DHAN RAJ @ DHANDversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                         [2014] 7 S.C.R. 476


A                      OHAN RAJ @ DHAND
                                  v.
                        STATE OF HARYANA
              (Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2010 etc.)
                            MAY 9, 2014
B
          [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND PINAKI
                  CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860:
c
          s.302 r/w s.341 and s.392 r/w s. 397 - Murder and robbery
    - Circumstantial evidence - Extra-judicial confession of co-
    accused - Held: In two confessions made by co-accused,
    there are inconsistencies as in the first confession he named
D   a different person as his accomplice who had taken the
    recovered articles whereas in the subsequent confession he
    named the two appellants as his accomplices and also stated
    that they had taken the recovered articles - The discrepancy
    is a glaring one as he named different accomplices in the
E   same incident - Further, his confessional statement does not
    establish anything beyond the fact that the two accused-
    appellants might have possessed stolen goods - It does not
    support prosecution case that appellants were involved in
    commission of murder - Thus, reliance on extra judicial
    confession of co-accused is misplaced - Further, no proper
F   recovery has been made - The objects recovered were too
    common articles not of much value -Moreover, evidence of
    recovery witness does not inspire confidence - There is no
    evidence to establish presence of appellants near the scene
    of crime - There is a gap between circumstances relied upon
G   by prosecution to hold appellants' guilty - There are many
    loopholes in prosecution case and grounds on which High
    Court convicted the appellants - None of the circumstances
    relied upon by prosecution and accepted by High Court can

H                                476
   OHAN RAJ@ DHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA                      477

                                                                    A
4be said to be probability of appellants guilt or their
 involvement in the crime - Judgment of High Court is set
 aside ad appellants are acquitted - Circumstantial evidence
 - Investigation - Recovery - Witness - Interested witness.
                                                                    B
     Evidence:

       Circumstantial evidence - Held: In order to base
 conviction on circumstantial evidence, prosecution should
 establish a complete unbroken chain of events so that only
  one inference is drawn out from the same i.e., the guilt of the   C
  accused - If more than one inference can be drawn then
  accused should be entitled to benefit of doubt - In the instant
  case, after analysing the facts, the chain of circumstantial
· evidence cannot be concluded in the manner sought to be
, done by prosecution and there is a gap between the                o
' circumstances relied upon by prosecution to hold appellants
. guilty.

      Extra judicial confession - Held: Extra-judicial confession
· has been treated by the Court as weak evidence in the
  absence of a chain of cogent circumstances, for recording a       E
  conviction.

      Investigation:

      Recovery - Held: Recovery, of an object is not a              F
 discovery of fact - Recovery must be of a fact which was
 relevant to connect it with the commfssion of crime - In the
 instant case, even if recovery of goods is reliable then it does
 not indicate that accused appellants committed the murder
 - The only admissible fact which can be inferred is that they      G
 are in possession of stolen goods.

      The two appellants and another were prosecuted for
 murder of the husband of PW7 and taking away his
· belongings. The prosecution case was that the husband
  of PW7, who was a doctor, left for his dispensary on the          H
    478    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014) 7 S.C.R.

A stated day and time in a maruti car. Later, PW13 informed
   PW6, the brother of the deceased,that the dead body of
   the deceased was found in a field. Both of them went to
   the place and found the body bearing injuries. PW-6
   lodged an FIR. Meanwhile co-accused 'S', who was in
B custody of Delhi Police in a different case, made a
  statement about the occurrence of the instant case. He
  stated that accused 'D', appellant in Crl. A. No. 1410 of
  2010 and accused 'B', appellant in Crl. A. No. 703 of 2011,
  were associated with him in the crime. Accused 'D' was
c arrested on 4.2.1997. The trial court convicted accused
  'S' and 'D' u/s 302 r/w s. 341 IPC and sentenced them to
  imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/· each, and 8
  years RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000 u/s 392 r/w s. 397, IPC.
  Accused 'B', who had absconded and was tried
  separately on his arrest, was acquitted by the trial court.
0
  The two convicts challenged their conviction in the
  appeal before the High Court whereas the State appealed
  against acquittal of a,~cused 'B'. The High Court
  dismissed the appeal of the two convicts and allowed the
E appeal filed by the State and convicted accused 'B' on
  the same grounds as those of the other two accused.
  Aggrieved, accused 'D' and 'B' filed the appeals.

