DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANRversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

                        [2023] 4 S.C.R. 887                             887


            DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANR.                                A
                                 v.
            STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2019)
                          APRIL 21, 2023                                B
   [DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 397, 450 – Case based on
circumstantial evidence – Case of the prosecution that appellants-
accused (A1 and A2) trespassed into house of PW-1, wherein he
                                                                        C
also did his gold and silver business, concealing iron rods and
robbed gold ornaments and brutally killed his son and wife – Accused
held guilty of offences punishable u/ss.302, 397 and 450 and
sentenced accordingly – Legality of – Held: Though there were no
eye-witnesses to the actual killings, there were three separate
witnesses PWs 4, 6, and 10, who were independent of each other          D
and had no animosity with the accused and spoke in unison about
seeing one or both of the accused running away from the house of
PW-1 on the fateful night with bags in their possession – No
explanation given as to why three separate witnesses would choose
to implicate the accused falsely – Sequence of events unfolded in
                                                                        E
quick succession on the fateful night, leading to not only
identification of the accused by the witnesses present but also their
apprehension and arrest, apart from seizure of the stolen gold
ornaments and cash from their possession, there was no time or
possibility for the police to hoist a false case upon them – Minor
discrepancies and shortcomings in the statements made by witnesses      F
after passage of a few years would necessarily have to be discounted
in such a scenario – No patent illegality or manifest injustice
committed by the Trial Court and the High Court, warranting exercise
of discretionary jurisdiction u/Article 136 –Evidence Act, 1872 –
ss.27, 106, 114(a) – Constitution of India – Article 136 – Evidence
                                                                        G
– Circumstantial evidence.
      Constitution of India – Article 136 – Scope of jurisdiction –
Concurrent findings of guilt against the accused, interference with
u/Article 136 – Discussed.
                                                                        H
                                887
888            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A           Pappu vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 10 SCC
            321; Sambhu Das alias Bijoy Das and another Vs. State
            of Assam (2010) 10 SCC 374 : [2010] 11 SCR 493
            Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P. AIR
            1952 SC 343 : [1952] SCR 1091; Karnel Singh Vs.
            State of M.P. (1995) 5 SCC 518 : [1995] 2 Suppl. SCR
B
            629 – relied on.
                              Case Law Reference
      (2022) 10 SCC 321                  relied on                Para 6
      [2010] 11 SCR 493                  relied on                Para 7
C
      [1952] SCR 1091                    relied on                Para 8
      [1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 629            relied on                Para 21
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      1295 of 2019.
D
            From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2018 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
      Andhra Pradesh in CRLA No. 915 of 2016.
           R. Basant, Sr. Adv., G. N. Reddy, Manu Krishnan, V. Vishnoo C.
      Kashyap, Ravi Shankar, Advs. for the Appellants.
E
            Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, K V Girish Chowdary,
      Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Ms. Niti Richhariya,
      Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Ms. Y. Vismai Rao, Y.
      Ramesh, Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Advs. for the Respondents.
F           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            SANJAY KUMAR, J.
            1. By judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 81
      of 2012, the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta,
      held the accused therein, viz., Dakkata Balaram Reddy (A1) and
G     Chinapana Gopi (A2), guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302,
      397 and 450 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Their conviction and
      sentence stood confirmed when the High Court for the State of Telangana
      and the State of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 915 of
      2016 filed by the two accused, vide judgment dated 03.10.2018.
      Aggrieved thereby, both the accused are before this Court.
H
DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF ANDHRA                               889
       PRADESH & ANR. [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

      2. Heard Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel, appearing for          A
the appellants/accused; Shri Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, learned counsel,
appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh; and Shri Y. Raja Gopala
Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent, viz., the complainant.
       3. The case of the prosecution: The complainant, Vetcha Kesava
Rao (PW-1), is a resident of Ichapuram and his house is situated on           B
Chinnamedaraveedhi, wherein he also did his gold and silver business.
A1 is a civil contractor while A2, his brother-in-law, is an ex-serviceman.
On 21.08.2008 at about 9.00 pm, in PW-1’s absence, A1 and A2
trespassed into his house concealing iron rods under their shirts and
brutally killed his son, Vetcha Kiran Kumar (deceased No.1), and his
wife, Vetcha Venkatagopala Lakshmi (deceased No.2); robbed gold               C
ornaments, weighing about 3.543 Kgs., and cash of ¹ 18,340/-. At about
11.00 pm on the same night, PW-1 lodged a written report against them
at Ichapuram Town Police Station. Thereupon, Crime No. 61 of 2008
was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ichapuram Rural P.S.
