Case: Tufail (Alias) Simmi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Exhibit Ka-2, on September 21, 1966.8. Both the learned Sessions Judge, as well as the High Court on appeal, have accepted as true the evidence of the witnesses, referred to above, and have further held that the five circumstances, relied on by the prosecution, have been fully established. Taking all the circumstances together in conjunction with the denial of the accused, the High Court, in agreement with the learned Sessions Judge, has become to the conclusion that it is the appellant who murdered Kalawati, robbed her of her ornaments and disposed of her body by throwing it into the well.9. Mr. Nuruddin Ahmed, learned for the appellant, has urged two contentions : (i) that the finding regarding recovery of ornaments at the instance of the appellant, recorded by the learned Session Judge and the High Court, is perverse and that no reasonable person can come to that conclusion, on the evidence on record and (ii) that even if the recovery of ornaments at the instance of the appellant, is accepted as true, it does not lead to the conclusion that it is the appellant who committed the murder. We are satisfied that neither of these contentions can be accepted.10. The conviction of the appellant in this case is based upon circumstantial evidence and the High Court and the Sessions Judge have accepted as true the evidence of the witnesses who speak to the various circumstances relied on by the prosecution. When there are concurrent findings on facts, this Court does not, normally, taken upon itself the task of again reviewing the evidence; but, in view of the aback that the finding regarding recovery of ornaments is perverse, we have ourselves gone through to he evidence bearing on that aspect, and we are satisfied, notwithstanding certain minor discrepancies, that the evidence relating to the same is true and has been rightly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and High Court.11. The production of ornaments by the appellant, after his arrest, and which ornaments have been identified as belonging to the deceased, is a very strong circumstance in the chain of circumstances relied on by the prosecution. The evidence relating to recovery of ornaments is furnished by the two police officers, P. Ws. 14 and 17 and the Panch witness P.W. 6. According to this evidence, the appellant was arrested on September 21, 1966 by P.W. 14 and the appellant agreed to produce the ornaments of Kalawati which he had kept in his house. The appellant took the place officers, P.W. 6 and one Bishamber Dayal to his house and, after opening the locked box which was in a room upstairs, he produced six gold bangles, four gold ear-rings, one gold ear-top and four silver lachchas. These articles have been identified by P. Ws. 1, 2 and 10 as belonging to the deceased. These witnesses have spoken to the fact that these ornaments were normally worn by Kalawati. Minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses regarding the recovery of the ornaments have been adverted to by the High Court. Quite rightly, in the opinion, the High Court has taken the view that these discrepancies do not cast any doubt regarding the truth of the ornaments having been produced by the appellant after his arrest. Therefor we cannot accept the contention of Mr. Nuruddin Ahmed that the finding regarding the recovery of the ornaments at the instance of the appellant is perverse. On the other hand, we are satisfied that the said finding properly and legitimately followed from the acceptance of the evidence of the two police officers and P W. 6.12. No doubt, the mere recovery of the ornaments if it had stood by itself, without any other circumstance, may not lead to the one and only conclusion that it is the appellant who committed the murder. But the prosecution has relied on for other circumstances, referred to above, and those circumstances, taken along with the circumstance regarding the recovery of the ornaments in our opinion, lead to the conclusion that it was the appellant who has committed the murder of Kalawati.13. The mode of evaluating circumstantial evidence has been stated by this Court in Hanumant v. the State of Madhya Pradesh and is as follows :"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 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 just be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."This principle has been reiterated by this Court in several later decisions.14. Applying the above principles, it is clear from the findings of the two Courts, that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt of the appellant is to be drawn have been fully established, and the chain of evidence accepted by both the Courts is also complete and does not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant. Kalawati was last seen in the company of the appellant in his Gher on the evening of September 19, 1966 and the appellant has also deliberately attempted to mislead the tenants of Kalawatis house by stating that she had gone to the village of Garthi along with Kripal. After his arrest, the production, by the appellant, of the ornaments worn by Kalawati is a vary clinching circumstance, which, taken along with the other circumstances, proves the complicity of the appellant in the murder of Kalawati.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]We are satisfied that neither of these contentions can be accepted.10. The conviction of the appellant in this case is based upon circumstantial evidence and the High Court and the Sessions Judge have accepted as true the evidence of the witnesses who speak to the various circumstances relied on by the prosecution. When there are concurrent findings on facts, this Court does not, normally, taken upon itself the task of again reviewing the evidence; but, in view of the aback that the finding regarding recovery of ornaments is perverse, we have ourselves gone through to he evidence bearing on that aspect, and we are satisfied, notwithstanding certain minor discrepancies, that the evidence relating to the same is true and has been rightly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and High Court.11. The production of ornaments by the appellant, after his arrest, and which ornaments have been identified as belonging to the deceased, is a very strong circumstance in the chain of circumstances relied on by the prosecution. The evidence relating to recovery of ornaments is furnished by the two police officers, P. Ws. 14 and 17 and the Panch witness P.W. 6. According to this evidence, the appellant was arrested on September 21, 1966 by P.W. 14 and the appellant agreed to produce the ornaments of Kalawati which he had kept in his house. The appellant took the place officers, P.W. 6 and one Bishamber Dayal to his house and, after opening the locked box which was in a room upstairs, he produced six gold bangles, four goldtop and four silver lachchas. These articles have been identified by P. Ws. 1, 2 and 10 as belonging to the deceased. These witnesses have spoken to the fact that these ornaments were normally worn by Kalawati. Minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses regarding the recovery of the ornaments have been adverted to by the High Court. Quite rightly, in the opinion, the High Court has taken the view that these discrepancies do not cast any doubt regarding the truth of the ornaments having been produced by the appellant after his arrest. Therefor we cannot accept the contention of Mr. Nuruddin Ahmed that the finding regarding the recovery of the ornaments at the instance of the appellant is perverse. On the other hand, we are satisfied that the said finding properly and legitimately followed from the acceptance of the evidence of the two police officers and P W. 6.12. No doubt, the mere recovery of the ornaments if it had stood by itself, without any other circumstance, may not lead to the one and only conclusion that it is the appellant who committed the murder. But the prosecution has relied on for other circumstances, referred to above, and those circumstances, taken along with the circumstance regarding the recovery of the ornaments in our opinion, lead to the conclusion that it was the appellant who has committed the murder of Kalawati.Applying the above principles, it is clear from the findings of the two Courts, that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt of the appellant is to be drawn have been fully established, and the chain of evidence accepted by both the Courts is also complete and does not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant. Kalawati was last seen in the company of the appellant in his Gher on the evening of September 19, 1966 and the appellant has also deliberately attempted to mislead the tenants of Kalawatis house by stating that she had gone to the village of Garthi along with Kripal. After his arrest, the production, by the appellant, of the ornaments worn by Kalawati is a vary clinching circumstance, which, taken along with the other circumstances, proves the complicity of the appellant in the murder of Kalawati.