       Allowing the appeals, the court

F       HELD: 1.1. In the case of circumstantial evidence,
   each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable
   doubt by independent evidence, and the circumstances
 . so proved must form a complete chain without giving any
   chance of surmise or conjecture and must also be
G consistent with the guilt of the accused. It has been well
   established by leading judicial precedents that where the
   prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence,
   only of the highest order can satisfy the test of proof in
   a criminal prosecution. In ·order to base conviction on
H circumstantial evidence, the prosecution should establish
   _DHAN RAJ@ DHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA                479

a complete unbroken chain of events so that only one          A
inference is drawn out from the same i.e., the guilt of the
of the accused. If more than one inference can be drawn
then the accused should be entitled to the benefit of
doubt. [paras 2 and 17] [496-A, B; 483-F-G]
                                                              B
    1.2. As regards the reliance placed by the High Court
on the evidence given by the co-accused 'S', he in his
extra-judicial confession dated 4.2.1997 named the
accused-appellants as his accomplices in the murder and
robbery and stated that accused 'D' and accused 'B' took C
the briefcase and wrist watch of the deceased
respectively. However, in an earlier confessional
statement dated January 25, 1997 made in the
investigation of another case, accused 'S' named one 'R'
as his accomplice and stated that he only took the wrist
watch and the brief case. [para 9] [490-F-H]              D

      1.3. It is well established that extr~-judii::ial
.confession has been treated by this Court as weak
 evidence in the absence of a chain of cogent
 circumstances, for recording a conviction. In the instant    E
 case, there is an apparent·discrepancy in the confession
 statement of accused 'S' and the same is a glaring one
 as he has named different accomplices in the same crime
 in his two confessional statements. Furthermore, his
 confessional statements only connects him to the             F
 recoveries. His statement that the accused appellants
 took the wrist watch and the briefcase, in the absence of
 other evidence except the recovery of the same, does not
 establish anything beyond the fact that they may possess
 stolen goods. In no manner does the later statement of       G
 the co-accused 'S' supports that the accused appellants
 were involved in ,the commission of murder. This Court
 is, therefore, of the opinion that reliance on the extra-
 judicial confession of the co-accused is misplaced.
  [paras 10-11] [491-A-F]
                                                              H


    -
     480     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A        Gopa/ Sah vs. State of Bihar (2008) 17 SCC 128, Pancho
    vs. State of Haryana 2011 (12) SCR 1173 = (2011) 10 SCC
    165; Sahadevan and Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2012
    (4) SCR 366 = (2012) 6 sec 403 - relied on.

      1.4. As regards the recovery of wrist watch and brief
8
  case based on disclosure statements of accused-
  appellants, suffice it to say that after considering the
  evidence on record, it has been found that no proper
  recovery has been made in the instant case. The objects
  which were recovered were two common articles, not
C holding much value and it does not seem rational that
  any accused would keep such incriminating items
  connecting themselves to a crime with them in their
  house. This Court concurs with the opinion of the trial
  court that the statement of PW7, the recovery witness,
D does not inspire confidence. [para 12) [492-A-C, E]

      1.5. Moreover, recovery of an object is not a
  discovery of fact. Recovery must be of a fact which was
  relevant to connect it with the commission of crime.
E Therefore, even if the recovery of goods is reliable then
  it does not indicate that Jhe accused appellants
  committed the murder. The only admissible fact which
  can be inferred is that they are in possession of stolen
  goods. [para 12) [492-H; 493-A, BJ
F        Mano vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2007 (4) SCR 678 = (2007)
    13 SC~ 795; Madhu vs. State of Kera/a 2012 (2)
    SCR 986 =(2012) 2 SCC 399; and State of Rajasthan vs.
    Tale var and Anr. 2011 (6) SCR 1050 = (2011) 11 SCC 666
    - relied on.
G
        1.6. As per the statement of PW-15, after the
    deceased had left, the three accused came to the
    deceased's house and enquired about him after
    disclosing their names. But in the absence of other
H
   OHAN RAJ @ DHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA                481


corroborating evidence and independent evidence, it is A
not established that the accused appellants had abetted
the co-accused 'S' in the commission of the crime. There
is no material on record which corroborated the
st~tement of PW-15 who is an interested witness.
Furthermore, there is no other evidence which indicates B
or establishes the presence of the accused appellants
near the place of commission of crime. Also, as noted by
the trial court in the trial of accused 'B', no footprints were
found in the surrounding Kutcha area where the body of.
the deceased was found. In the factual matrix of the c
instant case, it is only an interested witness stating that
the accused had come asking for the deceased. This
factum alone does not establish guilt of accused-
appellants. [paras 14-15] [493-G-H; 494-A-H; 495-A]

    Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 1985     D
(1) SCR 88 = (1984) 4 SCC 116 - referred to.
     1.7. For establishing the guilt on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstantial
evidence must be completed. The circumstances must be E
conclusive in nature. In the instant case, after analysing1
the facts, the chain of circumstantial evidence cannot be
concluded in the manner sought to be done by the
prosecution and there is a gap between the
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to hold the F
appellants guilty. [para 15] [495-A-C]

     1.8. There are many loopholes in the case of the
 prosecution and the grounds on which the High Court
 has convicted the accused appellants. A court has to
 examine the evidence in its entirety especially in case of   G
 circumstantial evidence and ensure that the only
 inference drawn from the evidence is the guilt of the
 accused. If more than one inference can be drawn then
.the accused must have the benefit of doubt as it is not
                                                              H
    482      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014) 7 S.C.R.

A the court's job to assume and only when guilt beyond
  reasonable doubt is proved then it is fair to record
  conviction. [para 16] [495-D, F-G]

          Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana 2012 (9) SCR 193 =
8 (2012) 10 sec 464 • relied on.
       1.9. In the instant case, none of the circumstances
  relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the High
  Court can be said to be the probability of the appellants'
  guilt or their involvement in the commission of the crime.
C Therefore, the judgment and order of the High Court is
  set aside and the accused are acquitted. [paras 17-18]
  [496-A-C]

                        Case Law Reference :
D         (2000) 11 sec 120         relied on          para 10
          2011 (12) SCR 1173        relied on          para 10
          2012 (4 ) SCR 366         relied on          para 10
          2007 (4) SCR 678          relied on          para 12
E
          2012 (2) SCR 986          relied on          para 13
          2011. (6) SCR 1050        relied on          para 13
          1985 (1) SCR 88           referred to        para 14
F         2012 (9) SCR 193          relied on          para 16

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1410 of 2010.

G       From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2010 of the
    High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A. No.
    496/99.

                                  WITH
H Criminal Appeal No. 703 of 2011.
    OHAN RAJ @ OHANO v. STATE OF HARYANA                    483

     J. B. Mudgal, S. Rein ( for R. C. Kaushik) for the Appellant.· A

     Samir Ali Khan for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. These appeals arise B
   from the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab and
   Haryana wherein vide a common judgment dated February 26,
   2010, the High Court disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 496-
   0B of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 510-0B of 1999, Criminal
   Appeal No. 719-0B of 2009 and Criminal Revision No. 334 of c
    2000. The present appeals however arise out of Criminal
   Appeal No. 496-0B of 1999 filed by accused Ohan Raj
    challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
    dated September 25 and 27, 1999 passed by the Additional
    Sessions Judge, Jhajjar in Sessions Case No.21 of 21.5.1997/ 0
    13.08.1998 and Criminal Appeal No. 719-0B of 2009 filed by
    the State of Haryana against the judgment of acquittal dated
    February 18, 2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhajjar in
    Session Case No.73 of 21.5.1997/17.3.2008, acquitting the
    accused Badal of the charges framed against him.
                                                                    E
         2. The High Court in the present matters convicted the
    accused appellants on the basis of circumstantial evidence by
    the impugned judgment. It has been well established by leading
    judicial precedents that where the prosecution's case is based
 .· on circumstantial evidence, only the circumstantial evidence of F
· the highest order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal
    prosecution. In order to base convfotion on circumstantial
    evidence the circumstantial evidence put forth by the
     prosecution should establish a complete unbroken chain of
    events so that only one inference is drawn out from the same. G
     If more than one inference can be drawn then the accused
     should be entitled to the benefit of doubt.
      3. In the present appeals we therefore would evaluate the
    484       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A case of the prosecution in terms of the evidence brought on
  record and the statements and discovery made in the course
  of investigation.

