JAGROOP SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                      (2012] 7 S.C.R. 91


                     JAGROOP SINGH                                 A
                               v.
                    STATE OF PUNJAB
             (Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2008)

                       JULY 20, 2012
                                                                   B
   [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw ss.34 and 201 - Murder -
Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of - Three accused -
Conviction of accused-appellant by courts below -                  c
Justification of - Held: Justified - Deceased was last seen with
the accused persons - Appellant made extra-judicial
confession before PW14 admitting his guilt - The
confessional statement was totally voluntary and by no
means tainted - Weapon used in the crime, spade, was               D
recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by the
appellant - Disclosure statement was signed by PW14 and
another witness - Procedure followed for discovery was
absolutely in accord with law - Appellant gave no explanation
as to how human blood could be found on the spade, which           E
is used for agriculture - No substantial reason to disbelieve
the disclosure statement and the recovery of the spade -
Doctor who had conducted the post mortem had clearly
opined that injuries on the person of the deceased could be
caused by the blade of the spade and the said opinion went         F
unrebutted - Though incriminating circumstances pointing to
the guilt of the appellant had been put to him, yet he could
not give any explanation u/s.313 CrPC except choosing the
mode of denial - No trace of doubt that all the circumstances
completed the chain and singularly pointed to the guilt of the     G
accused persons.

      Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 24, 25 and 26 - Extra judicial
confession - Appreciation of - Held: Extra-judicial confession,
if true and voluntary, can be relied upon by the court to
                               91                                  H
    92       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   convict the accused for commission of the crim~ alleged -
    Despite inherent weakness of extra-judicial confession as an
    item of evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown that such
    confession was made before a person who has no reason to
    state falsely and his evidence is credible - Corroboration of
B   such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution.

       In a case concerning the death of the 10 year old son
  of PWB, the trial court came to the conclusion that the
  death was homicidal in nature; that the deceased was
  last seen with the accused persons; that the accused had
C made extra-judicial confessions admitting the guilt; that
  the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the
  field of the father of accused-appellant; that the weapon
  used in the crime was recovered on the basis of the
  disclosure statement made by accused-appellant; that as
D per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, the
  weapon used, spade, was found stained with human
  blood; and that the doctor who had conducted the post
  mortem had clearly stated that the injuries found on the
  body of the deceased could be caused by the seized
E weapon. On the aforesaid basis, the trial court came to
  hold that the prosecution had been able to prove the case
  against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt
  and accordingly convicted the accused-appellant and co-
  accused 'BS' under Sections 302 read with Section 34
F and 201 of IPC and sentenced them to rigorous
  imprisonment for life. In appeal, the High Court concurred
  with the view expressed by the trial court.

      In appeal to this Court, the appellant challenged his
G conviction inter alia on the grounds: - (a) that the
  circumstances which weighed with the lower Courts,
  namely, last seen with the deceased, extra-judicial
  confession made by the accused before PW2, and PW14,
  and recovery of spade and body of the deceased near
H the field of the father of the accused-appellant at his
      JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB               93


instance were unacceptable inasmuch as the testimony A
of witnesses were replete with improvement,
embellishment and contradiction; (b) that the time gap
between the point of time when the accused was last
seen with the deceased and when the deceased was
found dead was of long duration and, therefore, the said B
circumstance was liable to be ignored; (c) that the
reliance on extra-judicial confession before PW2 and
PW14 was unacceptable inasmuch as the confession
was made after 18 days which made it absolutely dented;
there was no earthly reason that the appellant would c
confess before PW2, since there was prior enmity
between PW8 and the appellant and PW2, is a close
relation of PW8 and that apart, there were improvements
in the course of examination in court and the same made
the extra-judicial confession, a weak piece of evidence, 0
wholly unreliable and (d) that the circumstance pertaining
to recovery of the weapon (spade) was not credible since
there was incurable discrepancy with regard to the place
of recovery; and further, though the seized earth and the
 weapon (which was found stained with human blood ) E
were sent for examination, the report was silent as
 regards the matching of blood group with that of the
deceased and such lack of corroboration made the said
circumstance hollowed and the judgment of conviction
sensitively vulnerable.
                                                           F
     Inasmuch as the entire case rested on circumstantial
evidence, the question which arose for consideration in
the instant appeal was whether the circumstances of the
case established the guilt of the accused-appellant
 beyond reasonable doubt.                                  G

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
    HELD:

