Case: Dharminder Singh @ Vijay Singh Vs. State

accused, namely, that they were last seen in the company of the deceased and within a span of about 18 hours thereafter the dead body of Krishan Kumar was recovered from Haridwar. Alongwith the vehicle the accused were apprehended in Purnia, Bihar. They have failed to account for the absence of the deceased; their presence in Bihar with the vehicle and the recovery of the dead body of Krishan Kumar at Haridwar. In these circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the State, there can be no doubt that it is the accused alone who are responsible for the death of deceased Krishan Kumar. 10. The prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence as no direct evidence of the commission of the crime is forthcoming. The test(s) that have to be applied by the court to hold a prosecution case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been laid down in a plethora of judgments of this Court. In a recent pronouncement in the case of Vadlakonda Lenin Vs. State of A.P. [(2012) 12 SCC 260] the law has been summed up in paragraph 12 which may be usefully extracted hereinbelow:- ?12. The culpability of the appellant-accused, in the absence of any direct evidence, has to be judged on the basis of the circumstances enumerated above. The principles of law governing proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence would hardly require any reiteration save and except that the circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be capable of giving rise to an inference which is inconsistent with any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It is only in such an event that the conviction of the accused, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence brought by the prosecution, would be permissible in law. In this regard a reference to the ?five golden principles? enunciated by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116 ] may be recapitulated for which purpose para 153 of the judgment in the above case may be usefully extracted below: ?153. A close analysis of this decision would show that 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. 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 v. State of Maharashtra (1973 2 SCC 793 ) where the following observations were made: ?19. ? Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused 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.? (emphasis in original) (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.? 11. Due consideration of the evidence on record makes it abundantly clear that in the present case the prosecution has proved that on 26.8.2000 at about 4.30 p.m. the appellants and two other co-accused were in the van driven by deceased Krishan Kumar and that they had hired the said van to go to Haridwar. On the next morning at about 10.00 a.m. the dead body of Krishan Kumar (subsequently identified by PWs 11 and 12 on the basis of photographs taken before the cremation) was recovered from under a bridge at a place near Haridwar. The accused appellants were apprehended along with vehicle at Purnia in Bihar on 29.08.2000. They had failed to give any explanation for their presence in Purnia and also as to what had happened to Krishan Kumar who was driving the vehicle hired by them on 26.8.2000 to go to Haridwar. In view of the very close proximity of the time between the accused and the deceased being seen together (4.30 P.M. of 26.8.2000) and the recovery of the dead body (10 A.M. of 27.8.2000) it was necessary for the accused to offer a reasonable explanation as to what had happened to the deceased Krishan Kumar with whom they had gone to Haridwar in the previous evening. The accused could not have opted to remain silent. They were duty bound to give adequate and reasonable explanation as regards the events that had taken place at Haridwar and the circumstances in which they had parted company with the deceased. In their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC the accused while admitting that they were arrested at Purnia in Bihar had given no explanation whatsoever as to what had happened at Haridwar and to Krishan Kumar and under what circumstances they had gone to Bihar without him.12. Applying the law consistently laid down by this Court including the principles noticed in Vadlakonda Lenin (supra) to the facts of the present case, we are left with no doubt whatsoever that the circumstances proved by the prosecution, in the absence of any reasonable explanation on the part of the accused, cannot give rise to any other conclusion except that it is the accused alone who had abducted deceased Krishan Kumar and had killed him at Haridwar.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]11. Due consideration of the evidence on record makes it abundantly clear that in the present case the prosecution has proved that on 26.8.2000 at about 4.30 p.m. the appellants and two otherwere in the van driven by deceased Krishan Kumar and that they had hired the said van to go to Haridwar. On the next morning at about 10.00 a.m. the dead body of Krishan Kumar (subsequently identified by PWs 11 and 12 on the basis of photographs taken before the cremation) was recovered from under a bridge at a place near Haridwar. The accused appellants were apprehended along with vehicle at Purnia in Bihar on 29.08.2000. They had failed to give any explanation for their presence in Purnia and also as to what had happened to Krishan Kumar who was driving the vehicle hired by them on 26.8.2000 to go to Haridwar. In view of the very close proximity of the time between the accused and the deceased being seen together (4.30 P.M. of 26.8.2000) and the recovery of the dead body (10 A.M. of 27.8.2000) it was necessary for the accused to offer a reasonable explanation as to what had happened to the deceased Krishan Kumar with whom they had gone to Haridwar in the previous evening. The accused could not have opted to remain silent. They were duty bound to give adequate and reasonable explanation as regards the events that had taken place at Haridwar and the circumstances in which they had parted company with the deceased. In their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC the accused while admitting that they were arrested at Purnia in Bihar had given no explanation whatsoever as to what had happened at Haridwar and to Krishan Kumar and under what circumstances they had gone to Bihar without him.12. Applying the law consistently laid down by this Court including the principles noticed in Vadlakonda Lenin (supra) to the facts of the present case, we are left with no doubt whatsoever that the circumstances proved by the prosecution, in the absence of any reasonable explanation on the part of the accused, cannot give rise to any other conclusion except that it is the accused alone who had abducted deceased Krishan Kumar and had killed him at Haridwar.