Case: Ramesh Bhai  Vs. State Of Rajasthan

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.8. 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.9. 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". 10. 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. 11. 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." 12. 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. 13. 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 in State of U.P. v. Ram Balak & Anr. [2008 (13) SCALE 541.] 14. The admitted position is that the dead body was found on 20 th January, 1996 whereas accused persons were stated to have been seen in the company of the deceased on 8th and 9th January, 1996. PW 9, the wife of the deceased admitted that the parties separated on 9th January, 1996. The missing persons report was lodged on 12th January, 1996 by PW 11 the nephew of the deceased. 15. The only evidence which appears to have been pressed into service by the prosecution was that the injections were recovered from a lane near the house of the accused. 16. It is to be noted that the High Court recorded a finding as if it was proved through the prosecution evidence and medical evidence and the report of Doctor that the cause of death of the deceased was `Organo Phosphorous which was administered to him. This finding is apparently wrong. The doctors opinion as is evident from Exh.P15-1 that the cause of death was not possible to be noted because the body was decomposed.17. According to the FSL report Exh.P4 medicine called Diazepam "Tranquilizer" was found in the stomach intestine, lever, heart, kidney and lungs etc. In view of the shaky nature of the evidence adduced it would be unsafe to convict the appellants. The conviction as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court stand quashed. The appellants be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be in custody in connection with in any other case. We place our appreciation for the able manner in which Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri, learned Amicus Curiae assisted the court.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]16. It is to be noted that the High Court recorded a finding as if it was proved through the prosecution evidence and medical evidence and the report of Doctor that the cause of death of the deceased was `Organo Phosphorous which was administered to him. This finding is apparently wrong. The doctors opinion as is evident from Exh.P15-1 that the cause of death was not possible to be noted because the body was decomposed.17. According to the FSL report Exh.P4 medicine called Diazepam "Tranquilizer" was found in the stomach intestine, lever, heart, kidney and lungs etc. In view of the shaky nature of the evidence adduced it would be unsafe to convict the appellants. The conviction as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court stand quashed. The appellants be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be in custody in connection with in any other case. We place our appreciation for the able manner in which Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri, learned Amicus Curiae assisted the court.