Decided on April 20,1983



S.L.TALATI - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Baroda by which he convicted the appellant accused for an offence punishable under sec. 302 1. P. C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment on 30-1-1980 in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1979.
(2.) According to the prosecution there was no direct evidence against the accused and the prosecution relied upon the circumstantial evidence. The admitted facts were that the accused was working as a ward boy in the S. S. G. hospital at Baroda while the wife of the deceased was working as an Aya in that hospital. On the relevant day the wife of the deceased Bai Chanchal was in the hospital admitted for the purpose of delivery and therefore deceased Chimanbhai D. Parmar was alone at his house. Children were for the time being residing at the house of father-in-low of Chimanbhai. Now the circumstances on which the prosecution relied upon are the following circumstances; 1 Accused was known to the deceased and he was frequently visiting his house. 2 Accused was working as a ward-boy in the S. S. G. Hospital and the wife of the deceased was working as Aya in that hospital. 3 The accused was absent in the hospital on 1-3-1979. It is admitted that those three circumstances are innocuous circumstances and if they are taken one by one and as a whole they can lead to nothing. However alongwith these circumstances the other circumstances which are tried to be linked up are the following circumstances and according to the prosecution it is these circumstances which reading together with other circumstances form a chain which point out to the guilt of the accused. The other circumstances are 1 The accused last visited the house of the deceased at 9-00 p. m. On 1-3-1979 2 Love letter Ex. 35 was found from the house of the deceased written by the accused and it was suspected to have been written for Chanchal-wife of the deceased. 3 The accused produced a key of the lock of the house of the deceased from the toilet of Ward No. 20 of S. S. G. Hospital Baroda. 4 After smelling the towel the dog caught hold of the accused by pants from a line which was arranged by the prosecution.
(3.) Now these circumstances are required to be considered one by one and we have to see whether the requirement of law in regard to the circumstantial evidence is established or not as held by the Supreme Court in HANUMANT GOVIND NARGUNDKAR AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH A. I. R. 1952 S. C. 343. In that case it was observed as under: In dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take place of legal proof. 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 he 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 must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Now therefore we have to see and find out whether each circumstance is fully established. Thereafter from the circumstances which are fully established we have to take those circumstances only into consideration and then consider whether those circumstances form a chain which is so complete that it points to one and one conclusion and that conclusion is guilt of the accused. Now to take the first circumstance the circumstance is according to the prosecution that the accused last visited the house of the deceased at 9.00 p.m. on 1-3-79. To establish this aspect oft he case the prosecution relied on the evidence of Laxmiben P. W.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.