wanted to appropriate to himself the money and property of the deceased
To this end he was cross examined with the object of establishing that he and the deceased had purchased jointly a land near Chhail and that the deceased was in possession of large sums of money and that PW 2 used to receive all the amounts from the loans
advanced by the Finance Company and to avoid any liability for these amounts the murder was committed with the object of taking away the accounts and destroying the evidence relating there to
It was further suggested that because of this motive he and P W 8 who admitted that he considered PW 2 as his superior and PW 13 Bhag Singh who is the brother in law of PW 2 being the wife s brother were interested in shifting the offence to the accused by taking a prominent part during the investigation and became the main witnesses for proving the several incriminating circumstances against him
While it is not the function cf this Court to determine who other than the person who has been charged with the murder had committed it the line which the defence adopted was to establish that the witnesses referred to above had an interest in implicating the accused or at any rote to create uncertainty and doubt sufficient to give the benefit to the accused
It is not beyond the ken of experienced able and astute lawyers to raise doubts and uncertainties in respect of the prosecution evidence either during trial by cross examination or by the marshalling of that evidence in the manner in which the emphasis is placed thereon But what has to be borne in mind is that the penumbra of uncertainty in the evidence before a Court is generally due to the nature and quality of that evidence
It may be the witnesses are lying or where they are honest And truthful they are not certain
It is therefore difficult to expect a scientific or mathematical exactitude while dealing with such evidence or arriving at a true conclusion
Because of these difficulties corroboration is sought wherever possible and the maxim that the accused should be given the benefit of doubt becomes pivoital in the prosecution of offendsers which in other words means that the prosecution must prove its case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt by a sufficiency of credible evidence
The benefit of doubt to which the accused is entitled is reasonable doubt the doubt which rational thinking men will reasonably honesty and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fightshy though unwittingly it may be or is afraid of the logical consequence if that benefit was not given
Or as one great Judge said it is not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has not the moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a vain and idle scepticism
It does not mean that the evidence must be so strong as to exclude even a remote possibility that the accused could not have committed the offence
If that were so the law 774 would fail to protect society as in no case can such a possibility be excluded
It will give room for fanciful conjectures or untenable doubts and will result in deflecting the course of justice if pot thwarting it altogether
It is for this reason the phrase has been criticised
Lord Goddard CJ in Rex vs Kritz1 said that when in explaining to the juries what the prosecution has to establish a Judge begins to use the words  reasonable doubt and to try to explain what is a reasonable doubt and what is not be is much more likely to confuse the jury than if he tells them in plain language It is the duty of the prosecution to satisfy you of the prisoner s guilt 
What in effect this approach amounts to is that the greatest possible care should be taken by the Court in convicting an accused who is presumed to be innocent til the contrary is clearly established which burden is always in the accusatory system on the prosecution
The mere fact that there is only a remote possibility in favour of the accused is itself sufficient to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt
This then is approach
The High Court thought there was force in the suggestion of the learned Advocate for the accused that PW 2 had a clear motive to take away the registers and vouchers of the Company to make such use of them as would suit him and also to murder the deceased
On the contrary the I evidence of PW 2 shows that he was a friend of the deceased
 He had been a Manager in the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank when the de  was the General Manager
There is nothing to show that during that period the deceased and he were
on inimical terms or there was any disagreement between them of Such a nature as would imply that he bore ill will towards the deceased
On the other hand both of them had jointly purchased a land and when the deceased started the Himprasth Finance Company PW 2 s wife was made a Director in that Company blecause PW 2 being an employee in a State Cooperative Bank could not take interest therein
At the time of the incidept it  appear  that PW 2 was living in Simla and according to him he had regard for the deceased and as he was his General Manager he used to go to him almost daily in the morning and in the evening
He further says he must have visited him hundred times inside the house and on the evening of the 30th January 67 the deceased and he went for an evening stroll as usual and at 930 pm that day he left him near the Nagina Singh Building after which the deceased went away to take his food towards the Lower Bazar side and he went away to his house