                                                          H
    94       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A Reliability and credibility of the 'last seen' theory as
  propounded by the prosecution.
         1.1. The testimony of PWs-8, 10 and 17 are relevant
    for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion whether the
    circumstance of 'last seen' has been established. PW8,
8
    the father of the deceased, has categorically stated that
    his son had accompanied accused 'J' ['J' was found to
    be a juvenile and accordingly produced before the
    appropriate forum]. There is nothing on record to
    disbelieve the said testimony. As regards the testimony
C   of PW17, the omissions and the improvements
    highlighted are absolutely minor. The only omission is
    that he had not stated that they were going to the field of
    the appellant. As regards the improvement he has made
    that the accused persons had told him why he was
D   speaking ill of them, these aspects do not affect the core
    of the prosecution case. Though the evidence of PW10
    was criticised on the base that he had stated before the
    police that he had seen the accused persons and not
    before anyone else whereas the PW8 had stated the he
E   had said so before him, the aforesaid discrepancy cannot
    be regarded to have created any dent in the prosecution
    story. [Paras 20, 21] [108-G-H; 109-A; 110-E-H; 111-A]
       1.2. As per the material on record, the informant
  (PW8) searched for his son in the village in the late
F evening and next day in the morning, he went to the
  fields and the dead body was found. The post-mortem
  report indicates that the death had occurred within 24
  hours. Thus, the duration is not so long as to defeat or
  frustrate the version of the prosecution. Therefore, there
G can be no trace of doubt that the deceased was last seen
  in the company of the accused persons. [Para 22] [111-
  B-C]
       Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR
  1984 SC 1622: 1985 (1) SCR 88; Padala Veera Reddy v.
H State of Andhra Pradesh and others 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706;
      JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                  95


 Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another v. State of         A
 A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 172: 2006 (3) SCR 348; Ba/winder Singh
.v. State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 607: 1995 (5) Suppl. SCR
 1O; Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra
 AIR 2007 SC 2957: 2007 (9) SCR 562; State of UP. v. Ashok
 Kumar Srivastava AIR 1992 SC 840: 1992 (1) SCR 37; Ram       B
 Singh v. Sonia and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1218: 2007 (2) SCR
 651; Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 90:
 2007 (13) SCR 653; State Rep. by Inspector of Police v.
 Saravanan and anr. AIR 2009 SC 152: 2008 (14) SCR 405
 and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Or.) and others v.        c
 State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657: 2010 (15) SCR 452
 - relied on.

    Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973)
2 SCC 793: 1974 (1) SCR 489 - referred to.
                                                              D
Extra- judicial confession

     2.1. Extra judicial confession, if true and voluntary,
can be relied upon by the court to convict the accused
for the commission of the crime alleged. Despite inherent     E
weakness of extra-judicial confession as an item of
evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown that such
confession was made before a person who has no
reason to state falsely and his evidence is credible. The
evidence in the form of extra-judicial confession made by
the accused before the witness cannot be always termed        F
to be tainted evidence. Corroboration of such evidence
is required only by way of abundant caution. If the court
believes the witness before whom the confession is
made and is satisfied that it was true and voluntarily
made, then the conviction can be founded on such              G
evidence alone. The aspects which have to be taken care
of are the nature of the circumstances, the time when the
confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses
who speak for such a confession. That apart, before
relying on the confession, the court has to be satisfied      H
   96       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2012) 7 S.C.R.


A that it is voluntary and it is not the result of inducement,
  threat or promise as envisaged under Section 24 of the
  Evidence Act or brought about in ·suspicious.
  circumstances to circumvent Sections 25 and 26. [Para
  24) (112-A-E]
B
        2.2. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the
  confession was made before PW14 after 18 days. The
  fact remains that PW14 was not in the village and three
  days after his arrival in the village, the confession was
C made before him. He has clearly deposed that accused
  'J' and appellant had confessed before him a.bout the
  crime and he had produced them before the ASI. True it
  is, he has improved his version in the cross-examination
  that he has strained relationship with the complainant
  which he had not stated in his statement under Section
D 161 Cr.P.C but the same cannot make the testimony
  tainted. Barring that, there is nothing in the cross-
  examination to discredit his testimony. That apart, there
  is no suggestion that he had not produced the appellant
  before the police. There may be some relationship
E between the informant and this witness but the evidence
  is totally clear and the confessional statement is
  voluntary and, in no way, appears to be induced and gets
  further strengthened by the fact that he produced them
  before the police. There is no suggestion whatsoever that
F he had applied any kind of force. It is borne out from that
  record that accused 'BS' had absconded and the
  appellant along with accused 'J' came to PW8 and
  confessed and 'BS' confessed before PW-10. In the
  confessional statement, he has stated about the place
G where the spade was hidden and led to the recovery to
  which PW14 is a witness. Appreciated from these angles,
  it is clear that the said confessional statement inspires
  confidence as the same is totally voluntary and by no
  means tainted. [Para 26] (113-C-H; 114-A]
H
      JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                 97


    Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 2 SCC 205:       A
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 408 and Sahadevan & Another v. State
of Tamil Nadu 2012 AIR sew 3206- relied on.

     Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh
AIR 1954 SC 322; Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1975    B
SC 1320; Narayan Singh v. State of M.P. AIR 1985 SC 1678;
Klshore Chand v. State of H.P. AIR 1990 SC 2140; Ba/dev
Raj v. State of Haryana AIR 1991 SC 37; Sk. Yusuf v. State
of W.B. (2011) 11 SCC 754: 2011 (8) SCR 83 and Pancho
v. State of Haryana (2011) 10 SCC 165: AIR 2012 SC 523:      C
2011 (12) SCR 1173 - referred to.

