Case: Ganpat Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that 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 they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence”. (See Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 ; Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 10 SCC 172 ; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 ; Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 8 SCC 456 ; Sanjay Kumar Jain v. State of Delhi, (2011) 11 SCC 733 ; Madhu v. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399 ; Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 174 ; Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 12 SCC 439.”) 10. Evidence that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased assumes significance when the lapse of time between the point when the accused and the deceased were seen together and when the deceased is found dead is so minimal as to exclude the possibility of a supervening event involving the death at the hands of another. The settled formulation of law is as follows : “The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and 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 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 accused and deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases”. (See Bodh Raj @ Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45 ; Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 438 ; Tipparam Prabhakar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 13 SCC 534 ; Rishi Pal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 12 SCC 551 ; Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 279 ; Kiriti Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2015) 11 SCC 178 ; State of Karnataka v. Chand Basha, (2016) 1 SCC 501 ; Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251 ; Anjan Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam, 2017 (6) SCALE 556.”) 11. The case of the prosecution is riddled with unexplained contradictions, PW1-Kamlabai and PW2-Dhankunwarbai were crucial to the case of the prosecution for establishing that the deceased had visited them and that they had lent her silver ornaments ostensibly because she intended to arrange the engagement of her son Rakesh-PW4. Admittedly, neither PW1 nor PW2 were called upon to identify the jewellery alleged to have been recovered from the house of the Appellant. PW1 stated that the jewellery which she had lent weighed more than half a kg. PW2 deposed that the ornaments which she had lent weighed about 1.25 kgs. In the course of her cross-examination, PW1 stated that it was true that the ornaments which she had lent were commonly worn by women in the villages. PW2 also admitted that there were no identification marks on the ornaments and they were of a nature that is commonly used. PW5-Rekha, the daughter of the deceased, had (as the High Court observed) no opportunity to observe the ornaments on the person of the deceased. The ornaments had no special marks of identification. PW5 materially improved upon her version during the course of the examination. On this state of the evidence, the recovery of the silver ornaments (which was an important link in the chain of circumstances relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge) has been correctly disbelieved by the High Court.12. An important circumstance which weighed with the High Court was that the body of the deceased was recovered at the behest of the Appellant. There is a manifest error on the part of the High Court in arriving at this conclusion since the record would indicate that the body of the deceased was recovered several months before the arrest of the Appellant. The mere circumstance that the Appellant was last seen with the deceased is an unsafe hypothesis to found a conviction on a charge of murder in this case. The lapse of time between the point when the Appellant was last seen with the deceased and the time of death is not minimal. The time of death was estimated to be between two to four weeks prior to the recovery of the body.13. We must also place in balance the testimony of PW4 that when he enquired regarding whereabouts of his mother, the Appellant informed him that she had stayed back at the house of her sister. This, coupled with the fact that the Appellant had absconded after the date of the incident is a pointer to a strong suspicion that the Appellant was responsible for the death of Shantabai. However, a strong suspicion in itself is not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the guilt of the Appellant stands established beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions in the case of the prosecution. These have been noticed in the earlier part of its judgment and are sufficient in our view to entitle the Appellant to the benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances and to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the Appellant.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]The ornaments had no special marks of identification. PW5 materially improved upon her version during the course of the examination. On this state of the evidence, the recovery of the silver ornaments (which was an important link in the chain of circumstances relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge) has been correctly disbelieved by the High Court.12. An important circumstance which weighed with the High Court was that the body of the deceased was recovered at the behest of the Appellant. There is a manifest error on the part of the High Court in arriving at this conclusion since the record would indicate that the body of the deceased was recovered several months before the arrest of the Appellant. The mere circumstance that the Appellant was last seen with the deceased is an unsafe hypothesis to found a conviction on a charge of murder in this case. The lapse of time between the point when the Appellant was last seen with the deceased and the time of death is not minimal. The time of death was estimated to be between two to four weeks prior to the recovery of the body.13. We must also place in balance the testimony of PW4 that when he enquired regarding whereabouts of his mother, the Appellant informed him that she had stayed back at the house of her sister. This, coupled with the fact that the Appellant had absconded after the date of the incident is a pointer to a strong suspicion that the Appellant was responsible for the death of Shantabai. However, a strong suspicion in itself is not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the guilt of the Appellant stands established beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions in the case of the prosecution. These have been noticed in the earlier part of its judgment and are sufficient in our view to entitle the Appellant to the benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances and to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the Appellant.