          4. The case of the prosecution revealed in the first appeal
    {being Crl.A. No.1410 of 2010) is that the deceased Vijaypal
8
    was serving a doctor who was posted in the Dispensary of
    Village Kheri Jat and residing at Jhajjar. On January 24, 1997
    he left for his dispensary from his home at 9.45 a.m. by a Maruti
    car which did not have a registration number. Sukhbir Singh
    (PW 13), a dispenser posted at Kheri Jat informed Harpal
C   Singh (PW 6), brother of deceased that the dead body of
    Vijaypal was found in a field of village Bizidpur where Harpal
    Singh went with Sukhbir Singh and found the body in a side
    posture bearing injuries from a sharp-edged weapon. There
    was blood on the ground and the Maruti car was found to be
D   missing. Harpal Singh filed an FIR and investigation was
    initiated. Post mortem was also performed. The wife of the
    deceased disclosed that the deceased had with him a
    briefcase and a wrist-watch when he left home. Co-acc~sed
    Sanjay, while in custody of Delhi Police for a different case,
E   made a statement about the occurrence of this case.
    Subsequently, his production warrants were obtained and he
    was arrested for the present murder on February 4, 1997.
    Sanjay in his disclosure statement states that Ohan Raj and
    Badal, the appellants herein, were associated with him in the
F   commission of the crime and that Ohan Raj had taken away
    the briefcase and Badartook the wrist-watch of the deceased.
    Furthermore, in his statement, Sanjay disclosed that he had
    concealed a Kirpan along with his blood stained clothes near
    Sadli Road, and he got the same articles recovered as well.
G   Ohan Raj and Badal were arrested on February 4, 1997 and
    recovery of briefcase and wrist-watch was effected.
    Subsequently, on completion of investrgation, a challan was
    presented in the court.

          5. The case of the prosecution in the second appeal is also
H
   OHAN RAJ@ DHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA                         485
         [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
the same. However, the accused were tried separately as the            A
accused Badal was arrested later.

     6. After perusing the material brought on record,we would
narrate the facts as they appear to us. However, as the ·
preliminary facts are the same, for convenience's sake, they B
are narrated from the trial in Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2010
and the trial in Criminal Appeal No. 703 of 201.J will be
discussed separately.                                ·

      6.1 Vijaypal (the deceased herein) was posted as a~doctor
in the Kheri Jat village dispensary and he was residing at             C
Jhajjar. As per the statement of Raj Singh (PW 15), who was
the elder brother of the deceased and stayed in the deceased's
house, on January 24, 1997 at about 9.45 a.m., ·or. Vijaypal
left his home for the dispensary in his Maruti car, the registration
of which was awaited; that after a few minutes, the accused            D
Sanajay, Ohan Raj and Badal in a four-wheeler reached the
deceased's home and inquired about him and disclosed their
 names afterwards, whereafter they immediately left towards
 Delhi. Later in the day, Sukhbir Singh (PW 13) a dispenser
 posted at Village Kheri Jat, informed Harpal Singh (PW 6), the        E
 younger brother of the deceased, and the complainant that the
dead body of Vijaypal was found lying in the wheat crop
 bearing injuries caused by a.sharp edged weapon with blood
 on the ground nearby and the car of the deceased was also
 found to be missing. On the basis of the statements of Harpal         F
 Singh, FIR No. 26 of 1997 was registered and investigation
 was initiated with the conduction of the post-mortem and the
 recording of statement of the witnesses by the Investigating
 Officer.

     6.2 The statement of the wife of the deceased being PW            G
7 which was corroborated with the statement of Sub-Inspector
Brij Pal (PW-10) revealed that the deceased also had with him
a wrist watch ar:id a briefcase when he had left his home, which
were also missing. On the next day, accused Sanjay was
                                                                       !J
    486     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A arrested by the Delhi Police in a case under Section 411 of ttie'
  Indian Penal Code arising out of FIR No. 32 of 1997 and from
  him, the car of the deceased (determined after the engine and
  chassis-number of the car were tallied) was recovered. While
  in custody of Delhi Police, he made a statement about the
B present case on January 25, 1997. In the said statement, it rriust
  be noted that he named one Rohtas as his accomplice and
  stated that Rohtas only took the wrist-watch and the briefcase
  of the deceased.

C       6.3 Subsequently, Sanjay's production warrants were
  ·obtained and he was arrested by the Haryana Police on
   February 4, 1997 in the present case arising out of FIR No.26
   of 1997 and therein he made a disclosure statement averring
   that appellants Ohan Raj and Badal were associated with him
   in the commission of the crime and that Badal had taken away
D the wrist-watch of the deceased and Ohan Raj had taken away
   the briefcase. It must be noted that there is a discrepancy
   between the two statements of Sanjay.