Recovery of the weapon of offence

     3. In the case at hand, the accused led to recovery
of the spade from the wheat field near the heap of sticks.   o
The disclosure statement has been signed by PW14 and
another witness. The procedure followed for discovery
is absolutely in accord with law and has not been
challenged. The accused persons were arrested after 18
days and recovery was made at that time. The blood stain     E
found on the weapon has been found in the serological
report as human blood. The accused have not given
explanation how human blood could be found on the
spade used for agriculture which was recovered at their
instance. Thus viewed, there is no substantial reason to     F
disbelieve the disclosure statement and the recovery of
the weapon used. The doctor, who conducted the post
mortem, has clearly opined that the injuries on the
person of the deceased could be caused by the weapon
(blade of such spade) and the said opinion has gone
unrebutted. [Paras 27, 28 and 29) [114-8-C; G; 115-8, E-     G
F]

   Sattatiya Alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of
Maharashtra (2008) 3 SCC 21 O: 2007 (11) SCR 238 -
distinguished.                                               H
    98        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A        John Pandian v. State Represented by Inspector of
    Police, Tamil Nadu (2010) 14 SCC 129 - relied on.

       4. Another aspect is to be taken note of. Though the
  incriminating circumstances pointing to the guilt of the
  accused had been put to him, yet he could not give any
8
  explanation under Section 313 CrPC except choosing the
  mode of denial. [Para 30) [115-F-G]

         State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471: 1999
    (5) Suppl. SCR 215 - referred to.
c
       5. The prosecution is not required to meet any and
  every hypothesis put forward by the accused. In the
  instant case, all the three circumstances which have
  been established by the prosecution complete the chain.
0 There can be no trace of doubt that the circumstances
  have been proven beyond reasonable doubt and
  singularly lead to the guilt of the accused persons. There
  is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of
  sentence recorded by the trial court which has been
E affirmed by the High Court. [Paras 31 and 32) [116-0-F]

       Sucha Singh and another v. State of Punjab (2003) 7
    sec 643: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 35 - relied on.
                           Case Law Reference:
F        1985 (1) SCR 88           relied on           Para 13
         1974 (1) SCR 489          referred to         Para 13
         1989 Supp (2) sec 706     relied on           Para 14

G        2006 (3) SCR 348          relied on           Para 14
         1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 10    relied on           Para 15
         2007 (9) SCR 562           relied on          Para 16
         1992 (1) SCR 37            relied on          Para 17
H
      JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                 99

  .2007 (2) SCR 651           relied on         Para 18      A

   2007 (13) SCR 653          relied on         Para 19

   2008 (14) SCR 405          relied on         Para 21

   2010 (15) SCR 452          relied on         Para 21
                                                             B
   2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 408 relied on            Para 24

   AIR 1954 SC 322            referred to       Para 24

   AIR 1975 SC 1320           referred to       Para 24
                                                             c
   AIR 1985 SC 1678           referred to       Para 24

   AIR 1990 SC 2140           referred to       Para 24

   AIR 1991 SC 37             referred to       Para 24
                                                             D
   AIR sew 3206               relied on         Para 25

   2011 (8) SCR 83            referred to       Para 25

   2011 (12) SCR 1173         referred to       Para 25
                                                             E
   2007 (11) SCR 238          distinguished     Para 27

   (2010) 14 sec 129          relied on         Para 28

   1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 215 referred to          Para 30
                                                             F
   2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 35     relied on         Para 31

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 67 of 2008.
                                                             G
    From the Judgment & Order dated 23.11.2005 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
No. 199/DB of 1997.

    Nikhil Goel, Marsook Bafaki (for Sheela Goel) for the
Appellant.                                                   H
    100       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 7 S.C.R.


A         Jayant K. Sud, AAG, Kuldip Singh for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. This appeal preferred by special
    leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India calls in
B   question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
    passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and
    Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 199/DB of 1997 whereby the
    High Court has affirmed the conviction and confirmed the
    sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in
C   Sessions Trial No. 31 of 1992 wherein he had found that the
    appellant along with one Bikkar Singh was guilty of the offences
    punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201
    of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and
    sentenced the accused persons to suffer rigorous imprisonment
D   for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
    fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months
    each on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for three
    years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer further
    rigorous imprisonment for one month each on the second score
E   with the stipulation that both the substantive sentences shall be
    concurrent.