PW 2 knew of the financial position of the deceased which was according to the loan ledger entries of the Himprasth Finance Company 775 Rs 115771 np
as on 31 12 66 that there was a credit amount of Rs 14000 as on 29 11 66 Which was not withdrawn till then that certain amounts were also borrowed for the marriage of his daughter from Rawal Chand of Sanjouli whom he knew welt and that from the accounts it appeared that there was only Rs 610 np
as cash in hand of the Company which may be in the hands of PW 13
He further states that he used to
be present in every meeting of the Himprasth Financiers and he used to write the Minutes Book
There is no suggestion that these Account Books were manipulated or that the entries therein were not made con temporaneously with the transactions which they evidenced
There is therefore no justification for holding that either PW 2 or PW 8 or PW 13 notwithstanding their close connection with the deceased and the Himprasth Finance Company were inimically disposed towards the deceased or towards the accused
No adverse inference can be drawn as contended by the learned Advocate for the accused against PW 2 that the circumstance point out to him as being concerned with the murder or against the other two witnesses that they were supporting PW 2 with the object of exculpating him from any charge that may be levelled again st him
The  suggestion that PW 2 Wanted to appropriate the property of the deceased or do away with the cash from the loans which were being paid to him directly had no rationale
to support it because firstly the deceased had one married daughter another unmarried and secondly that he had nephews whoin the absence of the daughters would have inherited his property
A suspicion was sought to be aroused because PW 2 didnot scene for the daughters jut sent for the nephews which was with the object of dividing the properties of the deceased in league with them
PW 2 said that he did not know the address of the daughters of deceased and therefore he sent for the nephews as such no sinister motive can be attributed to him
PW 28 the Investigating Officer had known that PW 2 PW 8 and PW 13 were the only persons closely connected he found some finger prints on the flask and the window panes he out of abundant caution took their finger prints also on that very day long before the accused was suspected as being involved in the murder
It was only after the investigating Officer examined PW 7 the Proprietor of Mansarover Hotel at about 830 pm on the day the murder was discovered that he came to know that the accused had met the deceased outside the Hotel after he had taken his meals that night
The various Panchnamas of seizures that the Investigating Officer prepared in the presence of PW 2 PW 8 and PW 13 cannot be assailed merely on the ground that they were connected with the deceased or with Himprasth Finance Company
The fact that a key and a button 776 was recovered or that the flask or the window panes had finger prints were found in the room where the deceased was murdered are unassailable nor has any doubt been raised to discredit these recoveries
All that is said by the learned Advocate is that PW 28 being an experienced Investigator had created evidence and the Account Books vouchers tea poy cloth a canvas bag blanket of the deceased were shown as missing in order to plant them subs equently on the accused
But at the time when these seizures were made the part played by the accused if any was not known and if at all PW 2 PW 8 and PW 13 who were Witness to the panchnama had not been cleared from suspicion
We are not unaware that Section 27 of the Evidence Act which makes the information given by the accused while in custody leading to the discovery of a fact and the fact admissible is liable to be abused and for that reason great caution has to be exercised in resisting any attempt to circumvent by manipulation or ingenuity of the Investigating Officer the protection afforded by Sec 25 and Sec
26 of the Evidence Act
While considering the evidence relating to the recovery we shall have to exercise that caution and care which is necessary to lend assurance that the information furnished and the fact discovered is credible
As already stated on 1st February 1967 the coat sweater shoes and socks of the accused and a blanket of the deceased ware recovered in the presence of PW 2 PW 5 PW 8 and PW 28
After this they proceeded to the place indicated by the accused and recovered the blood stained dagger from under a stone which was witnessed by them
PW 2 did not accompany the party as according to him he had to Jo to make arrangements for the funeral of the deceased On the way to the place from where the dagger was to be recovered the party met one Bhag Singh PW 12 who also accompanied then to the place of recovery and in the presence of Roshan Lal who I was not examined Amar Chand PW 8 Bhag Singh PW 12 and PW 28 the dagger was recovered and a Memo exhibit P 28 was prepared and
attested by the aforesaid witnesses
