Case: Ravindra Reddy Vs. Shaik Masthan

factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted".13. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.14. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343 ), wherein it was observed thus: "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 15. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC 1622 ). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must or ‘should and not ‘may be established;(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. 16. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram (2003 (8) SCC 180 ), State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261 ) and Kusuma Ankama Rao v. State of A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of on 7.7.2008)17. So far as the last seen aspect is concerned it is necessary to take note of two decisions of this court. In State of U.P. v. Satish [2005 (3) SCC 114 ] it was noted as follows: "22. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses PWs. 3 and 5, in addition to the evidence of PW-2." 18. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. [2006 (10) SCC 172 ] it was noted as follows: "27. The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case the courts should look for some corroboration". (See also Bodhraj v. State of J & K (2002 (8) SCC 45 ).)"19. A similar view was also taken in Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab [2005 (12) SCC 438 ] and Kusuma Ankama Raos case (supra).20. It is to be noted that PW-5 stated that A-1 had purchased two knives which were seized by PW-24 covered under M.Os.7 and 8. The High Court took exception to the fact that when PW-5 produced a duplicate bill to the police, the investigating officer did not produce the original in the Court. It is not understood as to how that the duplicate becomes irrelevant. The High Court has not indicated any reason whatsoever as to why he found the evidence of PW-9 to be not acceptable or as to why the chain of circumstances highlighted by the prosecution did not unerringly point at the accused persons to be guilty as the authors of the crime. PW-9 identified A-1 and A-2 at the Test Identification Parade. His evidence regarding identification has remained unshaken.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]9. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193 , wherein it has been observeda case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....".In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79 ), it was laid down that when a case rests uponcircumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the followingthe circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.12. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted".13. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.14. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343 ), wherein it was observedis well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC 1622 ). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. Theythe circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must or ‘should and not ‘may be established;(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.These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram (2003 (8) SCC 180 ), State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261 ) and Kusuma Ankama Rao v. State of A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of on 7.7.2008)17. So far as the last seen aspect is concerned it is necessary to take note of two decisions of this court. In State of U.P. v. Satish [2005 (3) SCC 114 ] it was noted asIn Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. [2006 (10) SCC 172 ] it was noted asThe last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case the courts should look for somealso Bodhraj v. State of J & K (2002 (8) SCC 45 ).)"19. A similar view was also taken in Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab [2005 (12) SCC 438 ] and Kusuma Ankama Raos case (supra).20. It is to be noted that PW-5 stated that A-1 had purchased two knives which were seized by PW-24 covered under M.Os.7 and 8. The High Court took exception to the fact that when PW-5 produced a duplicate bill to the police, the investigating officer did not produce the original in the Court. It is not understood as to how that the duplicate becomes irrelevant. The High Court has not indicated any reason whatsoever as to why he found the evidence of PW-9 to be not acceptable or as to why the chain of circumstances highlighted by the prosecution did not unerringly point at the accused persons to be guilty as the authors of the crime. PW-9 identified A-1 and A-2 at the Test Identification Parade. His evidence regarding identification has remained unshaken.