        2. The factual matrix giving rise to the trial is that about 3.15
  p.m. on 2.4.1991, when Sukhdev Singh, PW-8, was feeding
  fodder to his cattle at his house, accused Jagsir Singh came
F to his house and asked his son, Jagjit Singh @ Jagga, to
  accompany him for plucking flowers from the field. Jagjit Singh,
  a 10 year old boy, accompanied him. As the boy did not return
  home till evening, the complainant went to the house of Jagroop
  Singh, Uncle of Jagsir Singh, to enquire about his son. As the
G doors were not opened and there was no response he
  searched for his son in the village but could not find him. On
  the next day, in the morning he proceeded with the co-villagers
  to search for the boy in the fields. After he reached the fields
  of Santosh Singh, he found some freshly dug earth near a heap
H of sticks. Being suspicious, all of them dug outthe earth and
      JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                   101
              [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
found the dead body of Jagjit Singh lying buried over there A
having injury marks on the head. Sukhdev Singh left his brother
Gurmail Singh there for guarding the body and proceeded
towards the police station. On the way near the bus stand he
met ASI Surjit Singh who recorded his statement and
accompanied him to the fields of Jagroop Singh. The B
investigating officer prepared the inquest report, recovered the
blood stained weapon of offence and sample of earth smeared
with blood, prepared two distinct sealed parcels thereof,
Exhibits P-1 and P-2, and sent the dead body for post mortem.
In the FIR, it was stated that the deceased had been murdered c
by Jagsir Singh with the aid and assistance of other persons
and they had buried the dead body.

     3. As the factual narration would reveal, on 21.4.1992,
Jagroop Singh and Jagsir Singh made an extra judicial
confession before Natha Singh, PW 14, and accused Bikkar D
Singh made an extra-judicial confession before Zora Singh,
P\~-2. and both Natha Singh and Zora Singh produced the
accused persons before the police. After being arrested, they
led to the 01scovery of one 'Kassi' (spade) which was buried
under the ground near the place wherefrom the dead body was E
recovered. The seized weapon was sent for chemical analysis
examination in the forensic science laboratory and after
completing the investigation, the investigating officer placed the
charge-sheet before the concerned Magistrate, who committed
the matter to the Court of Session for trial of offences under F
Section 302 read with Section 34 and 201 of IPC. Be it noted,
in the course of investigation, it was found that Jagsir Singh
was a juvenile and was produced before the appropriate forum
at Bhatinda.
                                                                G
    4. Both the accused persons denied the charge and
pleaded false implication due to animosity.

    5. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined Dr.
Devinder Mittal, the autopsy surgeon as PW-1, Zora Singh,
PW-2, Sukhdev Singh, PW-8, Gurdev Singh, PW-10, Natha H
    102       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A   Singh, PW-14, Balwinder Singh, PW-17 and ASI Surjit Singh,
    PW-18, as principal witnesses. The rest of the witnesses are
    formal witnesses. The reports of the Forensic Science
    Laboratory and many other documents were brought on record
    and marked as exhibits.
B
          6. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence.

          7. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence
    brought on record, came to hold that the death of the deceased
    Jagjit Singh was homicidal in nature; that the deceased was
C   last seen with the accused persons; that the accused had made
    extra-judicial confessions admitting the guilt; that the dead body
    of the deceased was recovered from the field of the father of
    accused Jagroop Singh; that the weapon used in the crime was
    recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by
D   accused Jagroop Singh; that as per the report of Forensic
    Science Laboratory, the weapon used, spade, was found
    stained with human blood; and that the doctor who had
    conducted the post mortem had clearly stated that the injuries
    found on the body of the deceased could be caused by the
E   seized weapon. On the aforesaid basis, he came to hold that
    the prosecution had been able to prove the case against the
    accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly
    recorded the conviction and imposed the sentence.

F        8. On an appeal being preferred, the High Court
    reappreciated the evidence and came to hold that the
    circumstantial evidence from all spectrums led to the only
    conclusion that the accused persons had committed the crime
    and concurred with the view expressed by the learned trial
G   Judge.

        9. We have heard Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel for the
    appellant, and Mr. Jayant K. Sood, learned Additional Advocate
    General for the respondent-State.

H
      JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                      103
              [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
     10. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the      A
following contentions: -

     (a)   The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court
           has not appreciated the evidence brought on record
           in proper perspective keeping in view the
                                                                   8
           parameters laid down by this Court in various
           authorities relating to restriction of conviction on
           circumstantial evidence and hence, the judgments
           are unsustainable in law.

     (b)   The circumstances which have weighed with the           C
           Courts, namely, last seen with the deceased, the
           extra-judicial confession made by the accused
           before Zora Singh, PW-2, and Natha Singh, PW-
           14, and recovery of spade and body of the
           deceased near the field of the father of the accused-   D
           appellant at his instance are unacceptable
           inasmuch as the testimony of witnesses are replete
           with    improvement,        embellishment and
           contradiction.
                                                                   E
     (c)   The time gap between the point of time when the
           accused was last seen with the deceased and
           when the deceased was found dead is of long
           duration and, therefore, the said circumstance is to
           be ignored.
                                                                   F
     (d)   The reliance on extra-judicial confession before
           Zora Singh, PW-2 and Natha Singh, PW-14 is
           unacceptable inasmuch as the confession was
           made after 18 days which makes it absolutely
           dented. There is no earthly reason that the appellant   G
           would confess before Zora Singh, PW-2, since
           there was prior enmity between the informant and
           the appellant and Zora Singh, PW-2, is a close
           relation of the father of the deceased. That apart,
           there are improvements in the course of                 H
    104          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012) 7 S.C.R.