The High Court rejected the evidence of these recoveries under exhibit P 6A and P 28 because PW 2 PW 8 PW 13 and Roshan Lal the driver of PW 2 were all connected with the deceased and are not therefore independent or impartial witnesses It thought that the Investigating Officer should have called independent and impartial witnesses preferably and if possible from the locality as it could not be said that they were not available or if available would not be willing to be witnessed and that in any base calling of the same persons to witness several searches or recoveries is objectionable and would render the search or the recovery doubtful and suspect if not invalid
777 Further having held this it nonetheless said that there was no injunction against the same get of witnesses being present at the successive enquiries if nothing could be urged against them
In our view the evidence relating to recoveries is not similar to that contemplated under Sec
103 of the Criminal Procedure Code where searches are required to be made in the presence of two or more inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate
In an investigation under Sec
157 the recoveries could be proved even by the solitary evidence of the Investigating Officer if his evidence could otherwise be believed
We cannot as a matter of law or practice lay down that where recoveries have to be effected from different places on the information furnished by the accused different sets of persons should be called in to witness them
In this case PW 2 and PW 8 who worked With the deceased were the proper persons to witness the recoveries as they could identify some of the things that were missing and also they could both speak to the information and the recovery made in consequence thereof as a continuous process
At any rate PW 2 who is alleged to be the most interested was not present at the time of the recovery of the dagger
PW 5s evidence was not considered to be independent be cause the High Court thought that he was known to PW 28 from before
This by itself in our view will not justify the rejection of his evidence
That apart there is nothing in his evidence to show that PW 28 knew him before he came to Simla while he was living in Kaithal
The witness stated that the SHO was never posted at Kaithal but knew the Daroga SHO from 23 months before that date
He had not met PW 28 before be arrived at Simla
It was suggested to him that Daroga had come and sat in his shop at the Mandi but that was denied
He however stated that the Daroga used to ask his hal chal  sometime and used to wish him and that was all
Witness also denied having seen PW 2 and PW 8 before that day and came to know their names only when he went to Anandale
The brothers of PW 5 were at Kaithal doing business  but here again there was nothing to connect the brothers with PW 28 and though PW 28 admits that his own brothers Roshan Lal and Malik Harbans Lal reside in Kaithal and one of them has some lands there he was not
on good terms with them and denies that they bad any connection with PW 5
From this evidence it is clear that apart from the fact that PW 28 had known PW 5 after he had come to
Simla which is not unusual for a Police Officer there is nothing to indicated that PW 5 could be subservient to PW 28
It is not unknown that in some instances where persons are made to witness Panchnamas they have resiled from them while giving evidence in Court probably either due to 778 the pressure exerted by the police at that time or they have been won over by the defence
Nothing of that nature is appar ent in this case and the comment of the High Court that a reading of the evidence of PW 5 gives the impression that he is a person willing to be pliable agent of the police and cannot be regarded as an independent or impartial witness has in our view no justification
It is said that PW 12 Bhag Singh was just a worker at the bakery and while he pretends to be present there casually at the spot from where the dagger was taken out the Investigating Officer said he had summoned him on the suggestion of the Head Constable as such his evidence does not inspire confidence 
We do not think that this is a sufficient reason for discarding the evidence of PW 5 because when PW 28 says he summoned Bhag Singh through the constable it does not negative the statement of Bhag Singh that he was casually present and could have been called by him through the Head Constable
In our view there is no reason to hold that the evidence of these persons PW 2 PW 5 PW 8 and PW 12 can be said to suffer from any infirmity or that they had not witnessed the information given by the accused as per Exhibits P or P 28 or the recoveries made by him as a consequence of that information
Thereafter on the information furnished by the accused that he had purchased the weapon from Ganga Singh PW 11 and that be would take them to him they went to the thari of PW 11 where the accused pointed him out to them
It is contended that the information given by the accused that he purchased the dagger from PW 11 followed by his leading the police to his thari and pointing him out is inadmissible under Sec 27 of the Evidence Act
In our view there is force in this contention
A fact discovered within the meaning of Sec
27 must refer to a material fact to which the information directly relates
In order to render the information admissible the fact discovered must be relevant and must have been such that it constitutes the information through which the discovery was made
What is the fact discovered in this case Not the dagger but the dagger hid under the stone which is not known to the police
See Pulukuri Kotayya  Ors
vs King Emperor 1