        6.4 Furthermore, Sanjay's disclosure led to the recovery
E of a Kirpan concealed by him and blood-stained clothes, as
   specified in the statement. The blood on the Kirpan was found
   to be human blood by the Forensic Science Laboratory,
  -Madhuban. It appears that the accused Ohan Raj was also
   arrested on February 4, 1997 and the recovery of the briefcase
F was effected. Accused Badal remained absent during the trial
   inspite of issuance of warrant of arrest and he was declared a
   proclaimed offender but he was arrested later and subsequently
   the recovery of the wrist-watch was effected. The briefcase and
   the wrist-watch were duly identified by Shanti Devi (PW 7) as
G possessions of the deceased.
        6.5 As per the report of Dr. Rajinder Rai (PW-5), who had
    conducted the post-mortem of the deceased's body, there were
    seven injuries found on the body, and, in his opinion, death was
    due to shock and haemorrhage as a rE)sult of multiple injuries
H
    OHAN RAJ @. DHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA                           487
       . .[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSl:, J.]

which were ante mprtem in nature and sufficient to cause death              A
might have been committed by a Kirpan.

       6.6 The investigation was completed and the challan was
 duly presented in court. The case was duly committed to the
 Court of Sessions vide order dated_.May 8, 1997 and charge                 B
 under Section ·302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed
 against Sanjay and under Section :302 read with Section 34
 and Section 392 read with Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian
 Penal Code, against the two accused wherein they pleaded not
 guilty and sought for a trial. At this point, it is pertinent to mention   c
 that the trial of. accused Badal was conducted separately as
 he was arrested later. lh the course of the trial, twentythree
 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case.
 The statement of the appellant Ohan Raj was recorded under
.Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he has              0
 pleaded that he has been falsely implicated and that the Sub-
 Inspector has fabricated a false recovery in collusion with one
 Rohtas @ Maharaja who was also arrested in the matter. The
 case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence
 and the trial court after hearing the parties vide judgement dated
                                                                            E
 September 25, 1999 convicted and sentenced the accused
 Sanjay and Ohan Raj ordering imprisonment for life and a fine
 of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 341 of the
 Indian Penal Code along with rigorous imprisonment for eight
 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 392 read
 with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences                F
 to run concurrently. Vide judgment dated February 18, 2009,
 the trial court acquitted the accused Badal.

       6. 7 As the accused Badal was tried separately and was
 acquitted in the trial, we find it pertinent to discuss the same           G
 briefly. A case under Section 302 read with Section 34 and
·Section 392 read with Sections 395 and 397 was made
 against accused Badal and the other co-accused and they
 were charge-sheeted by an order dated June 4, 1997. Badal
                                                                            H
    488      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014) 7 S.C.R.


A was arrested (as stated in the order of the Trial Court dated
  February 18, 2009) on February 20, 2007 and then his trial
  began with the earlier witnesses in the trial of Ohan Raj and
  Badal being recalled and recorded against the accused Badal.
  He was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he
B pleaded not guilty and claimed that he was falsely implicated
  and that he never made any disclosure statement and no
  recovery was effected from him.

          6.8 In the said trial, the findings of the court were that the
    deceased was murdered in Bizidpur by several knife blows on
C   his person while on his way to Kheri Jat. That evidence of PW1
    to PW7 recorded in the earlier trial did not amount to material
    evidence against the accused. The statement of Shanti Devi
    being PW7 regarding the wrist watch of the deceased that the
    wrist watch recovered from Badal is the same that belonged
D   to the deceased as the initials 'VPS' were written on the same,
    does not inspire confidence; there is no corroboration of that
    fact and that it does not seem logical that a person will write
    something like this on his wrist watch. Further, it was noted that
    the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the recovery
E   of the wrist watch in view of a decision of the High Court that
    there was no sufficient motive. The Trial Court also pointed out
    that the case of the prosecution that the deceased was robbed
    and killed on the road and his dead body was left on the road
    itself, is not supported by any evidence as the dead body was
F   found in the fields and that the prosecution failed to answer how
    the dead body reached there. It was also noted that in the Kutcha
    area where the body was found no foot prints of the accused
    were found by the investigating agency.

