- (1.) Appellant, who was described as A2 in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1990, had filed an appeal to challenge his conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') before the Madras High Court. Judgment dated 3.7.2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 1990. The appeal was dismissed. Appellant faced trial alongwith one Doraiswamy who has described as A1. It was alleged that both of them were responsible for murder of Rajendran (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') on 19.4.1988 at about 10 PM. Trial court acquitted A1 while holding appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Background facts as projected in a nutshell are as follows: PW.2 is the father and PW.3 is the younger brother of the deceased Rajendran. They were residents of Valluvampakkam. The accused were also residing in the same village. The deceased was having illicit relationship with the wife of A1 and PW.2 took his son to task and advised him not to have any relationship with the wife of A1. It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased tried to molest PW.5 the wife of A2. This is said to be the motive for the occurrence. On 19.4.1988, PW.2 left Vallugampakkam for Madras to see his daughter and when returned at 8.00 p.m. on 21.4.1988 to the house he found his son Rajendran missing from the house. He questioned his other son PW.3 who then told him that the deceased left in the company of A2 for Ranipet and did not return. PW.2 thereafter advised PW.3 to go and search for the deceased at Ranipet. Accordingly, PW.3 went to Ranipet and searched for the deceased, but could not trace him. Meanwhile, on 22.4.1988 at 7.0 a.m. PW.1, the Village Administrative Officer of Bagaveli, was informed by his menial that a body is lying in a field. PW.1 went to the spot and found the body. Around the neck of the body, a torn lungi, M.O.5, was seen tied. PW.1 thereafter went to Kaveripakkam Police Station where he gave a complaint to PW.14, the Sub- Inspector of Police, at 11.45 a.m. and the same stands marked as Ex.P1 in this case. PW.14 on the basis of Ex.P-1, registered a case in Crime No.160 of 1988 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex. P-14 is a copy of printed First Information Report. P.W.14 reached the scene of occurrence where at 12.10 p.m. he prepared an observation mahasar, Ex.P-2 in the presence of PW.1 and also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-15. the dead body was caused to be photographed and M.O.4 series are the photographs. He also seized M.Os 1 to 3, a shirt, a lungi, and a banian respectively, from the scene under a mahasar Ex. P- 3. He has converted the crime to one of suspicious death and sent copies of express report, Ex. P-16, to the court and to the higher officials. He conducted inquest between 12.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. over the dead body of Rajendran in the presence of Panchayatdars during which he examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 and others. Ex. P-17 is the inquest report. After the inquest, PW.14 sent the dead body with his requisition through PW.12 for post-mortem. On completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed, case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Accused persons pleaded innocence. Undisputedly the case at hand is a case of circumstantial evidence. While finding that the evidence is inadequate to fasten the guilt on A1, the trial court held A2, the appellant herein guilty based on the evidence of PWs 3,4,8& 9 who claimed to have seen the deceased last in the company of the appellant. The conviction, as noted above, was challenged before the High Court. By the impugned judgment the appeal was dismissed. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 8 & 9 should not have been relied upon. It is pointed out that all these witnesses were examined after considerable length of time. Further there was considerable gap between the time the witnesses alleged to have seen the accused appellant in the company of the deceased and the discovery of the dead body on 22.4.1988. The Doctor PW 11 who examined the dead body found that the same was in an extremely decomposed state. There was no reason for PWs. 8 & 9 to remember that appellant was in the company of the deceased on a particular day. PW 4 did not also speak of the date but only said that he had seen the appellant and the deceased on a Tuesday. It is pointed out that in view of the nature of the evidence adduced the trial court and the High Court should not have convicted the appellant.
(2.) Before analyzing factual aspects it may be stated that for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.
(3.) It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.;