TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 1412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder held the Appellants guilty for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and awarded life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further three months simple imprisonment and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, Appellants had preferred three appeals as mentioned hereinabove before the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench. The High Court, after considering the matter from all angles also came to the conclusion that no interference was called for against the said judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeals. In all, there were five accused out of which one Abrar was declared absconder and Abdul Wahid was acquitted by the Trial Court. Thus these appeals by the three convicted accused. 4. We have, accordingly, heard learned Counsel Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Mrs. Mansi Dhiman for the Appellants and Mr. Milind Kumar, Mr. Imtiaz Ahmeda and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceed to do so it is necessary to point out that the solitary star witness of the prosecution P.W.3 - Ashok Kumar had turned hostile and was declared as such. 11. In fact, it is pertinent to mention here that the main material witnesses were declared hostile. The Trial Court observed in this context that P.W.1 Mohd. Ayub (recovery witness), P.W.3 Ashok Kumar and P.W.2 Prakash (both eyewitnesses) had retracted their statements made under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure during examination. Furthermore, it has also refused to attach much credence to the deposition of P.W.19 Yogesh Kumar, owing to the clear contradictions in his statement and aforesaid deposition regarding his presence at the scene of crime. Thus, in a nutshell, Trial Court had also found them unreliable and has not based the Appellants conviction on the basis of their statements. Similarly High Court has not taken their evidence into consideration. Thus, it is neither required nor is necessary to deal with their evidence. Trial Court had recorded a finding that the case is without any eye witness and is based on circumstantial evidence. 12. It is therefore necessary to discuss the evidence of P.W.8 - Smt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the commission of offence and clothes stained with human blood were recovered. In its judgment, the High Court has discussed in extenso the effect of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'Act') and subsequent discovery of the material objects thereafter. 19. On the basis of the report of the serologist, it has come on record that traces of AB blood group were found on the pants and baniyan of the deceased. The prosecution has also averred that Sword and clothes stained with human blood group AB were also recovered at the instance of Appellants, from the places shown by them and known only to them and none others. On account of aforesaid circumstances, the High Court was of the opinion that the chain of circumstances was complete and the completed chain of circumstances pointed the finger for commission of the said offence only by the Appellants. 20. As regards the motive (if any) behind the homicide, on review of the relevant deposition of the witnesses, we are of the opinion that one of the circumstances found against the present Appellants, that deceased and Appellants indulged in illegal trade of liquor and thus were having enm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. The conduct of the prosecution appears to be extremely doubtful and renders the case as concocted, to falsely implicate the Appellants. Recovery Memos also reflect that there were overwriting on the same which has not been explained by P.W.16 - Diwakar Chaturvedi (Investigating Officer). He admitted that memos and annexures were prepared in his own handwriting but also admitted in his cross examination that the same were in a different handwriting. This lacuna should have been explained by the prosecution more so when the whole case rested only on circumstantial evidence. Thus looking to the matter from all angles we are of the considered opinion that it would not be safe and proper to hold the Appellants guilty for commission of offence. 25. It is too well settled in law that where the 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. No doubt, it is true that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be decided on the touchstone of law relating to circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A' these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant. The same were thereafter restated in another judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (10) SCC 657 Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan. 30. The doctrine of circumstantial evidence was once again discussed and summarised in 2008 (3) SCC 210 Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of Maharashtra in the following t....