But thereafter can it be said that the information furnished by the accused that he purchased the dagger from PW 11 led to a fact discovered when the accused took the police to the thari of PW 11 and pointed him out  A single Bench of the Madras High Court in Public 1 74 India Appeals p 65
779 Prosecutor vs India China Lingiah  Ors
1 and in re Vellingiri 2 seems to have taken the view that the information by an accused leading to the disco very of a witness to whom he had given stolen articles is a discovery of a fact within the meaning of Sec 27
In Emperor vs Ramanuja Ayyangar3 a Full Bench of three Judges by a majority held that the statement of the accused I purchased the mattress from this shop and it was this woman another witness that carried the mattress as proved by the witness who visited him with the police was admissible because the word fact  is not restricted to something which can be exhibited as a material object
This judgment was before Pulukuri Kotayya s case 4 when as far as the Presidency of Madras was concerned the law laid down by the Full Bench of that Court in Re Athappa Goundan prevailed
It held that where the accused s statement connects the fact discovered with the offence and makes it relevant even though the statement amounts to a confession of the offence it must be admitted because it is that has led directly to the discovery
This view was over ruled by the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya s case5 and this Court had approved the Privy Council case in Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma vs The State of Bombay6
In the Full Bench judgment of seven Judges in Sukhan vs The Crown 7   which was approved by the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya s case8 Shadi Lal CJ as he then was speaking for the majority pointed out that the expression fact  as defined by Sec
3 of the Evidence Act includes not only the physical fact which can be perceived by the senses but also the psychological fact or mental condition of which any person is conscious and that it is in the former sense that the word used by the Legislature refers to a material and not to a mental fact
It is clear therefore that what should be discovered is the material fact and the information that is admissible is that which has caused that discovery so as to connect the information and the fact with each other as the cause and effect 
That information which does not distinctly connect with the fact discovered or that portion of the information which merely explains the material thing discovered is not admissible under Sec 27 and cannot be proved
As explained by this Court as well as by the Privy Council normally Sec
27 is brought into operation where a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment some object said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is the accused
The concealment of the fact which is not known to the police is what is discovered by the information and lends assurance that 1 AIR 1954 Mad 333
2 AIR 1950 Mad 613
3AIR 4 74 1
A 64
5 ILR 6   7 ILR Vol
X Lahore 283
780 the information was true
No witness with whom some material fact such as the weapon of murder stolen  property or other in eliminating article is not hidden sold or kept and which is unknown to the Police can be said to be discovered as a consequence of the information furnished by the accused
These examples however are only by way of illustration and are not exhaustive
What Makes the information leading to the discovery of the witness admissible is the discovery from him of the thing sold to him or hidden or kept with him which the police did not know until the
information was furnished to them by the accused
A wittiness cannot be said to be discovered if nothing is to be found or recovered from him as a consequence of the information furnished by the accused and the information which disclosed the identity of the witness will not be admissible
But even apart from the admissibility of the information under Sec 27 the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the panchas that the accused had taken them to PW 11 and pointed him out and as corroborated by PW 11 himself would be admissible under Sec 8 of the Evidence Act as conduct of the accused
We then come to the recovery on the second February of Pant the Account Books and the vouchers
These however cannot in our view be relied upon because PW 28 had information relating to them which had been furnished by the accused more than 24 hours before and the description given by him was that they could have been discovered
At any rate the long delay does not lend assurance to the discovery
It appears from the application made on the 2nd February to the Magistrate that the accused was arrested on 1 2 67 and at his instance and from his possession one sweater
one coat and one blanket blood stained have been recovered and in addition one blood stained warm pant one duster one bag containing 5 registers are still t0 be recovered on the pointing out of the accused but the remand of the accused is due to expire at 1 pm and accordingly it was requested that a further remand for 7 days be given and the a caused made over to the police and orders be passed
The accused is alleged to have given the information that he had hid them under the stone slab near Krishna Nagar Ganda Nala Which he had thrown away in the sewage and which he said will point out and get them recovered