G       6.9 On the basis of the aforementioned findings, the Trial
    Court acquitted the accused appellant and concluded that
    charges against the accused were not proved beyond
    reasonable doubt as the case of the prosecution was highly
    doubtful and that PW9 to PW18, who were the material
H
   OHAN RAJ @ DHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA                     489
         [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

witnesses, did not give any material and conclusive evidence        A
against the accused appellant.

    6.1 OAggrieved by the judgments of the trial court, accused
appellant Ohan Raj filed Crimin~! Appeal No. 496-DB of 1999
and the State of Haryana filed Criminal Appeal No. 719-DB of        B
2009 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High
Court in its impugned judgment held that the case of the
prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and that in the
backdrop of the e:cisting facts the chain of circumstantial
evidence is complete and the involvement of the accused in          C
robbery and commission of murder and robbery is established.
Thus, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant
accused Ohan Raj and convicted the appellant Badal on same
grounds as those of Ohan Raj and Sanjay.
                               '
     6.11 Aggrieved, the appellants Ohan Raj and Badal filed        D
the present appeals and the matter came before us.

     7. The High Court convicted the accused appellants and
Sanjay the other co-accused on. the basis of circumstantial
evidence. However, we will confine ourselves only to the            E
circumstantial evidence produced against the accused
appellants. The High Court relied firstly, on the statement of
the wife of the deceased Shanti Devi (PW7) wherein she stated
that the deceased wore a H~T wrist watch gifted to him at the
time of his marriage by her parents and was carrying a
                                                                    F
briefcase with the sticker of the initials 'VPS' when he left his
house on January 24, 1997 and that the same were missing
when the body of the deceased was found in the fields.
Secondly, reliance was placed on the statement of the Raj
Singh (PW-15), the brother of the deceased, wherein he has
stated that when he was visiting his brother the deceased on        G
January 24, 1997 after the deceased had left the three accused
came to the deceased's house and enquired about him after
disclosing their. names. Thirdly, the High Court relied on
disclosure statement of the co-accused Sanjay on the basis of
                                                                    H
    490     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A which the blood stained clothes and the Kirpan were recovered
  and he had stated that Ohan Raj had taken away the briefcase
  and the wrist watch was taken away by Badal. Fourthly, the
  High Court greatly relied on the two disclosure statements of
  the accused-appellants on the basis of which the recovery of
B the briefcase and wrist watch was made .
                                             •
       8. It was also noted by the High Court that the blood on
  the Kirpan was human blood and that injuries inflicted on the
  deceased might be caused by a Kirpan as per the opinion of
  the Doctor. While commenting on the completeness of the
C circumstantial evidence it was further noted that the truthfulness
  of the testimony of Sanjay was proved on the basis of the
  recovery of the car. Furthermore, it was noted that the fact that
  the deceased was carrying a briefcase and a wrist watch has
  been proved with the statement of Shanti Devi. Thus, on the
D basis of the above, the disclosure statements of the accused
  appellant and the disclosure statement of co-accused Sanjay
  were treated as clinching evidence proving their involvement
  by the High Court.

E      9. In order to discuss the correctness of the order of
  conviction, we now proceed by considering the four grounds
  on which the High Court relied. We would first discuss the
  reliance placed on the evidence given by the co-accused
  Sanjay. The co-accused Sanjay in the course of investigation
F by his confessional statement being an extra-judicial confession
  dated February 4, 1997 named the accused appellants as his
  accomplices in the murder and robbery and stated that Ohan
  Raj and Badal took the briefcase and wrist watch of the
  deceased respectively. However, in an earlier confessional
G statement dated January 25, 1997 made in the investigation
  in FIR No. 32 of 1997, Sanjay has named Rohtas as his
  accomplice and stated that he only took the wrist watch and
  the brief case and from the same confession the car of the
  deceased was recovered. From the later confession, the Kirpan
  and blood stained clothes were recovered.
H
      OHAN RAJ @ DHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA                  491
            [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
      10. It is well established that extra-judicial confession has A
been treated by this Court as weak evidence in the absence
of a chain of cogent circumstances, for recording a conviction
(See: Gopal Sah vs. State of Bihar1, and Pancho vs. State of
Haryana 2}. It was held in Sahadevan and Anr. vs. State of
Tamil Nadu 3 that if an extra judicial confession suffers from B
material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities then this
Court cannot base a conviction on the same. In the present
case, there is an apparent discrepancy in the confession
statement of Sanjay and the same is a glaring one as he has
named different accomplices in the same crime in his two c
confessional statements. Furthermore, Sanjay's confessional
statements only connect him to the car and the Kirpan,' his
statement that the accused appellants took the wrist watch and .
the briefcase in the absence of other evidence except the
 recovery of the same does not establish that anything beyond         .
                                                                    0
 the fact that they may possess stolen goods. In no manner does
 the later statement of the co-accused suppo.rts that the accused
 appellants were involved in the commission of murder. In the
 case of Pancho vs. State of Ha'ryana (supra) this Court did not
 convict the accused Pancho on the basis of the confession
 statement of the co-accused in the absence of other cogent E
  evidence, inspite of the belated recovery of the alleged weapon
  of murder.                                                     ·

