SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- R.C. Lahoti and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 2001. D/d. 8.8.2002.

Anil Kumar Singh - Appellant

Versus

State of Bihar - Respondent

A. Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - Circumstantial evidence - For basing conviction on circumstantial evidence following things are necessary -

(i) Each and every piece of incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than the one of guilt of the accused and the circumstances cannot be explained on any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.

(ii) The court has to be cautious and avoid the risk of allowing mere suspicion, howsoever strong, to take the place of proof.

(iii) A mere moral conviction or a suspicion howsoever grave it may be cannot take the place of proof.

[Para 8]

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 34 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction challenged - Accused person alleged to have killed victim - Circumstances that there was ill feeling between accused and victim on account of illicit intimacy between accused and wife of victim - Accused did not go to see dead body of victim and rather persuaded villagers not to go near dead body - Circumstances not incriminating piece of evidence - Hence, conviction set aside.

[Paras 5 to 9]

ORDER

R.C. Lahoti, J. - Four accused persons, namely, Jira Devi, Surendra Singh, Ram Bilash Yadav and Anil Kumar Singh, the accused-appellant before us, were tried on charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted Surendra Singh and Ram Bilash Yadav, but convicted the other two. Both the convicted accused persons preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court has allowed the appeal preferred by Jira Devi and acquitted her. However, the conviction of the accused-appellant before us under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code has been maintained by the High Court. This appeal has been preferred by special leave.

2. The deceased Dhiran Singh, the witnesses and the accused-appellant, as also the other 3 accused persons who have been acquitted, are all residents of Village Bagaliya, PS Mansi, Bihar. Jira Devi, the acquitted accused, is the wife of deceased Dhiran Singh. Anil Kumar Singh, the accused-appellant, is their neighbour. It appears that the deceased Dhiran Singh suspected illegitimate relationship between Jira Devi and the accused-appellant. Jira Devi gave birth to 3 children of whom the last one was suspected by the deceased Dhiran Singh not to be born from him. This had led to relations between Dhiran Singh and Jira Devi being strained and they were often quarrelling with each other. The relationship between the accused-appellant and deceased Dhiran Singh too was certainly strained. It also appears that the deceased Dhiran Singh had entered into an agreement to purchase some land from one Wokil Singh, resident of Village Permanandpur. An amount of Rs 9000 was required to be paid as a part of consideration for sale. Village Bagaliya is connected with Village Permanandpur by rail. The train leaves Bagaliya Station sometime early in the morning.

3. On 15-11-1992, the deceased Dhiran Singh started with Rs 9000 with him for Village Permanandpur to pass on the amount to Wokil Singh, the vendor. In Village Permanandpur the in-laws of Dhiran Singh i.e. the parents of Jira Devi are also living. In the night preceding 15-11-1992 Jira Devi persuaded the deceased Dhiran Singh to rise and leave very early in the morning for the railway station as the train left quite early. Dhiran Singh left. However, thereafter he did not return for about 3 days. Ram Adhik Singh sent Jira Devi to Village Permanandpur to trace the whereabouts of Dhiran Singh. She returned and reported that Dhiran Singh having visited Village Permanandpur had immediately left the village and was not to be found there.

4. On 19-11-1992, a dead body was found to be floating in the village river. The accused Ram Bilash Yadav noticed the dead body and raised a hue and cry amongst the villagers who rushed to the river and found the dead body to be of Dhiran Singh. The dead body had injuries on it. Stones were tied with the body so as to keep it sunk. Ram Adhik Singh having identified the dead body as of his son Dhiran Singh reported the matter to the police station wherein an offence was registered and investigation commenced. The FIR does not disclose suspicion on any individual. However, the 4 accused persons, as stated hereinabove, were apprehended and charge-sheeted. There has been no recovery from any of the accused persons.

5. The trial court and the High Court have relied on three pieces of so-called circumstantial evidence for holding the accused-appellant guilty of the offence charged. Briefly summed up, these circumstances are:

(i) that on 15-11-1992 Dhiran Singh had started from his house in the midnight to catch the train for Village Permanandpur and at that point of time was carrying Rs 9000 with him;

(ii) that Jira Devi had persuaded the deceased to leave early and had gone to the house of the accused-appellant and informed him of the movements of deceased Dhiran Singh. There was ill feeling between the deceased and the accused-appellant on account of the illicit intimacy between Jira Devi, the wife of the deceased and the accused-appellant which could have been a cause for the murder of Dhiran Singh by or at the instance of the accused-appellant; and

(iii) when the dead body of Dhiran Singh was recovered, the accused-appellant did not go to see the dead body and rather persuaded the village people not to go near the dead body for fear of being falsely implicated for the commission of the crime.

6. It is difficult to appreciate and agree with the trial court and the High Court how any of the abovesaid circumstances can be said to be an incriminating piece of circumstantial evidence and how the alleged incriminating circumstances can constitute a complete chain so as to fasten the liability of guilt on the accused-appellant. The deceased and his wife were the neighbours of the accused-appellant. The witnesses for the prosecution have admitted that they were on visiting terms. Simply because the deceased was persuaded by Jira Devi to leave for the railway station in the wee hours and thereafter Jira Devi went to the house of the accused-appellant may raise an eye of suspicion against Jira Devi but cannot be a piece of circumstantial evidence so far as the accused-appellant is concerned. It is pertinent to note that though at one place this has been relied on as a piece of incriminating circumstantial evidence but at another place the High Court itself has observed:

"According to the informant, Dhiran Singh had left the village on 15-11-1992 and the first information report was lodged on 19-11-1992. For five days, nobody had disclosed to the informant regarding any love story or that appellant Jira Devi had gone to the house of appellant Anil Kumar Singh in the night after her husband had left for the railway station. This part of the conduct of the prosecution certainly raises a doubt whether appellant Jira Devi had conspired with appellant Anil Kumar Singh to commit the murder of her husband. Therefore, as a result of the facts discussed above, in my view, appellant Jira Devi is entitled to a benefit of doubt. Because unless and until there is a very strong circumstance to connect the chain of events, it would not be safe to convict this appellant."

7. Thus, to the extent of the first piece of circumstantial evidence, the finding arrived at by the High Court is self-contradictory. The second and third pieces of circumstantial evidence relied on by the High Court are no better. The second piece of circumstantial evidence found proved by the High Court may at the most raise some suspicion that on account of strained relationship the accused-appellant thought of causing harm to the deceased. But the third circumstance leads us nowhere. Merely because a dead body was found, everyone in the village is not supposed to go and look at the dead body. There may be several reasons for such abstention. Merely because a person does not go and see the dead body of one who has died an unnatural death does not mean that he has something to do with the cause of death.

8. It is well settled that in order to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, each and every piece of incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than the one of guilt of the accused and the circumstances cannot be explained on any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The court has to be cautious and avoid the risk of allowing mere suspicion, howsoever strong, to take the place of proof. A mere moral conviction or a suspicion howsoever grave it may be cannot take the place of proof.

9. We are satisfied that none of the circumstances found proved by the trial court and the High Court is an incriminating piece of circumstantial evidence so far as the accused-appellant is concerned and, therefore, the question of holding the accused-appellant guilty of murder or causing disappearance of evidence of offence etc. does not arise. We are unhesitatingly of the opinion that the finding is wholly unsustainable in law and hence deserves to be set aside.

10. The appeal is allowed. The conviction of the accused-appellant for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code and the sentences passed thereon are set aside. The accused-appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in any other case.

11. We place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, the learned amicus curiae.

Appeal allowed.