The recovery itself is under E P7 to which PW 2 PW 13 and Manohar Lal PW 14 who was picked up on the rasta when he was summoned by the constables are witnesses
According to PW 14 the Thandar was going ahead and went down to the Nala when the constable summoned him and he went there
He further says that the Thanedar sent a constable down
The accused bad a talk with Thanedar
The constable took out from below a stone slab five registers in a bag the accused was standing on a stone
At ibis 781 stage the prosecutor sought permission to cross examine the witness and it Was given
In the cross examination he denied in signed the Memo at the spot and said that he had signed  it at the Thana
He also said it was incorrect to suggest that the Memo was read over to him and he signed it
Whether the articles recovered were planted at the place from where they were alleged to be recovered or not as suggested by the learned Advocate for the accused the evidence referred to certainly goes against the prosecution version that the Account Books vouchers and the pant were recovered at the instance of the accused
The Police appears to have known the place from where these articles were alleged to have been recovered and therefore it cannot be said that they were discovered as a consequence of the information furnished by the accused
After excluding the recoveries made tinder exhibit 7 namely the Account Books etc
the evidence against the accused which remains to be considered is the motive the recovery of the button the finger prints on the flask and the window panes blood stained coat sweater shoes and socks alleged to be of the accused blanket the dagger and the deceased being last seen alive in his Company
As we have already noticed the High Court had rejected the evidence of motive but in our view it failed to consider one aspect which is important namely that the accused wanted to be reemployed with the Himprasth Finance Company and though the other Directors were willing the deceased was not
It is true that the initial illwill which he may have had against the deceased when he suspended him in 1964 may have been forgotten because the deceased subsequently extended his sympathy and employed him in his Finance Company
The accused was not satisfied with the conditions of his service and wanted an increase in the pay which the Company was not prepared to give causing him to resign
This itself may have given him cause to nurse a grievance against the deceased because he was the person who was as incharge of the affairs of that Company in which he had a dominant voice but when he wanted to be reappointed the deceased definitely put his foot down and refused to entertain him which would certainly create ill will in him against the be occasion but if he does not continue to do so or positively obstructs or is against his being given any benefit even on one such occasion it may give rise to a sense of grievance against him
The springs of human action and conduct are unfathomable because what motivates them is difficult to postulate
At any rate where personal interest is involved it is too much to expect objectivity in a person s relationship with others who are unobliging or considered to be hostile to him
There are many with 782 greater cause who may not venture to do away with those that give occasion for it but experience has shown that even with lesser motive persons have committed more dastardly crimes that is why in view of these imponderable motive by itself is not sufficient to determine culpability
It has to be judged with positive evidence relating to incriminating facts and circumstances proved in a case against an accused
It is contended strenuously that there is no evidence to establish that the accused was with the deceased at the time when he was murdered
This contention seems to have found favour with the High Court which has held that though the deceased was last seen alive in the Company of the accused it is not sufficient to indicate that he had gone with the deceased into the Nagina Singh Building and was with him at the time when the murder was committed
The evidence of PW 7 is positive that he had seen the accused in the company of the deceased after the deceased had his meals at about 930 or so
This witness was the first to give information to PW 28 which was at about 8300 pm on 31st January
The High Court does not disbelieve this evidence
In so far as PW 9 is concerned it is said that he is a mere casual or chance witness
Even if the reasons given by the High Court for disbelieving his evidence is accepted it cannot negative the fact of the accused being seen in the company of the deceased at about 930 or 945 pm on 30th January when he was the last one to have seen him alive
That the accused was in the room with
the deceased is established by the fact that his finger prints were en the flask and the window panes and that a coat button of his Was found in the room
It was however contended on behalf of the accused that these finger prints were not blood stained nor do they indicate that the accused was present at the time when the offence was committed because the evidence shows that be was seeking to get reemployment and the possibility of his
having visited the deceased earlier in the day or a few days before the offence when the finger prints could have been found on the flask and the window panes cannot be ruled out