A                 examination in court and the same makes the extra-
                  j ud icial confession, a weak piece of evidence,
                  wholly unreliable.

          (e)     The circumstance pertaining to recovery of the
                  weapon is not to be given any credence. There is
B
                  incurable discrepancy with regard to the place of
                  recovery. Further, though the seized earth and the
                  weapon were sent for examination, the report is
                  silent as regards the matching of blood group with
                  that of the deceased and such lack of corroboration
c                 makes the said circumstance hollowed and that
                  makes the judgment of conviction sensitively
                  vulnerable.

       11. The learned counsel for the respondent combated the
D aforesaid proponements. The learned counsel has advanced
  the following submissions:-

          (i)     The attack on the last seen circumstance on the
                  foundation that there is a long duration between the
                  last seen and when the dead body was found is
E
                  totally untenable inasmuch as the opinion in the post
                  mortem report is that the death had occurred within
                  twenty four hours. That apart, the testimony of PW
                  10 and 17 is unimpeachable since they have stood
                  embedded in their stand.
F
          (ii)    The circumstance of extra-judicial confession
                  cannot be disregarded despite some
                  improvements in the version of Natha Singh, PW
                  14, as there is no suggestion that his version is
G                 tainted. Quite apart from that, after abscondance of
                  the accused Bikkar Singh, he came and confessed
                  before Zora Singh and the present appellant along
                  with Jagsir Singh before Natha Singh who
                  produced them before the Police and there is
H                 nothing on record to state that either Zora Singh,
         JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                       105
                 [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
                PW-2, or Natha Singh, PW-14, applied any force.        A

        (iii)   There is no reason to doubt the disclosure
                statement and leading to recovery on the ground
                that the weapon was recovered in the nearby field
                but not in the field of the appellant and there has    B
                been no matching of blood stains with that of the
                appellant's blood.

        (iv)    Both the High Court and the trial court have kept
                themselves alive to the parameters of
                circumstances and there can be no trace of doubt       C
                that all the circumstances cumulatively prove the
                guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for
                there are no such flaws which would compel a court
                of law to disregard the vital circumstance and
                entertain pleas artificially grafted by imagination.   D

     12. As is evincible, the entire case rests on circumstantial
evidence. Before we analyse and appreciate the
circumstances that have weighed with the trial Court and the
High Court, we think it apposite to refer to certain authorities
                                                                       E
pertaining to delineation of cases that hinge on circumstantial
evidence.

     13. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra 1, a three-Judge Bench has laid down five golden
principles which constitute the "panchsheel" in respect of a           F
case based on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the
decision in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 2,
it was opined that it is a primary principle that the accused must
be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and
the mental distance between ·may be' and ·must be' is long and         G
divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. Thereafter,
the Bench proceeded to lay down that the facts so established
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
1.   AIR 1984 SC 1622
2.   AIR 1973 SC 2622 = (1973) 2 sec 793.                              H
    106        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any
  other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; that the
  circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
  that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
  one to be proved; and that there must be a chain of evidence
B so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
  conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and
  must show that in all human probability the act must have been
  done by the accused."

       14. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
C and others 3, this Court held that when a case rests upon
  circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be satisfied:
  (SCC pp. 710-11, para 10)

          "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
D         sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
          established;

          (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
          unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
E         (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a
          chain so complete that there is no escape from the
          conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
          committed by the accused and none else; and

F         (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
          conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation
          of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused
          and such evidence should not only be consistent with the
          guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his
G         innocence."
    The similar view has been reiterated in Ramreddy Rajesh
    Khanna Reddy and another v. State of A.P. 4 •

    3.   1989 supp (2) sec 706 : 1991 sec (CRI) 407.
H   4.   c2006) 10 sec 172.
        JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                      107
                [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
      15. In Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab 5, it has been laid   A
down that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances
must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the
crime. All the links in the chain of events must be established
beyond reasonable doubt and the established circumstances             B
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case
based on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be on its
guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the
place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger       C
of being swayed by emotional considerations, however strong
they may be, to take the place of proof.

      16. In Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of
Maharashtra 6, while dealing with the validity of inferences to be
drawn from circumstantial evidence, it has been emphasised            D
that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence,
the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the
incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of
any other person and further the circumstances from which an          E
inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be
closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred
from those circumstances.
                                                                      F
     17. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 7, emphasis
has been laid that it is the duty of the Court to take care while
evaluating circumstantial evidence. If the evidence adduced by
the prosecution is reasonably capable of two inferences, the
one in favour of the accused must be accepted. That apart, the
circumstances relied upon must be established and the                 G
cumulative effect of the established facts must lead to a
5.   AIR 1996 SC 607.
6.   AIR 2007 SC 2957.
7.   AIR 1992 sew 640 =AIR 1992 SC 840.                               H
    108        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A singular hypothesis that the accused is guilty.