     11. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that reliance
on the extra-judicial confession of the co-accused is'misplaced.     -F
       12. Owing to ·the later confessional statement of co-
 accused Sanjay, the accused appellants were arrested and
 subsequently on the basis of the disclosure staten:ients of the
 accused appellants and corroboration by Shanti Devi (PW 7),         G
 wrist-wate"1 and the briefcase were recovered. Owing to the
 interdependence of the above evidence, we will discuss the
 1.   (2008) 17 sec 128.
 2.   (2011) 10 sec 1es.
 3.    (2012) e sec 403.                                             H
     492     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A same together. The prosecution relied on the· disclosure
  statements of the accused appellants, the subsequent recovery
  of the briefcase and wrist watch on the basis of the same and
  the statement of Shanti Devi corroborating that the recovered
  wrist watch and briefcase belonged to the deceased. After
8 considering the evidence on record, we find that no proper
  recovery has been made in the present case. The objects
  which were recovered were two common articles, not holding
  much value and it does not seem rational that any accused
  would keep such incriminating items connecting themselves to
c a crime with them in thEiir house. Regarding the recovery of the
  wrist watch from Badal and its identification by Shanti Devi
  PW?, we concur with the opinion of the Trial Court. The relevant
  extract of the judgment of the trial court is reproduced
  hereunder:
D       "She further statf~d that she saw the wristwatch Ex.P2 in
        the Police Station on 13.4.1997 and she identified the
        watch because alphabets VPS were written on the watch.
        This statement of PW7 does not inspire confidence
        because it does not appeal to the common sense that the
E       wrist watch which was allegedly purchased in the year
        1971 at the time of marriage of the deceased, could not
        carry the writing of alphabets VPS thereon uptil 1997.
        Otherwise also, it does not appeal to the common sense
        that a person would write any word on the wrist watch to
F       connect him in this fashion. If these alphabets would have
        actually been written on the wrist watch, the complainant
        would have also mentioned this fact in the FIR because
        complainant was none else but the real brother of the
        deceased"
G
         Furthermore, it appears to us that the recovery has not
    been corroborated by any proper independent evidence.
    Moreover, recovery of an object is not a discovery of fact, as
    per the decision of this Court in Mano vs. State of Tamil Nadu4.
H 4.   (2001) 13 sec 795.
      OHAN RAJ@ DHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA                       493
            [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
  Recovery must be of a fact which was relevant to connect it with      A
  the commission of crime. Therefore, even if the recovery of
  goods is reliable then it does not indicate that the accused
  appellants committed the murder and the only admissible fact
. which can be inferred is that they are in possession of stolen
  goods.                                                                B

       13. We would refer to the decision of this Court in Madhu
 vs. State of Kerala 5 the facts of which are relevant in the present
 case. In the said case, the body of the deceased was found
 near her home with her ornaments on her person missing. On             C
 the basis of the information furnished by the accused recovery
 of the said ornaments was made. This fact coupled with the
 sighting of the accused near the place of crime was the basis
 for conviction. However, this Court reversed the conviction on
 the ground that said recovery and sighting of the accused near
 the deceased do not lead to the sole conclusion that murder            D
 was committed by the accused only. In State of Rajasthan vs.
  Ta/evar and Anr6. also it was held that where the only evidence
 against the accused is recovery of stolen property, then
 although circumstances may indicate that theft and murder
 might have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to          E
 draw an inference that the person in possession of stolen
 property had committed murder. Also the recovery of looted
 articles at the instance of the accused could not be relied upon
  in absence of any details as to when and where such recovery
 was made and in absence of any confession of commission                F
  of offence by the accused. Besides, the seizure of the goods
 was not corroborated by any independent witness in the
  present case.

