1 apeal222.15.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.222 OF [SECTION]5 1. [ENTITY] s/o. Babulal Dange, Aged 36 years, Occ. Labour, r/o. Gangabag [ENTITY], Plot No. 61, Nagpur. 2. [ENTITY], Aged 26 years, Occ. Labour, r/o. Mohgaon Suttara, Tq. Lakhanwada, District Chindwara, P.S.Kurai (M.P.), Presently at Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur. (At Present Central Jail, Nagpur). APPELLANTS VERSUS [ENTITY], Through P.S., P.S.O., Kalamna, Nagpur. RESPONDENT Uploaded on - 30/03/[SECTION]7 Downloaded on - 27/08/[SECTION]7 20:36:15 2 apeal222.15.odt Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.[ENTITY], A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : [ENTITY] AND KUM.INDIRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 22.3.[SECTION]7. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per [ENTITY], J) :
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.175 of [SECTION]4 thereby convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT] and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT]; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of 3 apeal222.15.odt fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT]; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT], the appellants have approached this Court.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus :
[ENTITY] (PW-1) was on night duty on 11.12.[SECTION]3. On 12.12.[SECTION]3, at 10.15 a.m., he received a phone call that, at Naka No.5, one person was lying. He made entry in the Station diary and proceed with staff to the open land of [ENTITY], in front of road leading to [ENTITY] near MSEB Power House on Nagpur-Bhandara Highway, Naka No.5. There, one dead body was found lying in scattered condition. It was in decomposed condition.
One uneven big stone having blood and one wallet having driving license was found near the dead body. The driving license was in the name of [ENTITY]. He, therefore, recorded spot panchanama 4 apeal222.15.odt and referred the dead body to Mayo hospital. The F.I.R. came to be registered below Exh.14 in Police Station, Kalamna. Further investigation was carried out by P.I. [ENTITY] (PW-
11). The accused came to be arrested. At the conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against both the accused for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT] in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Nagpur. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same came to be committed to the Court of Sessions.
4. The charges came to be framed below Exh.3. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge passed the order of conviction, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
5. Mr.[ENTITY], learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in convicting the appellants. He submits that the present case is a case based on circumstantial evidence. He submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any of the incriminating circumstances. He further 5 apeal222.15.odt submits that, in any case, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the chain of circumstances that leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused.
6. Mr.[ENTITY], learned A.P.P., on the contrary, submits that the learned trial Judge has, upon appreciation of evidence, rightly found that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, no interference is warranted in the present appeal.
7. The law with regard to the principles in a case based on the circumstantial evidence is very well crystalised by the Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] .vs. [ENTITY] reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116. It will be appropriate to refer to the following observation of Their Lordships of the Apex Court :
"153. The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
6 apeal222.15.odt It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. [ENTITY] where the following observations were made:
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accuse d 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."
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so 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.
7 apeal222.15.odt These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. "
8. It could thus be seen that, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to not only establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, but it is also necessary to establish the chain of events which leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It is necessary for the prosecution to establish that, in all human probability, it is the accused alone who must have committed the crime.
In the light of these guiding principles, let us examine the present case.
9. Insofar as the evidence of [ENTITY] (PW-
2) is concerned, same is of no use to the prosecution case. He was driver of the truck along with the deceased. He only identified dead body of the deceased. Same is the case with the evidence of [ENTITY] [ENTITY] (PW-3), who is owner of the truck. [ENTITY] (PW-4) is brother of the deceased. His evidence is also of no use to the prosecution case. [ENTITY] (PW-5) has turned hostile and as such, her evidence is also of no use to the prosecution case. [ENTITY] (PW-9) has also turned hostile. As such, his evidence would also be of no use to the prosecution case.
11. It is, therefore, only the evidence of [ENTITY] (PW-7), [ENTITY] (PW-10) - the panch witness and Investigating Officer [ENTITY], (PW-11), which is relevant to the prosecution case. [ENTITY] (PW-10) is the owner of Dabha at [ENTITY]. He states that besides his Dabha there was a Tea-Pan-Cigarette stall of [ENTITY]. Accused nos. 1 and 2 were working with [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] in their stall. On 10.12.[SECTION]3, one driver of Gujarat along with one other person came to the Dabha and were taking meals. At that time, the said driver received a mobile call and was talking and he went away leaving meals. Another person was taking meals and thereafter, he saw that the driver was talking with accused nos. 1 and 2 at the stall of [ENTITY]. He saw it in the street light.
9 apeal222.15.odt Thereafter, he did not see that driver. [ENTITY] (PW-10) states that thereafter another driver of that truck came to him and informed that the said driver is not seen. Then he heard that dead body of the said driver was lying in front of Suraj Dal Mill behind the Tapari/Stall of [ENTITY]. However, it is to be noted that there are various omissions and contradictions in his statement. Though this witness states that he came to know about the incident on 12th December, he has informed about the incident to police on 15th December. No explanation is given as to why he has informed about the incident to police on 15th December. We find that it will not be safe to come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence of this witness that the accused and the deceased were last seen together. In any case, assuming that the prosecution proves that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused, it will not be safe to convict the accused on the basis of the said sole circumstance.
12. The other circumstance on which the prosecution relies is the memorandum of accused u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] and consequent recoveries. Prosecution in this regard relies on the evidence of [ENTITY] (PW-7), the panch witness.
10 apeal222.15.odt
13. Insofar as the memorandum of accused no.1 [ENTITY] is concerned, memorandum at Exh.24 would show that no place is mentioned therein. The panchanama would show that it is the continuous panchanama wherein the accused shows the place wherein he had committed the crime, which place was already known to the accused. Seizure of the clothes allegedly used at the time of commission of crime is also from the open space accessible to one all.
14. Similarly, in the memorandum of accused no.2 [ENTITY] prepared on 19.12.[SECTION]3, which is at Exh. Nos. 25 and 26, no place is mentioned. Seizure of clothes is from the terrace accessible to one and all.
15. Apart from the aforesaid material, there is absolutely no material against the appellants.
16. We find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants; leave aside establishing the chain of incriminating 11 apeal222.15.odt circumstance which leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused.
17. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra), there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved'; there is a legal distinction that the accused may have committed the crime and it is the accused alone who must have committed the crime. In the result, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the following order :
O R D E R The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
The Judgment and Order of conviction dt.7.2.[SECTION]5 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nagpur is hereby quashed and set aside.
The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
12 apeal222.15.odt The amount of fine, if any paid, be refunded to the appellants.
JUDGE JUDGE [[ENTITY]]