Case: Dhanvant Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant along with accused Khushwant Kaur, was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code [for short, ‘the I.P.C.?] and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. They were further convicted under Section 364, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant was also convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant was then convicted under Section 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeals being preferred, the High Court acquitted accused-Khushwant Kaur whereas confirmed the conviction of the appellant. Hence, this appeal by special leave. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it would be clear that conviction of the appellant is based upon only two circumstances, namely, one that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant and secondly, upon disclosure statement said to have been made by the appellant dead body of the deceased was recovered. 3. So far as the disclosure statement is concerned, according to the prosecution case, the same was recorded in the presence of Sohan Singh - P.W.12 and Constable Bahadur Singh. Out of these two witnesses, Constable Bahadur Singh has not been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. So far as Sohan Singh is concerned, we have been taken through his evidence and we are satisfied that he is a mere chance witness, as such it is not possible to place reliance upon his evidence. In view of the fact that Sohan Singh is a chance witness and another witness Constable Bahadur Singh has not been examined by the prosecution, it is not safe to place reliance upon the evidence of P.W.15. This being the position, we are of the view that prosecution has failed to prove the disclosure statement by credible evidence. 4. Now remains the only circumstance against the accused that he was last seen in the company of the deceased on 11.10.94 and the dead body was recovered on 23.10.94. This being the solitary circumstance, it is not possible to convict the accused on the same as it is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, there must be a complete chain. In our view, the High Court was not justified in upholding conviction of the appellant.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]3. So far as the disclosure statement is concerned, according to the prosecution case, the same was recorded in the presence of Sohan SinghP.W.12 and Constable Bahadur Singh. Out of these two witnesses, Constable Bahadur Singh has not been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. So far as Sohan Singh is concerned, we have been taken through his evidence and we are satisfied that he is a mere chance witness, as such it is not possible to place reliance upon his evidence. In view of the fact that Sohan Singh is a chance witness and another witness Constable Bahadur Singh has not been examined by the prosecution, it is not safe to place reliance upon the evidence of P.W.15. This being the position, we are of the view that prosecution has failed to prove the disclosure statement by credible evidence4. Now remains the only circumstance against the accused that he was last seen in the company of the deceased on 11.10.94 and the dead body was recovered on 23.10.94. This being the solitary circumstance, it is not possible to convict the accused on the same as it is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, there must be a complete chain. In our view, the High Court was not justified in upholding conviction of the appellant.