Secondly it was urged that the report of the finger print expert as the High Court has held does not furnish the reasons for the opinion that they belonged to the accused
On the first of these contentions it may be observed that there is no evidence that he bad been to see the deceased earlier that day or had seen him before that day as would probably these finger prints being still present on the 31st January
The evidence merely points out to the fact that the accused was seeking reemployment in the Company and the deceased was unwilling to give him employment
It is a long way from this circumstance to infer that he had been in the room earlier
The second contention is in our view equally untenable
The report regarding the Finger Print is that of the 783 Director of the Finger Print Bureau which under Sec
510 Criminal Procedure Code can be used as evidence in any enquiry or trial without examining the person who gave the report just in the same way as the report of the Chemical Examiners or of the Chief Inspector of Explosives is evidence
Under sub
2 however the Court may if it t hinks fit and shall on the application of the prosecution or the accused summon and examine any such person as to the subject matter of his report
The addition of the report of the Director of Finger Prints Bureau and of the Chief Inspector of Explosives in Sec
510 was made by Sec 99 of Act 26 of 1955 and unless the Court or the Public Prosecutor or the accused require the summoning and examining of any person as to the subject matter of his report that report can be
acted upon
It is however submitted that while the report may be admissible the opinion will have to be justified
Neither the decision of a Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in re
Godaverthy Bheshyakaravcharvulu1
 nor that of the Madras High Court case in re
Marudai support this contention
The reason why the reports of the Director of the Finger Print Bureau is treated as evidence Without examining the persons giving the report is that the comparison and identification of Finger Prints has now developed into a science and the results derived therefrom have reached a stage of exactitude
As long as the report shows that the opinion was based on observations which lead to a conclusion that opinion can be accepted but should there be any doubt it can always be decided by the calling of the person making the report when once the report is proved neither the prosecution nor the accused nor yet the Court thought it necessary to require the person making the report to be examined
In this case however the photographs of the finger prints were taken on the very day when the flask and the glass pane were seized
After these material objects were sent to the Finger Print Bureau they were again photographed and compared with the finger prints taken of PW 2 PW 13 and PW 8 and the accused
In so far as
the Finger Prints of the accused are concerned though some what smudged they were said to be readably clear and in each of the finger impressions found on the flask and the window pane there Were more than 12 points of similarity ie matching ridge characteristic details in their identical sequence without any discordances in their comparable portion and the corresponding portion of the left thumb impression middle finger impression left index finger right middle finger of Om Prakash the accused
It was also stated that so many points of similarity cannot be found to occur in the impressions of different thumbs and fingers and they are therefore of one and the same person
In respect 1 AIR 1960 AP 164
2 AIR 1960 Madras 370
784 of a thumb impression compared with the right thumb impression of Om Prakash the expert had found not less than 10 points of similarity and even with respect to this his opinion was that SO many points of similarity cannot be found to occur in the impressions of different thumbs and fingers and are therefore identical or are of one and the same person
There appears to be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion from the report that the points of similarity are those which can be accepted as a positive finding
The absence of these Finger Prints being blood stained is not indicative of the accused not being there before the murder We have it in evidence that the curtain near the door showed that blood stained hands severe wiped thereon
That apart the button which was recovered gives a direct clue to the presence of the accused at the time when the offence was committed it
is seen from exhibit P 6A that the upper button of the 3 small buttons on the cuff of the coat recovered from the accused was missing and the button recovered from the room where the deceased was murdered matches the button and supplies the missing one
The report of the Forensic expert is that on a comparison of that button with the button of the accused s coat esta blishes that it is the similar one
For this reason the accused had denied that the coat and the sweater belonged to him and the learned Advocate on his behalf has urged in support of that plea that these were not recovered from the accused and the recovery memos were all fake and were written subsequently
Accused in the statement under Sec
342 in answer to question 19 that he had signed the recovery Memos dealing with the sweater coat and blanket said that it was incorrect
He further said that he was made to sign three blank papers in the Thana and that he Was filing a copy of the application in this connection made by while he was in the judicial lock up