          18. In Ram Singh v. Sonia and Ors. 8 , while referring to
  the settled proof pertaining to circumstantial evidence, this
  Court reiterated the principles about the caution to be kept in
  mind by Court. It has been stated therein that in a case
B depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is
  always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place
  of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various
  circumstances in the chain of events have been established
  clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as
C to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the
  accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link
  goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other
  circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of the
  accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
D
       19. In Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab 9, after referring to
  the aforesaid principles pertaining to the evaluation of
  circumstantial evidence, this Court stated that it must
  nonetheless be emphasised that whether a chain is complete
E or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating from
  the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be
  attempted.

       20. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we shall
  presently proceed to scrutinize and evaluate the circumstances
F whether the said circumstances establish the guilt of the
  accused beyond reasonable doubt. First, we shall advert to the
  reliability and credibility of the 'last seen' theory as propounded
  by the prosecution. The testimony of PWs-8, 10 and 17 are
  relevant to be seen for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion
G whether the circumstance of 'last seen' has been established.
  PW-8 is the father of the deceased. He has stated that Jagsir
  Singh, who was residing with Jagroop Singh, his maternal

    8.   AIR 2007 SC 1218.
H   9.   (2007) 13 sec 90.
       JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     109
               (DIPAK MISRA, J.]
uncle, came to his house and asked Jagjit Singh to accompany        A
him to pluck Genda (marigold) flowers in the field. Jagjit
accompanied him. PW-10, Gurdev Singh, has deposed that
about 4.00 p.m. when he was going from village Jita Singh
Wala to village Mari Mustafa to see his daughter, near a turning
outside village Jita Singh Wala, he found that Roop Singh,          B
Bikkar Singh and Jagsir Singh along with deceased Jagjit
Singh were proceeding towards the fields. In the cross-
examination, he has stated that the road by which the three
accused were taking the deceased was known to him as he
had earlier gone on that passage and at that time he did not        c
suspect anything. The learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that there is a material contradiction in the statement
of Gurdev Singh, PW-10, and that of Sukhdev Singh, PW-8,
inasmuch as Gurdev Singh had stated that for the first time he
made a disclosure about seeing the deceased in the company          0
of the accused persons whereas Sukhdev Singh had stated that
while he was searching for Jagjit Singh, Gurdev Singh told him
that he had seen the accused going together with the deceased.
Keeping the appreciation and analysis of this evidence in
abeyance, it is apt to scan the testimony of PW-17. Balwinder
Singh, PW-17, has testified that on 2.4.1991, about 4.00 p.m.,      E
he was going to the bus-stand of village Katia Raika. When he
reached the house of Jagroop Singh, he saw all the three
accused along with the deceased going towards the field of
Jagroop Singh who was carrying a spade with him. He had
enquired from Jagjit Singh why he was accompanying the              F
accused with whom they were not on good terms, to which he
replied that he had no hostility with his companions and he was
going to pluck the flowers. Thereafter, Jagroop Singh told why
he was talking ill of them. The learned counsel for the appellant
has criticised the evidence of this witness on the ground that      G
he has been convicted of murder of the appellant's brother and
he had made two improvements in his statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as when he has deposed,
he had stated before the police that the accused and deceased
were going towards the field of Jagroop Singh and further he        H
    110       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   has stated before the police that the accused had told him why
    he was talking ill.

          21. The contention of the learn~d counsel for the appellant
    basically is that there are omissions and improvements in the
    versions of the witnesses and of such magnitude that they
8
    affect the prosecution case. In State Rep. by Inspector of Police
    v. Saravanan and anr. 10, it has been stated that the
    contradictions/omissions must be of such nature which
    materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies,
C   embellishments or improvements which do not affect the core
    of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject
    the evidence of the witness in entirety. In Sunil Kumar
    Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others v. State of
    Maharashtra 11 , it has been laid down that the omissions which
    amount to contradictions in material particulars, i.e., go to the
D   root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the
    prosecution case, render the testimony of the witness liable to
    be discredited. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, when
    the evidence of these three witnesses are scrutinized, we find
    that PW 8, the father of the deceased, has categorically stated
E   that his son had accompanied the accused Jagsir. There is
    nothing on record to disbelieve the said testimony. As regards
    the testimony of PW-17, the omissions and the improvements
    which have been highlighted are absolutely minor. In fact, to
    appreciate the same, we have anxiously perused the statement
F   recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the deposition
    in Court. We find that this witness has clearly stated that all of
    them were going towards the field. The only omission is that
    he had not stated that they were going to the field of Jagroop.
    As regards the improvement he has made that the accused
G   persons had told him why he was speaking ill of them, in our
    considered view, these aspects do not affect the core of the
    prosecution case. The evidence of PW-10, Gurdev Singh, is
    criticised on the base that he had stated before the police that
    10. AIR 2009 SC 152.
H 11. (2010) 12 sec 657.
       JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                       111
               [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
he had seen the accused persons and not before anyone else           A
whereas the complainant had stated the he had said so before
him. The aforesaid discrepancy cannot be regarded to have
created any dent in the prosecution story.

