Banerjee, J. - (1.) The appellants, charged for the offences under Sections 306, 498-A, 201 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, were found guilty of offences by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years. The High Court though dismissed the appeal qua appellant No. 1, Pawan Kumar but as regards the appellant Nos. 2 and 3, sentences were reduced to six months under both counts respectively and it is this order of dismissal which is under challenge before this Court in the appeal by the grant of special leave.
(2.) Before adverting to the rival contentions, be it noted that the entire matter hinges on circumstantial evidence. There is also however existing on record, a dying declaration, but its effect on the matter, shall be discussed shortly hereafter in this judgment. Incidentally success of the prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence will however depend on the availability of a complete chain of events so as not to leave any doubt for the conclusion that the act must have been done by the accused person. While however, it is true that there should be no missing links, in the chain of events so as far as the prosecution is concerned, but it is not that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence, since some of these links may only be inferred from the proven facts. Circumstances of strong suspicion without however any conclusive evidence are not sufficient to justify the conviction and it is on this score that great care must be taken in evaluating the circumstantial evidence. In any event, on the availability of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted and the law is well settled on this score, as such we need not dilate much in that regard excepting however, noting the observations of this Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 wherein this Court in paragraph 9 of the report observed:- "The Court has, time out of number, observed that while appreciating circumstantial evidence the Court must adopt a very cautious approach and should record a conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is capable of being negatived on evidence. Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. The circumstance relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. But this is not to say that the prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however far-fetched and fanciful it might be. Nor does it mean that prosecution evidence must be rejected on the slightest doubt because the law permits rejection if the doubts is reasonable and not otherwise............."
(3.) The other aspect of the issue is that the evidence on record, ascribed to be circumstantial, ought to justify the inferences of the guilt from the incriminating facts and circumstances which are incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person. The observations of this Court in the case of Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 350 : (1987 Cri LJ 330) lends concurrence to the above.;