Again in answer to question 35 whether he has anything else to say he stated categorically that on the 1st February 67 he was taken to the Thana at 5 p
M on the 2nd February he was produced before the Court where a remand was taken and that on 7 2 67 the SHO obtained his signatures on three blank papers in respect of Which he had sent an application after he was taken to the judicial lock up
This statement goes counter to the facts stated ill the application of remand made to the Magistrate on 2 2 67 which was earlier extracted
A perusal of that remand application would show that these recoveries had already been made on the 1st and so there could be no question of his signatures been taken on the blank papers on the 7th for purposes of cooking up the recovery Memos which according to the accused Were not recovered on the 1st
The coat
and the sweater were recovered from his room while the shoes and socks from his person as the was wearing them There can be no doubt of the ownership being that of the accused
785 respect to which similar contentions were raised
Where a person who is not a hardened criminal is burdened with the guilt of a gruesome crime is confronted with as  tell tale finding the possibility of his making a clean breast of what is weighing heavily on him cannot be ruled out
It is difficult to generalise as to what a man may or may not do after committing a ghastly murder nor can there be an infallible test to determine the course of human reaction conduct or behaviour in a given situation which might manifest itself in various ways
In case when the accused was confronted with the button of his coat he gave information leading to the incriminating discoveries
Whether the knife could have been properly identified by P W 11 in the identification held before the Magistrate there can be little doubt if we believe his evidence the accused hid purchased a knife that day which is similar in nature to the one he was selling
There is no reason why PW II should not be believed on this aspect
He says that it was purchased by the accused at the noon time on the day when Mahatma Gandhi had died on the 30th for Re 1 and that the police had brought the accused to his shop on the 3rd day after the dagger was purchased
He further says that the accused used to go to him previously for the mending of his knife and scissors though the witness admits that he had not purchased any dagger from him previously
In cross examination he admitted frankly that he was having his thari without permission of the municipality and that he was challenged and fined almost every month though from the last 8 months the police have not challaned but the Municipal Committee have challaned him
He also admitted that once about 2324 years ago he was convicted in a theft case and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and his history sheet was closed 21 or 22 years ago
At the time of giving evidence he is about 35 years and even making an approximation of the age he must have been 13 or 14 years when the offence for which he was convicted was committed
This admission seemed to have weighed with the High Court that his antecedents were such as to justify their not relying upon his evidence
They also found it difficult to believe that when he had not put any special mark on the dagger he could identify it from amongst three similar ones
In this connection it may be remembered that PW It was making the knives which be was selling and it is not unknown that persons who make knives or other implements can recognise them with some amount of certainty even though special identification marks may not be present
Be that as it may even if the identification is discarded there is nothing to doubt his statement that he knew the accused before the 30th January 1967 786 and that about noon on that day he had purchased a dagger from him
It is not unreasonable to infer that the dagger which he purchased is the dagger which was recovered on the information furnished by the accused himself on the second day after his purchase and that dagger Contained human blood
One other important circumstance against the accused is the blanket that was found in his house which had
human blood stains thereon
The murder of the deceased was in January in the coldest months in Simla and the possibility of the accused having taken a blanket to cover himself also fits in with the other evidence adduced by the prosecution
There is in our view no justification for the High Court in jettisoning this cogent evidence of a conclusive nature on mere conjectures and
on the omnibus ground that the witnesses were not independent or impartial which as we have shown is without justification
In our view the evidence in this case is sufficient to justify the conviction of the accused for an offence of murder
We accordingly set aside the judgment of acquittal of the High Court convict the accused under Sec 302 and sentence him to life imprisonment
VPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The accused was charged with murder by stabbing and the evidence against him was circumstantial
It consisted of  a evidence of ill will against the deceased furnishing a motive b evidence that he was last seen in the company of the deceased c evidence furnished by finger prints that he was present in the room of the deceased at or about the time of the murder d evidence that he was subsequently found in Possession of articles which had incriminating blood strains and e evidence that he had bidden a dagger with bloodstains thereon and certain other articles
