Case: Bhagwat Vs. The State of Maharashtra

they had seen accused at about 4.00 p.m. Considering the distance between their field and the spot of incident, it does not look probable that accused had taken 30 minutes to reach that spot. The distance between the lands of first informant and these witnesses is given as one and half k.m. and the land of father of the accused is adjacent to the lands of these witnesses. If accused was proceeding towards his field, it was not incriminating circumstance. Their statements were recorded on 8th, after about 3 days of the incident. Due to these circumstances also, it can be said that they had not noticed anything abnormal on that day. Everybody of that locality had learnt about the murder of Kiran on that day and if there was anything abnormal in the conduct of accused, the witnesses would have approached police immediately. Thus, not much weight can be given to the evidence given by these two witnesses of aforesaid nature.14. The spot panchanama at Exh. 13 is admitted by the accused. Police have given handsketch map of scene of offence. The map shows that on southern side of the field where the dead body was found, there is brooklet and on the south of that brooklet, there is Dadahari Vadgaon Shivar. On north of the brooklet, there is Loni Shivar. The dead body was lying in the standing crop of Tur and it was at the distance of 9 ft. from the crop of gram. Evidence is given by Mahadev that he had seen the accused running away from the brooklet. The evidence of all the witnesses shows that the village Dadahari Vadgaon is situated on the southern side of the brooklet and the field of accused is also situated on southern side and at much distance, more than one and half k.m. from the brooklet and village Loni is situated on northern side of the field where the dead body was found. Thus, Kiran must have come from village Dadahari Vadgaon, from southern side to the field where Mahadev was working. There was no need for her to cross the brooklet and to go to the field of Laxman Sonawane where the dead body was lying. There was also no need for her to enter in the standing Tur crop. The circumstances do not show that any force was used and Kiran was dragged up to that spot. Similarly, accused had no reason to come towards that side or cross the brooklet. In view of these circumstances, the evidence of Mahadev (PW 2) needs to be subjected to close scrutiny and it was necessary for him to say something as to why the deceased had crossed the brooklet and had gone towards the filed of Laxman. It was expected from Mahadev to say as to what he was doing for about three hours, the period for which he was not in the company of Rode. Only because Mahadev gave F.I.R. and he is saying that he saw the accused running away the case is filed against the accused. For many reasons a person can run and even when the person has seen the dead body.15. Though the record shows that for few days after the incident, the accused was not arrested and it is the case of prosecution that he was absconding, there is also circumstance that on the same night accused was in the company of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and they did not notice any suspicious thing. Had the crime not registered against the accused, in ordinary course, police could have registered the crime even against Mahadev (PW 2). His conduct of not admitting the relationship with the accused of the first wife of his brother, not admitting that he was married show that there is something suspicious in respect of Mahadev. The deceased was carrying of four months and that can be seen from the P.M. report. Portion of the Sari of the deceased was found to be gagged in to the mouth of the deceased and there was smothering. Then on the face of the deceased a stone was kept. These circumstances create a probability, there was no resistence and somebody known to the deceased had done the act. In addition to these circumstances, there are circumstances as mentioned above which are not explained by the prosecution. Only because Mahadev was saying that he had seen the accused running away from the brooklet, the crime was registered against him. No allegedly stolen articles are recovered from him and there is no other incriminating circumstance against the accused. The circumstance mentioned in the evidence of Mahadev even if it is accepted can at the most create suspicion against the accused. On the basis of such suspension, conviction cannot be given for offence of murder. 16) In the case reported as AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 2045 (State of U.P. Vs. Dr. R.P. Mittal), the Apex Court has given essential ingredients to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence and they are as under:-"(1) Circumstances from which conclusion is drawn should be fully proved.(2) Circumstances should be conclusive.(3) All facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence of the accused.(4) Circumstances should exclude the possibility of guilt of a person other than the accused."It is true that the circumstances quoted are evidence in view of section 3 of Evidence Act and are relevant under section 8 of Evidence Act and circumstantial evidence can be used for conviction, but chain of evidence must be so complete, that it does not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. The relevant circumstances of the present matter are already quoted and they have created other probabilities. This Court holds that the Trial Court has committed grave error in convicting the accused for the offence of murder.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]These circumstances create probability that incident was not disclosed by Mahadev immediately to anybody and delay was caused in giving F.I.R. The probability that Mahadev was not in the company of Bhimrao Rode for about three hours can create another probability that there was opportunity for commission of offence to Mahadev. The absence of injuries on the dead body is a circumstance in support of this probability. The circumstance of non recovery of ornaments is also supporting suchprobability. When her ear rings were there, Mahadev falsely contended that ear rings were also stolen. Due to these circumstances Mahadev cannot be believed.Though the record shows that for few days after the incident, the accused was not arrested and it is the case of prosecution that he was absconding, there is also circumstance that on the same night accused was in the company of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and they did not notice any suspicious thing. Had the crime not registered against the accused, in ordinary course, police could have registered the crime even against Mahadev (PW 2). His conduct of not admitting the relationship with the accused of the first wife of his brother, not admitting that he was married show that there is something suspicious in respect of Mahadev. The deceased was carrying of four months and that can be seen from the P.M. report. Portion of the Sari of the deceased was found to be gagged in to the mouth of the deceased and there was smothering. Then on the face of the deceased a stone was kept. These circumstances create a probability, there was no resistence and somebody known to the deceased had done the act. In addition to these circumstances, there are circumstances as mentioned above which are not explained by the prosecution. Only because Mahadev was saying that he had seen the accused running away from the brooklet, the crime was registered against him. No allegedly stolen articles are recovered from him and there is no other incriminating circumstance against the accused. The circumstance mentioned in the evidence of Mahadev even if it is accepted can at the most create suspicion against the accused. On the basis of such suspension, conviction cannot be given for offence of murder. 16) In the case reported as AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 2045 (State of U.P. Vs. Dr. R.P. Mittal), the Apex Court has given essential ingredients to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence and they are asCircumstances from which conclusion is drawn should be fully proved.(2) Circumstances should be conclusive.(3) All facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence of the accused.(4) Circumstances should exclude the possibility of guilt of a person other than the accused."It is true that the circumstances quoted are evidence in view of section 3 of Evidence Act and are relevant under section 8 of Evidence Act and circumstantial evidence can be used for conviction, but chain of evidence must be so complete, that it does not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. The relevant circumstances of the present matter are already quoted and they have created other probabilities. This Court holds that the Trial Court has committed grave error in convicting the accused for the offence of murder.