      22. Quite apart from the above, what is argued is that there
                                                                     8
is a long gap between the last seen and recovery of the dead
body of the deceased. As per the material on record, the
informant searched for his son in the village in the late evening
and next day in the morning, he went to the fields and the dead
body was found. The post-mortem report indicates that the
death had occurred within 24 hours. Thus, the duration is not        C
so long as to defeat or frustrate the version of the prosecution.
Therefore, there can be no trace of doubt that the deceased
was last seen in the company of the accused persons.

     23. The second circumstance pertains to extra- judicial         D
confession. Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the appellant, has
vehemently criticized the extra-judicial confession on the ground
that such confession was made after 18 days of the
occurrence. That apart, it is submitted that the father of Natha
Singh and grand-father of the deceased are real brothers and,        E
therefore, he is an interested witness and to overcome the
same, he has deposed in Court that he has strained
relationship with the informant, though he had not stated so in
the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC.

     24. The issue that emanates for appreciation is whether         F
such confessional statement should be given any credence or
thrown overboard. In this context, we may refer with profit to
the authority in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan 12 wherein,
after referring to the decisions in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v.
State of Vindhya Pradesh 13, Maghar Singh v. State of G
Punjab 14, Narayan Siingh V. State of M.P. 15, Kishore Chand
12. (2001) 2 sec 205.
13. AIR 1954 SC 322.
14. AIR 1975 SC 1320
15. AIR 1985 SC 1678.                                                H
    112       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   v. State of H.P. 16 and Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana 17, it has
    been opined that it is the settled position of law that extra
    judicial confession, if true and voluntary, can be relied upon by
    the court to convict the accused for the commission of the crime
    alleged. Despite inherent weakness of extra-judicial confession
B as an item of evidence, it·cannot be ignored when shown that
    such confession was made before a person who has no reason
    to state falsely and his evidence is credible. The evidence in
  . the form of extra-judicial confession made by the accused
    before the witness cannot be always termed to be tainted
c evidence. Corroboration of such evidence is required only by
    way of abundant caution. If the court believes the witness before
    whom the confession is made and is satisfied that it was true
    and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on
    such evidence alone. The aspects which have to be taken care
0 of are the nature of the circumstances, the time when the
    confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who
    speak for such a confession. That apart, before relying on the
    confession, the court has to be satisfied that it is voluntary and
    it is not the result of inducement, threat or promise as envisaged
E under Section 24 of the Act or brought about in suspicious
    circumstances to circumvent Sections 25 and 26.

         25. Recently, in Sahadevan & Another v. State of Tamil
    Nadu 18, after referring to the rulings in Sk. Yusuf v. State of
     W.8. 19 and Pancho v. State of Haryana 20, a two-Judge Bench
F   has laid down that the extra-judicial confession is a weak
    evidence by itself and it has to be examined by the court with
    greater care and caution; that it should be made voluntarily and
    should be truthful; that it should inspire confidence; that an extra-
    judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary
G
    16. AIR 1990 SC 2140.
    17. AIR 1991 SC 37.
    1a. 2012 AIR sew 3206.
    19. c2011) 11 sec 754.
H   20. (2011) 10 sec 165 : AIR 201,2 SC 523.
       JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     113
               [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and    A
is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence; that for
an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it
should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent
improbabilities; and that such statement essentially has to be
proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.             B

     26. Keeping in view the aforesaid parameters, the criticism
advanced against the evidence of Natha Singh, PW-14, and
acceptance thereof have to appreciated. There is no dispute
that the confession was made before Natha Singh after 18           C
days. The fact remains that Natha Singh was not in the village
and three days after his arrival in the village, the confession
was made before him. He has clearly deposed that Jagsir
Singh and Roop Singh alias Jagroop Singh had confessed
before him. The appellant Jagroop Singh had confessed about
the crime and he had produced them before the ASI. True it
                                                                   0
is, he has improved his version in the cross-examination that
he has strained relationship with the complainant which he had
not stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C but the
same cannot make the testimony tainted. Barring that, there
is nothing in the cross-examination to discredit his testimony.    E
That apart, there is no suggestion that he had not produced
the appellant before the police. There may be some
relationship between the informant and this witness but the
evidence is totally clear and the confessional statement is
voluntary and, in no way, appears to be induced and gets           F
further strengthened by the fact that he produced them before
the police. There is no suggestion whatsoever that he had
applied any kind of force. It is borne out from that record that
Bikkar Singh, another accused, had absconded and the
present appellant along with Jagsir Singh came to Natha Singh      G
and confessed and Bikkar Singh confessed before Gurdev
Singh, PW-10. In the confessional statement, he has stated
about the place where the spade was hidden and led to the
recovery to which Natha Singh is a witness. Appreciated from
these angles, we are of the considered opinion that the said       H
    114       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   confessional statement inspires confidence as the same is
    totally voluntary and by no means tainted.