(PW-23), and he informed the Inspector of Police who was holding              D
additional charge of Ichapuram Circle (PW-26). PW-26 immediately
took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence and held an inquest
over the dead bodies in the presence of mediators. Upon receiving
information, he arrested A2 at 01.15 am on 22.08.2008 at Radhamveedhi,
Jagannadhaswamy Temple, Ichapuram, in the presence of mediators
and recovered from his possession part of the stolen property, i.e., gold     E
ornaments weighing 1748 grams 750 milligrams and cash of ¹ 18,340/-.
He then arrested A1 at 04.00 am on 22.08.2008 from Gollaveedhi,
Ichapuram, and recovered gold ornaments weighing 1794 grams 370
milligrams from his possession in the presence of mediators. Thus, PW-
26 recovered the gold ornaments weighing 3.543 Kgs. from the accused          F
along with the cash. He also examined several witnesses. He went to
the scene of the offence and prepared a Rough Sketch. At his request,
the Inspector of Police, FPB Unit, Srikakulam (PW-24), went to the
scene of the offence along with the Clues Team and developed four
chance fingerprints. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, Ichapuram Circle
(PW-27), took up further investigation. He visited the scene of offence,      G
examined witnesses and recorded their statements. After completion of
the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused. Charges
were framed against them under Sections 302, 379, 394 r/w 397, 411
and 450 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
                                                                              H
890             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A            4. During the trial, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses and
      marked Exs.P-1 to P-21 in evidence, apart from producing Material
      Objects (MOs) 1 to 99. The accused did not adduce evidence but were
      examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Upon considering the evidence and
      the MOs, the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta,
      held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302,
B
      397 and 450 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
      life under Section 302 IPC and to pay fine of ¹ 2,000/- each; imprisonment
      for a period of 10 years under Section 450 IPC and to pay a fine of ¹
      2,000/- each; and imprisonment for 7 years under Section 397 IPC.
      Further imprisonment was directed for default in payment of fines.
C            5. Aggrieved thereby, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 915
      of 2016 before the High Court. By judgment dated 03.10.2018, a Division
      Bench of the High Court opined that the circumstantial evidence, in
      corroboration with the medical evidence, the weapons used and the
      manner in which the attack was made, established that the accused
D     intended to cause the death of the inmates of the house of PW-1, fulfilling
      the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 300 IPC, punishable
      under Section 302 IPC. The High Court, therefore, concluded that there
      was no merit in the case and dismissed the same. Hence, this appeal by
      special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
E            6. At the outset, it would be apposite to note the scope of jurisdiction
      under Article 136 of the Constitution in a case of this nature, where the
      Trial Court and the High Court have concurrently returned findings of
      guilt against the accused. In Pappu Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
      [(2022) 10 SCC 321], this Court pointed out that, in an appeal by special
      leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against concurrent findings
F     of fact by the Trial Court and the High Court after appreciation of
      evidence, each and every finding of fact cannot be contested and such
      an appeal cannot be dealt with as if this Court is another forum for
      reappreciation of evidence. It was observed that it is only if the
      assessment by the Trial Court and the High Court can be said to be
G     vitiated by any error of law or procedure or misreading of evidence or in
      disregard to the norms of judicial process, leading to serious prejudice or
      injustice, that this Court may, and in appropriate cases would, interfere
      in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice, but such a
      course is to be adopted only in rare and exceptional cases of manifest
      illegality. It was further observed that such an appeal is not a regular
H
DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF ANDHRA                              891
       PRADESH & ANR. [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

appeal and this Court would not interfere with concurrent findings of        A
fact based on pure appreciation of evidence and it is not the scope of
such appeal that this Court would enter into reappreciation of evidence
so as to take a view different from that taken by the Trial Court and
approved by the High Court.
       7. Earlier, in Sambhu Das alias Bijoy Das and another Vs.             B
State of Assam [(2010) 10 SCC 374], this Court affirmed that Article
136 of the Constitution does not confer a right of appeal on a party and
only confers discretionary power on this Court to be exercised sparingly
to interfere in suitable cases where grave miscarriage of justice has
resulted from illegality or misapprehension or mistake in reading evidence
or from ignoring, excluding or illegally admitting material evidence.        C

        8. This being the settled legal position, the case on hand may now
be examined. There are no eye-witnesses to the actual commission of
the offence and the case is built on circumstantial evidence. Trite to
state, in such a situation, the chain of evidence must be so complete as
to not leave any reasonable grounds for a conclusion consistent with the     D
innocence of the accused; the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may
be’ guilty, before the Court can convict, and the facts established should
be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused [See
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1952 SC 343)].
