1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.924 OF 2005 1. Dinesh Bulakhi Harijan R/o. Mainajpur, Lal Mahu Hailiyapar, Tal. Lal Gajige Dist. Ajamgarh, U.P. 2. Laxman Anandu Bhagat, R/o. Paithan Kawal, Bada Post Sakri, Tal. Paithan Kawal, Dist. Darbhanga, Bihar. ...Appellants. (Ori.Accused) Vs. The State (At the instance of Sakinaka Police Station). ...Respondent. .... Shri Sachin Kadam (appointed) for the Appellants. Smt. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ. August 20, 2008. JUDGMENT (PER DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.): Rahul was eight years of age and resided with his parents at Andheri. His father had a business in Shoes. The two accused – 2 Dinesh and Laxman - were, according to the prosecution, employed at the workshop for the purposes of the business. The case of the prosecution is that the accused stayed at the workshop from Monday to Saturday . They had their meals at the residence of Rahul's father – Ganeshprasad Punit Mahato, P.W. 1. Rahul was a student of the second standard and attended school between 10 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. On 1st February 2003, PW 1 was informed that Rahul had not returned home since five in the evening. A search having been futile, a complaint was lodged with the Police. The accused used to go home on Saturday evenings to Airoli. PW 1 is alleged to have made enquiries on 2nd February 2003 at their residence. The accused were brought to the workshop by their father-in-law on 2nd February 2003 but they denied knowledge of the whereabouts of Rahul. After being in contact with PW 1 for four or five days, the accused are alleged to have stopped attending the place of work. A complaint was lodged on 21st March 2003 against the accused. Appellant No.1 was apprehended at the Kurla Railway Station, on 22nd March 2003. Appellant No.2 was apprehended in Bihar on 26th March 2003. The skull and bones of the victim were according to the prosecution, 3 recovered from a remote spot at a hillock near Airoli at the behest of Accused No.1, on 23rd March 2003. 2. Both the accused were committed to trial and were charged with offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 and 363 of the Penal Code all read together with Section 34. The prosecution adduced the evidence of six witnesses. By a judgment dated 10th May 2005, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused of offences punishable under Section 302 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Both the accused were convicted of offences under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to a fine of Rs.300/- each and in default, to further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of offences punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34. 3. The appeal was submitted by the two accused through Jail. By an order dated 1st April 2007, a Division Bench of this Court, while 4 admitting the appeal, directed the office to appoint an Advocate from the Legal Aid panel. Accordingly, we have heard Shri Sachin Kadam, Legal Aid Counsel who appeared on behalf of the accused and the Learned APP for State. 4. On behalf of the Appellants, the judgment of conviction is sought to be questioned on the grounds that: (i) There was a delay in lodging the FIR which casts doubt on the genuineness of the case of the prosecution; (ii) No motive has been established; (iii) The report of the Anatomy Department of the Grant Medical College Exh.17A, found the existence of human bones of a child aged between 8 and 9 years but the body was not identified; (iv) Whereas the victim was, according to deposition of the father, wearing a “half baniyan and Jeans, there was no reason why the victim should be carrying an Identity Card of his School on his person and what was recovered from the site was a shirt; (v) PW 3 deposed that she had last seen the accused with the victim for a short while for approximately ten minutes, but no time was indicated. The body was recovered on 23rd March 2003. PW 3 cannot be believed when she deposed on 13th 5 September 2004 that she had identified the accused in Court; and (vi) The recovery of the knife has been disbelieved. 5. On the other hand, the Learned APP has while relying upon the settled principles of law which govern the assessment of evidence in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, submitted that the evidence on the record establishes all the vital links of the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the only inference that is possible is that the accused committed the offence. The Learned APP submitted that the evidence establishes in the present case that : (i) The two accused were working with the father of the victim; (ii) The accused were known to the family of the employer as they used to take their meals during the course of the week from his residence; (iii) The victim disappeared on 1st February 2003; (iv) The accused disappeared after four or five days; (vi) The remains of the victim, namely the skull and bones were recovered from a remote and secluded spot to which the Police and panch witnesses were led by the accused. The spot was within the knowledge of the accused and the remote and isolated nature of the place where the body was found 6 clearly establishes the complicity of the accused; (vii) The body of the victim was identified by the School identity card; and (viii) The evidence of PW 3 who had last seen the accused together with the victim, has been correctly believed and was corroborated by other material evidence. 