         27. The next circumstance is leading to recovery of the
    weapon as is seen from the evidence. The accused led to
    recovery of the spade from the wheat field near the heap of
8
    sticks. The disclosure statement has been signed by Natha
    Singh and another witness, namely, Lal Chand. The procedure
    followed for discovery is absolutely in accord with law and has
    not been challenged. The learned counsel for the appellant has
    submitted that the recovery of the weapon does not aid and
C   assist the prosecution version. It is urged that though human
    blood is found on the spade, yet the blood group was not
    matched. In support of the said stand, he has commended us
    to the decision in Sattatiya Alias Satish Rajanna Karla/la   v,
    State of Maharashtra 21 • In the said case, the occurrence hacf
D   taken place on 1.10.1994 and the accused was arrested on
    3.10.1994. He had led to recovery of his blood stained clothes
    and that of the deceased and the weapon used in the crime
    and all the articles were sent for chemical examination. The
    clothes of the deceased were found having human blood of 'O'
E   group. It was contended that the blood group was not matched.
    This Court did not believe the recovery of the weapon due to
    various reasons. Further, it opined that though blood stains
    were found on the clothes and the weapon used, yet the same
    could not be linked with the blood of the deceased, and,
F   therefore, there was serious lacuna that the human blood stains
    present on the clothes of the accused and the weapon were
    sufficient to link the accused with the murder.

         28. In the case at hand, the accused persons were arrested
G   after 18 days and recovery was made at that time. The blood
    stain found on the weapon has been found in the serological
    report as human blood. In the case of Sattatiya (supra), the
    recovery was doubted and additionally, non-matching of blood
    group was treated to be a lacuna. It is worth noting that the

H   21. c2ooa) 3 sec 21 o.
       JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     115
               [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
clothes and the weapon were sent immediately for chemical          A
examination. Here the weapon was sent after 18 days as the
recovery was made after that period. The accused tiave not
given explanation how human blood could be found on the
spade used for agriculture which was recovered at their
instance. In this context, we may profitably reproduce a           B
passage from John Pandian v. State Represented by
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu 22 :-

     "The discovery appears to be credible. It has been
     accepted by both the courts below and we find no reason
     to discard it. This is apart from the fact that this weapon   C
     was sent to the forensic science laboratory (FSL) and it
     has been found stained with human blood. Though the
     blood group could not be ascertained, as the results were
     inconclusive, the accused had to give some explanation
     as to how the human blood came on this weapon. He gave        D
     none. This discovery would very positively further the
     prosecution case."

     29. Thus viewed, we do not find any substantial reason to
disbelieve the disclosure statement and the recovery of the        E
weapon used. It is apt to mention here that the doctor, who has
conducted the post mortem, has clearly opined that the injuries
on the person of the deceased could be caused by the weapon
(blade of such spade) and the said opinion has gone
unrebutted.                                                        F
     30. Another aspect is to be taken note of. Though the
incriminating circumstances which point to the guilt of the
accused had been put to the accused, yet he could not give
any explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure except choosing the mode of denial. In State of          G
Maharashtra v. Suresh 23, it has been held that when the
attention of the accused is drawn to such circumstances that

22. c2010) 14 sec 129.
23. c2000) 1 sec 471.                                              H
    116       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   inculpated him in the crime and he fails to offer appropriate
    explanation or gives a false answer, the same can be counted
    as providing a missing link for completing the chain of
    circumstances. We may hasten to add that we have referred
    to the said decision only to highlight that the accused has not
8   given any explanation whatsoever as regards the
    circumstances put to him under Section 313 of the Code of
    Criminal Procedure.

       31. From the aforesaid analysis, we are of the convinced
  opinion that all the three circumstances which have been
C established by the prosecution complete the chain. There can
  be no trace of doubt that the circumstances have been proven
  beyond reasonable doubt. It is worthy to remember that in
  Sucha Singh and another v. State of Punjab 24, it has been
  stated that the prosecution is not required to meet any and
D every hypothesis put forward by the accused. A reasonable
  doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but
  a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must
  grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved
  perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some
E inevitable flaws because human beings are prone to err, it is
  argued that it is too imperfect. The present case is one where
  there is no trace of doubt that all circumstances complete the
  chain and singularly lead to the guilt of the accused persons.

F        32. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons, we do not
    find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of
    sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge which has been
    affirmed by the High Court and, accordingly, the appeal, being
    devoid of substance, stands dismissed.

G 8.8.8.                                       Appeal dismissed.




H   24. (2003) 7 sec 643.