       9. In this context, the following facts may be noted: Vetcha Kesava   E
Rao (PW-1) stated that, on 21.08.2008 at about 05.00 pm, he went to
Sompeta for business purposes and received a call from PW-7/LW-8 at
about 09.30 pm that the accused went to his house at about 09.00 pm
and that they heard loud cries and shouts coming from the house. PW-7
then told him that after some time A1 ran away with small bundles of         F
gold while he and LWs 6 & 7 (PW-4 and PW-6) were watching and A2
fled from upstairs towards the backside portion. PW-1 stated that he
returned from Sompeta and reached his house at about 10.00 or 10.30
pm and by that time, people had gathered outside his house and all the
doors of his house were open. His son was lying in a pool of blood near
the sofa in the shop room and there was an iron rod on the floor, and in     G
the southern side room, his wife was lying in a pool of blood and he
found another iron rod near her. All the gold ornaments were missing
from the shop almirah and the show case. He then went to the police
station and lodged a report (Ex.P-1). PW-1 stated that he told the police
that his wife and son were killed by the accused. He also informed the       H
892            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     police that he had lost gold ornaments and cash of ¹ 18,340/-. In his
      cross-examination, he stated that the accused were his customers and
      used to purchase gold or take money from him. He denied knowledge of
      A1 being a contractor and his financial position.
              10. The Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre,
B     Ichapuram (PW-19), conducted the post-mortem examination of the body
      of deceased No. 1. He issued a post-mortem certificate (Ex.P-14) stating
      that the cause of his death was shock due to brain injury and hemorrhage
      following a head injury. Another Civil Assistant Surgeon at the Community
      Health Centre, Ichapuram (PW-20), conducted the autopsy over the
      body of deceased No. 2 and issued a post-mortem certificate (Ex.P-15)
C     stating to the same effect as to the cause of her death. Both PW-19 and
      PW-20 denied the suggestion that the injuries on the bodies of the
      deceased could have been caused by falling from the first floor. In effect,
      it can safely be said that their deaths were homicidal in nature. More so,
      as blood-stained iron rods (MOs1 and 2) were found near the bodies.
D            11. Though there were no eye-witnesses to the actual killings,
      there were three separate witnesses who spoke of seeing one or both of
      the accused ‘running away’ from the house of PW-1 at that late hour on
      the fateful night. PWs 4, 6, and 10 are those witnesses. PW-4 stated
      that he was also doing gold and silver business and knew PW-1 as well
E     as the accused. He stated that, on 21.08.2008 at about 09.00 pm, he and
      PW-6 were going to his sister’s house at Dabburi Street via Medaraveedhi
      and at that time, they heard loud voices coming from PW-1’s house.
      They shouted as to what was happening inside the house. A number of
      people gathered at the house. Then, A1 came out from the house of
      PW-1 and ran away. After that, the police came to the house of PW-1.
F     Along with them, they all went inside the house of PW-1 and found that
      the wife and son of PW-1 were lying dead. PW-1’s son was lying in the
      shop room and the body of PW-1’s wife was at the bath room which
      was after the shop room. PW-1 then returned from camp. During the
      investigation, on 11.12.2008, his statement was recorded under Section
G     164 Cr.P.C. by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sompeta (Ex.P2). At
      this stage, PW-4 was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the
      prosecution. He denied having stated before the police that the accused
      had entered the house of PW-1 and had stolen gold ornaments and cash.
      In his cross-examination by the defence, PW-4 stated that PW-1’s house
      was in the centre of Chinnamedaraveedhi and on both sides, houses
H
DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF ANDHRA                              893
       PRADESH & ANR. [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

were situated. He stated that he did not know whether PW-1 used to           A
advance loans on pledging of gold ornaments.