6. PW 1 Ganeshprasad Punit Mahato was the father of the victim. Eight year old Rahul was schooling in the second standard and attended School between 10 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. The two accused were employed by P.W. 1. Between Monday and Saturday each week they resided at the workshop where they were employed. Both the accused used to take their meals at the residence of PW 1. The deposition of PW 1 was that he was informed on 1st February 2003 that Rahul had not returned home since 5 p.m. A search was carried out until midnight and thereafter, a “missing report” was lodged. Both the accused used to go to their place of residence at Airoli on Saturday evening and since 1st February 2003 appears to have been a Saturday, they were contacted at their residence. Upon being informed that Rahul was missing, the accused were brought to 7 the workshop by their father-in-law at 11 a.m. on 2nd February 2003, but they denied any knowledge about his whereabouts. Thereafter, the accused did not report for duty. On 21st March 2003 a complaint (Exh.8) was lodged on the suspicion that the Appellants were involved in the offence. The First Appellant was apprehended at Kurla Railway Station, while the Second Appellant was apprehended in the State of Bihar. 7. PW 3, Swati Mane, was a social worker, who was known to the family of the victim. She deposed that she had seen both the accused moving with the child in the area on 1st February 2003 and that she had informed the Police that she knew the Second Accused as he belongs to the same locality. PW 3 identified the photograph of the victim. During the course of her cross-examination, she stated that she knew the family of PW 1 since his wife was her friend. The Learned Trial Judge noted that the Identity Card (Article 4) of the victim which contained his photograph was found at the place where bones and other remains were found and was the same photograph which was shown to and identified by PW 3 as the photograph of the 8 victim. 8. PW 4, Baburao Sangappa Fulare was a panch witness to the Panchanama (Exh.12) relating to the recovery of bones and remains of the victim. PW 4 deposed that he had been led together with other panchas by the accused to Airoli. The accused halted the Police vehicle, crossed the Pipelines and went in a southerly direction towards the electric tower and thereupon pointed out to bloodstained stones and nearby, to certain bones and a part of the jaw. An ash coloured bloodstained shirt was recovered at the site. An Identity Card bearing the photograph of the victim issued by the Yogiraj Shrikrishna Vidyalaya, Sakinaka was recovered from the bushes nearby. Two pieces of skull and loose teeth, pieces of bones and pieces of jaw were recovered together with bloodstained earth. The nature of the spot from which the recovery was made was such that after the Police vehicle was halted, the panch witnesses and the accused were required to walk for about twenty minutes. There was a nallah near the spot. PW 6, the Police Inspector attached to the Sakinaka Police Station identified the place where the discovery has 9 been made as Aravali Hill at New Bombay. The articles which were recovered were submitted to the Department of Anatomy at the Grant Medical College, Mumbai for examination and the report (Exh.17A) was to the effect that the bones and remains appear to be of a child between 8 and 9 years old. The sex of the child could not be determined; and since the skull and bones were found in pieces, a blunt trauma could not be ruled out. The report of the Forensic Science laboratory (Exh.19) found the bones and blood to be of human origin and the hair which was noticed on Exhibit 4 (the stone recovered from the site) as being human hair. 9. The case of the prosecution has rested on circumstantial evidence. Now, it is well settled that where the prosecution bases its case on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be established fully and cogently and the circumstances which have been proved must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court must consider ordinary human probabilities. Each circumstance may by itself not be conclusive, but “there must be a chain of evidence so far consistent and complete as 10 not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused”. (Kishor Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh.1) Each of the circumstances must be established beyond doubt and all the circumstances put together must lead to only one inference namely, that of the guilt of the accused (Kansa Behera vs. State of Orissa2 ). In Mulakh Raj vs. Satish Kumar,3 the Supreme Court held that motive undoubtedly bears “important significance” but as a matter of law, proof of the existence of a motive is never regarded as being indispensable for conviction. When the facts are clear, “absence of proof of motive” is immaterial and “does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime”. (para 17, p.1181). 