which were discovered on information furnished by him
The trial court convicted him but the High Court set aside the conviction on the ground that the witnesses were not independent or impartial
Allowing the appeal to this Court HELD  1 In an appeal against acquittal by special leave under article 136 this Court has power to interfere with the findings of fact no distinction being made between judgments of acquittal and conviction though in the case of acquittals it will not ordinarily interfere with the appreciation of evidence or findings of fact unless the High Court acted perversely or otherwise improperly
772 B D State of Madras vs Vaidyanatha Iyer   587 referred to
2 In the case of circumstantial evidence if the links in the chain are complete leading to the undoubted conclusion that the accused alone could have committed the offence then it can be accepted
In appreciating such evidence the prime duty of a court is to ensure that the evidence is legally admissible that the witnesses are credible and that they have no interest or motive in implicating the accused Since it is difficult to expect a scientific or mathematical exactitude while dealing with such evidence corroboration is sought wherever possible
If there is any reasonable doubt the accused is given the benefit of such doubt
The doubt should be reasonable and not a remote possibility in favour of the accused
That is the greatest possible care should be taken by the court in convicting an accused who is presumed to be innocent till the contrary is clearly established and the burden of so establishing is always on the prosecution
772 C E G 773 E H 774 C 3a While considering the evidence relating to the recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act the court will have to exercise that caution and care which is necessary to lend assurance that the information furnished by the accused lead in to the discovery of a fact is credible
776 D 766 In the present case the various panchnamas of seizure prepared by the Investigating Officer could not be assailed on the ground that the witnesses who witnessed the recoveries were connected with the deceased or with his business and that therefore they were not independent or impartial witnesses
775 H 776 G b The evidence relating to recoveries is not similar to that contemplated under section 103 Cr
It cannot be laid down as a matter of law or practice that where recoveries had to be effected from different places on the information furnished by an accused different sets of persons should be called to witness them
777 B C On the contrary in the present case the witnesses who worked with the deceased were proper persons to witness the recoveries as they could identify the things which were missing
777 C D 4 The report of the Director of the Finger Print Bureau regarding the finger prints can be used as evidence under section 510 Cr
PC without examining the person making the report because identification of finger prints has developed into an exact science
As long as the report shows that the opinion was based on relevant observations that opinion can be accepted
783 A E In the present case the report set out many points of similarity between the finger prints found in the room of the deceased and those of the accused
783 H 5 The information given by the accused that he purchased a dagger from one of the prosecution witnesses followed his leading the police to that witness and pointing him out is inadmissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act
The concealment of a fact which is not known to the police is what is discovered by the information given by an accused and lends assurance that the information was true
What makes the information leading to the discovery of a witness admissible is the discovery from him of the thing sold to him or hidden or kept with him which the police did not know until information was furnished by the accused
But a witness cannot be said to have been discovered if nothing was found with or recovered from him
as a consequence of the information furnished by the accused
778 F 779 H 780 A C Emperor vs Ramanuya Ayangar AIR 1935 Mad 528 over ruled
Pulukiuri Kotayya  Ors
vs King Emperor 74 IA 65 Ramkrishan Mithaplal Sharma vs State of Bombay 1955 I SCR 9 03 Sukhan vs Crown ILR X Lah 283 Public Protector vs India China Lingiah  Ors AIR 1954 Mad
435 and Re  Vellingiri AIR 1950 Mad
referred to
6 But that the accused had taken some of the prosecution witnesses to the witness from whom he bought the dagger and pointed him out would be admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act as conduct of the accused
780 C D 7 Even after excluding some recoveries on the ground that the evidence regarding them was not satisfactory the evidence against the accused consisted of evidence of motive recovery of a button in the room of the deceased which matched with the button on the cuff of the coat recovered from the accused the finger prints in the room recovery of a blood stained coat and other articles of dress a blanket and the dagger and the 767 fact that the accused and deceased were last seen together
The evidences cogent and conclusive and should not have been rejected by the High Court
781 C E 786 C D