       12. PW-6 stated that, on 21.08.2008 at about 09.00 pm, he and
PW-4 were going towards his house and PW-4 was then going to his
sister’s house via Chinnamedaraveedhi. By the time they reached PW-
1’s house, they heard cries and shouted as to what happened. In the          B
meanwhile, 10 to 15 people gathered there. Then, A1 came outside from
PW-1’s house and ran away on a bike with a bag on his shoulder. After
5 or 10 minutes, A2 jumped from the upstairs of PW-1’s house to the
neighbouring house and from there, he jumped down. At that time, A2
was also holding a bag. After one hour, PW-1 returned to his house and
the police also came there. In the first room, i.e., the gold shop, PW-1’s   C
son was found in a pool of blood and his wife’s body was found near the
bathroom towards the backside of the shop. Iron rods were found near
the bodies. In his cross-examination, PW-6 stated that about 3 or 4 people
were present at PW-1’s house by the time they were passing there. He
further stated that A1 was a contractor and possessed 8 lorries. He          D
however disclaimed knowledge of A1 doing gold business or having
constructed a temple. He could not say the colour of the wearing apparel
and the colour of the bags carried by the accused.
       13. PW-7 stated that, on 21.08.2008 at about 09.00 pm, he closed
his kirana shop and was returning home and by the time he reached            E
PW-1’s house, he heard loud sounds coming from PW-1’s house and
some people had gathered there. He stated that he called PW-1 and
informed him that loud sounds were coming from his house and PW-1
said that he would return home. At about 10.30 pm, PW-1 returned to
the house and a police report was given. After the police came, they
went inside the house and on the left side near the sofa in the shop room,   F
PW-1’s son was lying in a pool of blood. His wife was lying in a pool of
blood by the bathroom and iron rods were present near the bodies. He
further stated that all the things were shattered in the house of PW-1
and around 4 Kgs. of gold and cash was stolen/lost. In his cross-
examination, he stated that, by the time the police came there, he was       G
present outside PW-1’s house. Significantly, PW-7 did not say anything
about the presence of the accused or about informing PW-1 of their
entering and leaving his house.
       14. PW-10 resided in the 2nd house opposite the house of PW-1.
He stated that, on 21.08.2008 at about 09.30 pm, while he was taking         H
894            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     dinner, he heard sounds from outside. When he came out, he saw around
      10 people gathered in the street. Meanwhile, A1 ran away from PW-1’s
      house and then A2 ran away from PW-1’s house. Both of them were
      holding bags. Later, he came to know that the accused had murdered
      PW-1’s wife and son and ran away with gold. He stated that PW-1
      came to the house within half an hour or one hour. Police also came to
B
      the house. He went to the house and saw the bodies of deceased. In his
      cross-examination, he admitted that he did not state before the police
      that A1 and A 2 were holding bags and left PW-1’s house in a hurry.
             15. Now, coming to the apprehension and arrest of the accused.
      PW-17 stated that he was the Village Revenue Officer of Koligam Village
C     and on 22.08.2008, at around 01.00 am, he was called to Ichapuram
      Town Police Station by the Inspector of Police. LW-27 was already
      there by then. He stated that both of them and the police went to Radham
      Street near Jagannadhaswamy Temple. At that time, one person was
      seen running away from that place and the police chased and caught
D     hold of him. He was holding a bag in his hand. He stated that his name
      was Chinapana Gopi (A2) and he allegedly confessed to commission of
      the crime. The bag was seized and opened in their presence. They found
      gold ornaments and cash of ¹ 18,340/- inside. At about 04.00 or 04.30
      am on the same day, he went to Ichapuram Town Police Station and
      both the accused were present there. The police then seized the blood-
E     stained clothes of both the accused in his presence. In his cross-
      examination, he stated that he did not remember the colour of the bag
      seized from A2 or the number of ornaments seized.
             16. PW-16, the Village Revenue Officer, Purushottapuram,
      Ichapuram Mandal, stated that, on 22.08.2008 at about 02.30 am, the
F     Inspector of Police, Ichapuram, called him and LW-25 and both of them,
      along with the Inspector of Police and other police staff, went to
      Gollaveedhi in a police jeep. On seeing the police jeep, one person started
      running but the police chased and caught hold of him. He was brought
      before the Inspector of Police and on questioning as to why he was
G     running, he identified himself as Dakkata Balaram Reddy (A1). He
      allegedly confessed to having killed PW-1’s wife and son and taking
      gold ornaments. Upon being questioned about the ornaments, he brought
      the ornaments in a bag from his room, i.e., about 30 items. PW-16 further
      stated that, at about 04.40 am on the same day, the Inspector of Police
      called him to the Police Station and he along with LW-26 went there.
