Case: Nathiya &amp; Another Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Bagayam Police Station, Vellore

deceased Gurunathan. 9. The place of occurrence is a well, away from the residence of the deceased for which any definitive presumption against his wife Nathiya, as a conspirator of the crime, cannot be drawn without the risk of going wrong to cast a burden on her, as contemplated under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The closest circumstance bearing on the incident is, discernible from the testimony of PW3 Packiammal who stated to have heard the shrieks of the deceased, followed by a loud sound of a fall inside the well. There is no evidence that immediately thereafter, the appellants were seen in the vicinity of the well. Noticeably, the chappals of the deceased were found by the side of the well. The evidence of PW4 Dinakaran is, however, to the effect that when the dead body was recovered thereafter from the well, both the appellants were present and Nathiya, the wife of the deceased, was seen weeping by his side. The medical evidence does not refer to any external injury indicative of use of any external force on the deceased, resulting in his ante-mortem suffocation and loss of consciousness, to be thereafter dispatched into the well. The possibility that the cause of death i.e. grievous head injury, suffocation and heart failure were post fall manifestations, also cannot be ruled out as the medical evidence admits of such an eventuality as well. The inexplicable omission on the part of the prosecution to produce and prove the alleged confessional statements made by the appellants and reduced into writing by PW9 and witnessed by PW10 substantially denudes its case of necessary credence to incriminate them. The oral testimony of these witnesses to the effect that such confessional statements had been recorded, ipso facto is of no consequence. Not only the contention that the supposed disclosure by the deceased to PWs 1 and 2 about the immoral conduct of the appellants is discardable being hearsay in nature, deserves some reflection, it is noticeable that PW2, in his cross-examination, did admit that he had not divulged the above fact to the police. PW10, as well, did concede that he had not revealed to anybody about the confessional statements made by the accused persons. The recovery of a saree produced by Nathiya said to have been gifted to her by Suresh and their joint photograph, in the attendant facts and circumstances and in the face of the other evidence on record, does not clinch the issue in favour of the prosecution. 10. The defence proposition that PW1 being the cousin brother of the deceased had framed the appellants so as to wrest his property in absence of his legal heirs in the above factual premise, also cannot be lost sight of. The imputation of sustained unchaste conduct and the activities of the wife, if true, the possibility of the deceased committing suicide as an extreme step in a unbearable anguished state of mind also cannot be wholly excluded. 11. On an analysis of the overall fact situation, we are of the considered opinion that the chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution to prove the charge is visibly incomplete and incoherent to permit conviction of the appellants on the basis thereof without any trace of doubt. Though the materials on record do raise a needle of suspicion towards them, the prosecution has failed to elevate its case from the realm of “may be true” to the plane of “must be true” as is indispensably required in law for conviction on a criminal charge. It is trite to state that in a criminal trial, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute proof. 12. The classic enunciation of the law pertaining to circumstantial evidence, its relevance and decisiveness, as a proof of charge of a criminal offence, is amongst others traceable to the decision of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. The relevant excerpts from paragraph 153 of the decision is assuredly apposite: “153.(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused...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.* * *(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.” As recently as in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406 and Raja @ Rajendra vs. State of Haryaya (2015) 11 SCC 43 , it has been propounded that in scrutinizing the circumstantial evidence, a court is required to evaluate it to ensure that the chain of events is established clearly and completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. It was underlined that whether the chain is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be attempted. That in judging the culpability of the accused, the circumstances adduced when collectively considered, must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime alleged. That the circumstances established must be of a conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, was emphatically propounded.13. Tested on the touchstone of the above judicially laid parameters, defining the quality and content of the circumstantial evidence, essential to bring home the guilt of an accused person on a criminal charge, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution, in the case in hand, has failed to meet the same. The materials on record admit of substantial doubt vis-a-vis the complicity of the appellants in the crime.14. Having regard to the evidence adduced, it would be wholly unsafe to sustain their conviction. They are thus entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. On an analysis of the overall fact situation, we are of the considered opinion that the chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution to prove the charge is visibly incomplete and incoherent to permit conviction of the appellants on the basis thereof without any trace of doubt. Though the materials on record do raise a needle of suspicion towards them, the prosecution has failed to elevate its case from the realm ofto the plane ofas is indispensably required in law for conviction on a criminal charge. It is trite to state that in a criminal trial, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substituterecently as in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406  and Raja @ Rajendra vs. State of Haryaya (2015) 11 SCC 43 , it has been propounded that in scrutinizing the circumstantial evidence, a court is required to evaluate it to ensure that the chain of events is established clearly and completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. It was underlined that whether the chain is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be attempted. That in judging the culpability of the accused, the circumstances adduced when collectively considered, must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime alleged. That the circumstances established must be of a conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, was emphatically propounded.13. Tested on the touchstone of the above judicially laid parameters, defining the quality and content of the circumstantial evidence, essential to bring home the guilt of an accused person on a criminal charge, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution, in the case in hand, has failed to meet the same. The materials on record admit of substantial doubt vis-a-vis the complicity of the appellants in the crime.14. Having regard to the evidence adduced, it would be wholly unsafe to sustain their conviction. They are thus entitled to the benefit of doubt.