10. In this background, when the circumstances which have been established on the basis of the evidence on record are considered, what emerges is thus: (i) Both the accused were employed with PW 1 and used to reside in the workshop from Monday to Saturday and received their 1 (1991) 1 SCC 286 2 (1987) 3 SCC 480 3 AIR 1992 SC 1175 11 meals from the family of PW 1; (ii) On Saturdays, the accused went home to Airoli, New Bombay; Airoli was the place where the accused were temporarily residing; (iii) After the incident took place on 1st February 2003, the accused maintained contact with PW 1 for about 4 or 5 days and disappeared thereafter; (iv) The First Appellant came to be apprehended at the Kurla Railway Station on 22nd March 2003, while the Second Appellant was apprehended from the State of Bihar on 26th March 2003; 12 (v) The First Appellant led the Police and the panch witnesses to a remote and secluded site near a Nallah at the Aravali Hill near Airoli from where a recovery was made of the bones and remains of a child aged 8 to 9 years. The school Identity Card containing the photograph of the victim was found in the bushes in close proximity to the site where the remains were recovered; (vi) The nature of the place where the remains were recovered was such as was within the exclusive knowledge of the First Appellant; and (vii) The evidence of PW 3 furnishes additional corroboration in so far as she deposed that she had seen the accused with the victim on the date of the incident. 11. The principle which is enunciated in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act is that no confession made to a Police Officer shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence and no confession made by any person while he was in the custody of a 13 Police Officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of the Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Section 27 carves out an exception to the provisions of Sections 25 and 26. The exception is that when any fact is discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a Police Officer, that part of the information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered can be proved whether it amounts to a confession or not. In Ramkishan v. Bombay State,4 the Supreme Court held that the rationale of the section is that : “If a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. But clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate.” In Lachhman Singh vs. The State,5 the Supreme Court affirmed the application of Section 27 by the High Court to a situation where in pursuance of the information furnished by the accused, two dead bodies were recovered at a particular spot in a stream which covered 4 AIR 1955 SC 104 5 AIR 1952 SC 167 14 several miles. The Supreme Court observed as follows : “It may be that several of the accused gave information to the police that the dead bodies could be recovered in the Sakinala, which is a stream running over several miles, but such an indefinite information could not lead to any discovery unless the accused followed it up by conducting the police to the actual spot where parts of the two bodies were recovered. From the evidence of the head constable as well as that of Bahadur Singh, it is quite clear that Swaran Singh led the police via Salimpura to a particular spot on Sakinala, and it was at his instance that bloodstained earth was recovered from a place outside the village, and he also pointed out the trunk of the body of Durshan Singh.” 12. In Lachhman Ram v. State of Orissa,6 the Supreme Court placed significant emphasis on a recovery made from such a spot in pursuance of the information furnished by the accused. The observations of the Supreme Court were as follows : “The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the various places were such as would be open and accessible to one and all. This reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge is not borne out by the record because the evidence of the investigating officer as also the panch witnesses shows that the articles recovered were kept concealed either under a stone or under a bridge or at other places which cannot be said to be accessible to any ordinary person without prior knowledge.” 6 AIR 1985 SC 486 15 In Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar,7 the Supreme Court emphasized that the two essential requirements for the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are that: (i) The person giving information must be accused of any offence ; and (ii) He must be in Police custody. In that case the accused had led PW 59 and others to a hillock where according to him, he had thrown the dead body of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the confessional statement of disclosure made by the accused was confirmed by the recovery of incriminating articles. In a more recent judgment in A.N. Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka,8 the accused were taken to the Police Station at night and soon thereafter on the next morning they had led the police along with the family members of the deceased to a river bed to a particular spot where the body of the deceased was exhumed. The Supreme Court held that evidence of the circumstance that the accused had pointed out the place where the dead body of the victim was found was admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused fell within the purview of Section 27 : 7 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 8 (2005) 7 SCC 714 16 “By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this Court in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn) (1979) 3 SCC 90. Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by the accused- appellants (Exhs. P-15 and P-16) is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant under Section 8. The evidence of the investigating officer and PWs 1,2 7 and PW 4 the spot mahazar witness that the accused had taken them to the spot and pointed out the place where the dead body was buried, is an admissible piece of evidence under Section 8 as the conduct of the accused.” 13. The dead body of the victim was recovered on 22nd March 2003 in pursuance of the information that was supplied by the First Appellant. The recovery was made from a spot situated at a hillock near Airoli which was remote and secluded. The recovery was made from a place which cannot be said to be accessible to an ordinary person without prior knowledge. In the present case, the recovery of the dead body of the victim at a remote and secluded location which 17 was pointed out by the First Appellant is an important link in establishing the case of the prosecution. 14. There is no merit in the submission that there was a delay in lodging the FIR. The victim was found to be missing since 5 p.m. on 1st February 2003. A missing person's report was lodged, after a search until midnight had been futile. The accused had disappeared soon after the incident. A complaint was lodged on 21st March 2003. The accused were apprehended on 22nd and 26th March 2003. The fact that no motive has been established is not fatal to the case of the prosecution once the circumstances relating to the case of the prosecution are otherwise established. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct in coming to the conclusion that the remains which were recovered at the site were proved beyond reasonable doubt as being of the victim Rahul. The contention that the victim was, according to PW 1, dressed in a pair of jeans and Baniyan and would therefore, not ordinarily carry an Identity Card on his person is only conjecture. There is no reason for the Court to disbelieve the recovery of the School Identity Card which links the 18 remains which were found at the site to the victim. In so far as the role of PW 3 is concerned, the Court has while evaluating the evidence on the record, borne in mind the fact that she deposed to having seen the victim in the company of the accused for about ten minutes on 1st February 2003; and that it was during the course of the deposition recorded on 13th September 2004 that she had identified both the accused. The evidence of PW 3 has been evaluated taking into account the aforesaid circumstances. The evidence of PW 3 furnishes only additional corroborative material to the case of the prosecution. 15. A distinction would, in our view, have to be made between the case of Appellant No.1 and Appellant No.2. The evidence of PW 6, the Police Inspector attached to the Sakinaka Police Station would show that Appellant No.1 was arrested from Kurla Railway Terminus on 22nd March 2003, while Appellant No.2 was arrested on 23rd March 2003 from Bihar and was brought to Mumbai on 26th March 2003. The panchanama at Exhs.12 and 12A would show that the discovery has been made on the basis of information provided by Appellant 19 No.1, Dinesh, on 22nd March 2003. The discovery of a fact in pursuance of information received from a person accused of an offence in the custody of a police officer triggers the application of Section 27, in that that part of the information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered can be proved. Such part of the information can be proved whether or not it amounts to a confession. Section 27 lifts the embargo under Sections 25 and 26 and the exception which is carved out must be confined to the extent envisaged in the statutory provision. That part of the evidence cannot be used against the co-accused. In our considered view, Appellant No.2 would be entitled to the benefit of doubt considering the aforesaid position. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the First Appellant (Dinesh Bulakhi Harijan) which shall accordingly stand dismissed. The appeal filed by the Second Appellant (Laxman Anandu Bhagat) shall stand allowed. The Second Appellant (Laxman Anandu Bhagat) is directed to be released unless he is required in any other case. 20 ( SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) ( DR.D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)