H
DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF ANDHRA                               895
       PRADESH & ANR. [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

The police seized the yellow T-shirt (MO 97) and light cement-coloured        A
jeans pant (MO 98) of A1 along with the blood-stained jeans of cement
color (MO 99) of A2.
       17. PW-26 worked as the Inspector of Police at Sompeta from
13.10.2006 to 19.09.2008. He stated that, on 21.08.2008, while he was
holding additional charge of Ichapuram Circle, he received information        B
from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ichapuram Rural Police Station (PW-
23) about the subject crime. He immediately rushed there and also flashed
radio messages for conducting vehicle checking to apprehend the
accused. He visited the scene of offence at 11.45 pm and noted the
dead bodies. In the meanwhile, he received information about the
movement of the culprits and left the scene of the offence. He secured        C
two mediators and along with his staff, he went to Radhamveedhi,
Jagannadhaswamy Temple, at about 01.15 am and noticed one person,
carrying a hand bag, trying to escape upon seeing the police. He
apprehended the person (A2) and questioned him about the contents of
the bag. He interrogated him and he confessed to the commission of the        D
offence. The bag carried by him was verified and gold ornaments along
with cash of ¹ 18,340/- were found therein. Then, PW-26, along with the
accused, his staff and mediators, rushed to the house of the other accused,
Dakkata Balaram Reddy, situated on Gollaveedhi of Ichapuram
Municipality, and upon seeing the police, one person (A1) tried to escape.
He was apprehended and interrogated in the presence of mediators. He          E
also confessed to commission of the offence and corroborated the version
given by the other accused. PW-26 stated that he then questioned him
about the stolen property and he fetched a bag from the side room of the
house along with blood-stained clothes and handed over the same to
him. The bag contained gold ornaments. PW-26 then arrested A1 at              F
about 04.00 am and brought both the accused to the police station along
with the seized property. Upon further questioning as to their clothes at
the time of the offence, they disclosed that they were wearing the same
clothes at the time of offence. He then secured some other clothes and
seized their blood-stained clothes.
                                                                              G
      18. PW-27 stated that he worked as the Inspector of Police,
Ichapuram, from 09.02.2008 to 09.05.2010. He stated that he took up
further investigation in the case on hand on 31.08.2008 and that PW-26
had conducted investigation till then. He spoke of the Test Identification
Parade of the seized gold ornaments conducted in the presence of
mediators.                                                                    H
896             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A            19. The Inspector of Police, FPB Unit, Srikakulam, was examined
      as PW-24. He stated that, on receipt of a telephone message from the
      Police Station, Ichapuram, he visited the scene of offence along with a
      Clues Team on 22.08.2008 at about 06.00 am and developed four chance
      fingerprints on a glass show case and one chance fingerprint on a cream-
      coloured plastic box. He stated that he found photocopies of two of the
B
      chance prints unfit for comparison but the chance prints marked as A, D
      and E were fit for comparison. The fingerprints marked as A and E
      tallied with the fingerprints of the two accused. In his cross-examination,
      he stated that he did not receive the specimen fingerprints of the accused
      through the Court but from the Investigating Officer.
C
               Insofar as this fingerprint evidence is concerned, we find that
      the same was liable to be eschewed from consideration as the accused
      were already in custody by the time the so-called chance fingerprints
      were lifted from the scene of the offence. More importantly, the
      prescribed procedure was not followed in gathering this so-called
D     evidence. No report was drawn up at the time of lifting of these chance
      prints in the presence of credible witnesses. Similarly, no report was
      prepared even at the time the specimen fingerprints of the accused were
      taken. Therefore, PW-24’s evidence that two of the chance prints tallied
      with the fingerprints of the accused cannot be given any weightage.
E     Failure in following the due procedure rendered the findings of PW-24
      wholly unreliable.
             20. Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel, would contend that
      there is no evidence of any light being available outside the house of
      PW-1, whereby the witnesses could have seen the accused running away
F     with bags. We are of the opinion that it would not be open to the accused
      to raise this factual aspect at this late stage. It was never put in issue
      that the area in question did not have adequate street lights, whereby the
      evidentiary value of the statements of witnesses as to what they had
      seen could be attacked.More so, as it has come on record that apart
      from the jewellery shop of PW-1, there were other jewellery shops in
G     the vicinity and the police station itself was just half a kilometer away. If
      that was so, it is difficult to believe that there would be no street lighting
      in such an area. In any event, this Court does not propose to initiate an
      inquiry into this factual aspect, which was not raised either before the
      Trial Court or before the High Court.