      14. The abovementioned circumstantial evidence was                G
 supported with the statement of Raj Singh (PW-15), that when
 he was visiting his brother the deceased on January 24, 1997
 after the deceased had left, the three accused came to the
 s.   (2012) 2 sec 399.
 6.   (20~ 1) 11 sec. 666.                                              H
           494       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


       A deceased's house and enquired about him after disclosing their
          names. Before discussing the admissibility of the said
         statem~nt, we would refer to the landmark decision of this Court
          in Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 7
         regarding circumstantial evidence, where this Court held
       B regarding the question of the accused last seen with the
         deceased held that where it is natural for the deceased to be
         with the accused at the material time, other possibilities must
         be excluded before an adverse inference can be drawn. It is
         evident from the above that this Court refrains from dfawing
       c adverse inferences in a factual matrix which points out toward
         the guilt of the accused. Thus, we will consider the statament
         of Raj Singh also in the same light. As per the statement of Raj
         Singh, the three accused had come asking for the deceased
         but in the absence of other corroborating evidence and
       0 independent evidence, it is not established that the accused
         appellants had abetted the co-accused Sanjay in the
         commission of the crime. Also it can be the defence's case that
.. ·     the said statement has been added as an afterthought to
         strengthen the case of the prosecution. We have found no
         material on record which corroborated the statement of Raj
       E Singh who is an interested witness. Furthermore, there is no
         other evidence which indicates or established the presence of
         the accused appellants near the place of commission of crime.
         Also, as noted by the Trial Court in the trial of Badal, no
         footprints were found in the surrounding Kutcha area where the
       F body of the deceased was found.

                 ·15. We have noticed in the case of Madhu vs. State of
                 Kera/a (supra) facts of which were discussed earlier, that
                 this Court inspite of the factum that the accused were
       G         sighted close to the place of occurrence at around the time
                 of occurrence reversed the conviction as guilt was not
                 established. In the present factual matrix, it is only an
                 interested witness stating that the accused had come
                 asking for the deceased. This factum alone does not
       H   7.   (1984) 4 sec 116.
     OHAN RAJ @ DHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA                     495
           [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.)

     establish guilt as no other evidence is found that they were     A
     near the Bizdipur area where the crime was committed or
     had visited the house of the deceased. For establishing
     the guilt on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it is also
     to be taken into account that the chain of circumstantial
     evidence must be completed. It appears from the facts that       B
     the said chain of circumstantial evidence cannot be
     concluded in the manner sought to be done by the
     prosecution. The circumstances must be conclusive in
     nature. In the instant case, after analysing the facts, it
     appears to us that there is a gap between the                    c
     circumstances tried to be relied upon to hold the
      appellants as guilty.

     16. Thus, we find many loopholes in the case of the
prosecution and grounds on which the High Court has convicted
the accused appellants. We would refer to the decision of this        D
Court in Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana 8 wherein Dr.
Justice Chauhan has very aptly and succinctly stated the
following:

      "The circumstantial evidence is a close companion of            E
      factual matrix, creating a fine network through which there
      can be no escape for the accused, primarily because the
      said facts, when taken as a whole, do not permit us to
      arrive at any other inference but one indicating the guilt of
      the accused."                                                   F
     A court has to examine the entire evidence in its entirety
especially in case of circumstantial evidence and ensure that
the only inference drawn from the evidence is the guilt of the
accused. If more than one inference can be drawn then the
accused must have the benefit of doubt as it is not the court's· G
job to assume and only when guilt beyond reasonable doubt is
proved then it is fair to record conviction.


a.   (2012) 10 sec 464.                                               H
    496      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A      17. In case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance
  must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent
  evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form· a
  complete chain withollt giving any chance of surmise or
  conjecture and must also be consistent with the guilt of ttie
B accused. None of the circumstances relied upon by the
  prosecution and accept1ed by the High Court can be said to be
  the probability of the appellants' guilt or involvement in the
  commission of the crime.

C      18. Therefore, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the
  judgment and order of the High Court is set aside; the appeals
  are allowed and the :accused are acquitted forthwith. The
  appellant in Criminal Appeal No.703/2011 is already out on bail
  granted by this Court; the appellant in Criminal Appeal
  No.1410/2010 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not
D required in any other case.
    Rajendra Prasad                               Appeals allowed.