Case: Majendran Langeswaran Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) &amp; Another

Mr. G.Tushar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as being illegal and contrary to facts and evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence and a chain with regard to the circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant has not at all been established. Counsel submitted that it is settled law that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and needs corroboration in a case dependent wholly on circumstantial evidence and in such cases the exact words used by the accused have to be reproduced, but in this case even PW-6 before whom the appellant is alleged to have made confession has not been able to reproduce the exact words and there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is contended by the counsel that the manner in which the alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.P-3 was seized and sealed is not proper and the probability of tampering with the knife cannot be ruled out. Counsel submitted that circumstances and the evidence on record indicate that the appellant was susceptible to being forced to hold the knife so as to get his fingerprints on the knife. It is surprising, counsel submitted, that there are about 14 stab wounds both minor and major on the neck and torso as per post mortem report, but there was no blood noticeable on the appellant nor did any of the witnesses noticed blood either on the clothes of the appellant or the bridge or the alleyway from the scene of occurrence to the bridge nor were the clothes of the appellant were ever seized by the Captain/Master of the ship (PW-5), IInd Officer (PW-6), the Chief Officer (PW-18), Senior Inspector Hongkong Police (PW-20) or the Investigating Officer of CBI (PW-23) and, therefore, the chain in the prosecution case of circumstantial evidence gets fatally broken due to this aspect. It is submitted by the counsel that from the evidence it is clear that at the time when the appellant is alleged to have confessed to Kalyan Singh (PW-6), there were two helmsmen, namely, Baria and Talgharkar and as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they also could have heard the appellant, but these two persons were not examined at all which goes to show that the prosecution tried to hide something. It is contended that the knife Ex. P-3 (weapon of offence) was not shown to the doctor (PW-19) who conducted the post mortem of the deceased on 6th December, 1996 in Hongkong to take his opinion as to whether it could be Ex.P-3 alone which could have caused the injuries on the body of the deceased and in the absence of such examination, the weapon remains unconnected to the injuries on the deceased. Counsel contended that the injuries on the deceased were not consistent with the weapon (Ex.P-3) and that too in the absence of the opinion of the doctor who conducted post mortem and was not shown the alleged weapon of offence. The counsel contended that from the evidence on record it is clear that there was more than one weapon containing the blood of the deceased as apart from Ex.P-3 knife, there was another knife about which there is no mention nor any plausible reason as to wherefrom it came and why no one bothered about it. The counsel submitted that the doubt created by this circumstance has neither been looked into, considered or removed by the prosecution at all and this being a case purely based on circumstantial evidence, the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the appellant. The prosecution, counsel submitted, is expected and is duty bound to eliminate every element of suspicion in every circumstance relied upon by it so as to enable the courts to come to the hypothesis consistent with the guilt of the accused and simultaneously inconsistent with the innocence of the accused person. It is contended that the Captain of the ship got the scene of offence cleaned and no site plan of the scene of occurrence prepared.

Court's reasoning:
On consideration of all these relevant facts and vital piece of evidence, it can safely be concluded that the offence committed by the appellant has not been fully established beyond all reasonable doubts. The very fact that two blood-stained knives were found by the prosecution proves that the prosecution failed to give sufficient explanation as to who had assaulted the deceased by using another knife (Ex.2b). The High Court has committed grave error in holding that in view of the findings arrived at by the trial court that offence was committed by using the knife (Ex.P-3), the presence of another knife (Ex.2b) with blood-stains will not demolish the case of the prosecution. In our view, from the circumstances the conclusion of the guilt of the appellant herein has not been fully established beyond all shadow of doubt as the circumstances are not conclusive in nature -- neither the chain of events is complete nor the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the offence was committed by the appellant and none else. Hence, the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court cannot be sustained inthe reasons aforestated, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.