H
DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF ANDHRA                                897
       PRADESH & ANR. [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

       21. Undeniably, there are some discrepancies and contradictions         A
in the prosecution’s case. There is no clarity as to the sequence of events
at the scene of offence on the fateful night. Witnesses gave differing
versions of the time of the arrival of the police and as to what they saw
and said. There is no corroboration of PW-1’s statement that it was
PW-7 who informed him of the accused entering and exiting his house,
                                                                               B
as PW-7 said nothing to that effect. Further, recovery of the clothes
worn by the accused at that time is also shrouded in doubt. One version
is that they were still wearing them at the police station and they were
seized there by the police, after providing them other clothes, while the
other is that A1 handed over blood-stained clothes to PW-26 along with
the bag of ornaments at his house. However, some differences in the            C
testimonies of witnesses as to what they saw and said are to expected
given the passage of time. Be it noted that the subject incident occurred
on the night of 21.08.2008 and the depositions of the witnesses were
recorded by the Trial Court in the later part of 2015. In any event, as
already noted hereinbefore, this Court would not undertake a roving
                                                                               D
inquiry on factual issues or reappreciate the evidence, unless it is brought
out that there is some perversity in appreciation of evidence by the Trial
Court or the High Court, leading to manifest miscarriage of justice. Trivial
defects in investigation or process are not enough, in themselves, to
disbelieve the prosecution’s case. To acquit solely on the ground of
defective investigation would be adding insult to injury [See Karnel Singh     E
Vs. State of M.P. {(1995) 5 SCC 518}]
        22. Similarly, identification of the gold ornaments by PW-1 during
the TIP does not raise any red flags. Order 474 of the Andhra Pradesh
Police Investigation Manual, Part I, Vol. IIA, provides that identification
of properties has to be done in the Court premises, under the order of         F
the Magistrate, either by the Magistrate or through independent witnesses,
if the properties are already sent to Court, and in other cases, independent
witnesses should conduct the process of identification of the property in
the absence of the police, under a Panchnama. The properties to be
identified should be mixed with similar articles and the witnesses should
be asked to identify them. This being the procedure that was followed in       G
the case on hand, there is no reason to doubt PW-1’s identification of the
seized gold ornaments as those taken from his shop.
      23. In this regard, it may also be noted that A2 was found in
possession of a bag carrying some of the stolen ornaments and, therefore,
                                                                               H
898              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     such possession itself speaks against him, in terms of Section 114 (a) of
      the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Being a fact especially within his
      knowledge, it was for A2 to explain as to how he came to be in possession
      of those stolen ornaments, under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence
      Act, 1872. However, no explanation was offered by him. As regards
      A1, it is the prosecution’s case that he confessed to commission of the
B
      crime and upon being questioned as to the stolen gold ornaments, he
      himself went into the other room in his house and brought out a bag
      containing the gold ornaments. This part of his confession would,
      therefore, be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
      1872, as it led to the recovery of the stolen gold ornaments.
C            24. No doubt, recovery of this stolen property from the accused
      would not be sufficient in itself to convict them for murder. However,
      the weight of the evidence on record, taken cumulatively, unerringly
      points to the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for second thoughts.
      The inescapable fact remains that PWs 4, 6, and 10, who were witnesses
D     independent of each other and who had no animosity or enmity with the
      accused, spoke in unison about seeing them running away from the house
      of PW-1 of the fateful night with bags in their possession. No explanation
      is forthcoming as to why three separate witnesses would choose to
      implicate the accused falsely.
E            25. Given the totality of the case, which demonstrates that the
      sequence of events unfolded in quick succession during the intervening
      night of 21.08.2008 and 22.08.2008, leading to not only identification of
      the accused by the witnesses present but also their apprehension and
      arrest, apart from seizure of the stolen gold ornaments and cash from
      their possession, it is amply clear that there was no time or possibility for
F     the police to hoist a false case upon them. Minor discrepancies and
      shortcomings in the statements made by witnesses after passage of a
      few years would necessarily have to be discounted in such a scenario.
             27. Viewed thus, we find no patent illegality or manifest injustice
      having been committed by the Trial Court and the High Court, warranting
G     exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
      The Criminal Appeal is, therefore, found to be bereft of merit and it is
      dismissed accordingly.

      Divya Pandey                                                 Appeal dismissed.
H     (Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)