Case: Hatti Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Deceased was owner of two Maruti vans. The same were used to be plied on hire. On or about 11.07.1995, he brought the vehicle bearing Registration No. DDA 3665 at the taxi stand of Hansi. It was hired by someone. He did not return thereafter. A search was made but he could not be traced. On or about 22.07.1995, Rajbirreceived an information that one Maruti van had been seen abandoned and recovered by the police. He went to the Police Station, Narnaud. It was identified to be the same vehicle which was owned by the deceased. Stains of blood were also noticed inside the Maruti van. A First Information Report was lodged by him on the same day, whereupon a case under Section 364 IPC was instituted. On the next day i.e. on 24.07.1995, a dead body was recovered from a canal. The dead body was in such a condition that it did not bear any mark of identification. An inquest was conducted. The dead body was identified by Jai Singhand Satbir Singh on the basis of identification of the clothes found on the person of the deceased, which were said to have been stitched by the said Satbir Singh. He had, however, not been examined. A statement was made by Ram Kishanbefore the police on 25.07.1995 alleging that the appellant and his three associates had hired the taxi of the deceased. On the next day, i.e. on 26.07.1995, Balwan Singhmade a statement before the Investigating Officer, alleging that he was given a lift by the deceased in the said Maruti van upto Village Mundhal, in which the accused persons were also travelling.2. Appellant was arrested on 29.07.1995. On his personal search, a purse belonging to the deceased was recovered. A pistol and two cartridges were also said to have been recovered. One electricity bill of the deceased as also his photograph were also allegedly recovered. He allegedly made a confession leading to recovery of the number plate of the vehicle from a well, Suresh, another accused, was also arrested and one ring of silver on which the word Umed" as inscribed was recovered from him.3. There appears to be some controversy as to whether a pistol was also recovered from him or not. He also made a confessional statement. Appellant also made a confessional statement. Another accused Charanjit was also arrested and a watch of HMT make was recovered from him, which was also identified by Rajbirto be belonging to the deceased.4. Upon completion of the investigation, charges under Sections 364/302/201 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the appellant and the other accused persons.5. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 20 witnesses. Whereas, other accused persons, namely, Naresh, Charanjit and Suresh were given the benefit of doubt, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 364/302 and 201 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine offor the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/for commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC, in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment a period of one year. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. All the sentences, however, were directed to run concurrently. An appeal preferred by the appellant herein thereaginst was dismissed by the High Court.6. All the four accused were charged for commission of the same offences. The distinctive features for singling out the appellant in recording a judgment of conviction against him, while acquitting the order three accused persons, appear to be:(i) Recovery of pistol and cartridges as also some belongings of the deceased including his photograph and the electricity bill;(ii) Confession of the appellant that he had thrown the number plate of the vehicle bearing Registration No. DDA 3665 in a well and consequent recovery thereof.

Reasoning:
e cannot be any doubt that conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence, but therefor the prosecution must establish that the chain of circumstances only consistently point to the guilt of the accused and in inconsistent with his innocence. Circumstances, as is well known, from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn are required to be cogently and firmly established. They have to be taken into consideration cumulatively. They must be able to conclude that within all human probability the accused committed the crime. [See Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of KarnatakaAIR 2007 SCW 1681].e has been placed by the learned counsel for the State on a decision of this Court in Kashi Ram (supra), wherein it was held that the incriminating circumstances must from a complete chain and must be consistent with no other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.Therein, this Court was dealing with a case where the accused had killed his wife and two daughters. As in the aforementioned situation, when the deceased were last seen the respondent therein, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act was held to be applicable. As in a case of that nature, probability of a wife being murdered by an outsider may ordinarily be ruled out, failure to offer an explanation by the husband in the aforementioned situation would itself be a circumstance which may be taken into consideration therefore. [See also Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar & Another — 2007 (1) SCALE 19 — Para 24 & 25].e said decision, in our opinion, is not applicable to the fact of the instant case.The learned counsel for the State would submit that recovery of the articles would raise a presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Application of such a presumption is limited. A presumption may be in respect of commission of theft or receipt of stolen property; if a person is found to be in possession of the property belonging to the deceased, but on such presumption alone, the appellant could not have been convicted for commission of murder particularly when on the same evidence other persons had been given benefit of doubt.Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to extend the same benefit to the appellant herein.