MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P.

                    [2010) 2 S.C.R. 119


      MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR.                         A
                              v.
                      STATE OF M.P.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2005)

                    JANUARY 28, 2010
                                                                 B
   [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860 - s. 30211208 - Arms Act, 1959 - ss.
 25(1)(b)(a) and 27 - Murder of deceased by fire shots - A-4
 and A-5 engaged on payment by A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-6 for         C
killing deceased - Conviction of A-4 and A-5 u/s. 30211208
and ss. 25(1)(b)(a) and 27 and sentenced to death -
 Conviction of A-1, A-2, A-6 u/s. 30211208 and sentenced to·
life imprisonment - High Court upheld death sentence
against A-4 and A-5 but acquitted A-1, A-2 and A-6 - On          D
appeal held: Circumstantial evidence against A-4 and A-5 did
not constitute a complete chain which is consistent with their
guilt - Identification by PW 4 in T.I. parade cannot be relied
upon as his presence at the place of occurrence doubtful -
Discrepancy between the versions of witnesses identifying        E
and persons conducting T.I. Parade - Delay in holding T.I.
Parade of A-5 - PW 3 having a little chance of seeing A-4
and A-5 - No relevancy of evidence of finger print expert on
the car - Also discovery of weapon not relevant - Thus, order
of High Court as regard A-4 and A-5 set aside and that of A-     F
1, A-2 and A-6 upheld - Evidence.

     According to the prosecution case, A-1, A2, A3 and
A-6 engaged A-4 and A-5 on payment, for killing the
deceased MB. A-4 and A-5 shot the deceased from a
close range. Before the incident A-4 and A-5 were seen           G
in the company of A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6 and A-7. Thereafter,
the PWs.3 and 4 saw the accused going away from the
scene of occurrence on a scooter along with A-7 who is
absconding. Trial court convicted A-4 and A-5 uls. 3021
                            119                                  H
    120     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A   1208 IPC read with ss. 25(1)(b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act
    and awarded death penalty. A-1, A-2 and A-6 were
    convicted u/s. 302/1208 and sentenced to life
    imprisonment. A-3 was acquitted and A-7 being an
    absconder, trial against him did not commence. High
s   Court upheld the death sentence against A-4 and A-5 but
    set aside the conviction of the. A-1, A-2 and A-6. Hence
    the present appeals.

      Allowing the _appeals by A-4 and A-5 and dismissing
C the appeals by the State, the Court

       HELD: 1. The so called circumstantial evidence
  against A-4 and A-5 does not constitute a complete chain
  which is consistent with the guilt of A-4 and A-5 and
  incompatible with their innocence. Considering the facts
D of the case and also going by the test of appreciation of
  circumstantial evidence, the benefit of doubt is to be
  extended to A-4 and A-5 and the judgment and order of
  conviction of A-4 and A-5 u/ss. 302/120-8 l.P.C read with
  ss. 25(1)(a)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained
E and consequently the death sentence awarded to them
  by the High Court is set aside. [Paras 58 and 71] [143-8-
  D; 146-8]

       2.1. On an analysis of the evidence of PW-3 and PW-
  4, the presence of PW-4 in the place of occurrence is very
F doubtful. PW-4's evidence is that he was coming to meet
  the deceased. They were known to each other for the last
  20 years and PW-4 had very good friendly relations with
  the deceased. PW-3 is a close relation of the deceased
  and lives in the same apartment where the deceased
G stayed. PW-4 also admitted that he knows PW-3. From
  the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, it is clear that they were
  present at the place of occurrence at the same time.
  [Paras 14 and 15] [132-8-D]

H         2~2. On reading the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 it
   MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR. v.                121
               STATE OF M.P.
 would appear that one is totally insulated from the other     A
  as if they are strangers and reside in different islands.
 This is totally improbable. In the appreciation of evidence
 neither the High Court nor the trial court considered this
 glaring improbability in the prosecution case. Taking into
 account the factual background, it is very doubtful           B
 whether PW-4 was at all present at the place of
 occurrence having regard to the evidence of PW-3.
 Regarding assessment of the evidence of identification
 of the accused persons by PW-3 and PW-4, the
 identification by PW-4 cannot be relied upon at all. [Paras   c
 19, 20 and 21] [133-D-H]

        2.3. It is the prosecution case that A-4 and A-5 are
  hired criminals and are not persons of the locality. The
  prosecution has also not claimed that A-4 and A-5 were
  known to PW-3 from before. From the evidence of PW-3 D
  it is clear that PW-3 only had a fleeting chance of seeing
  A-4, A-5 and A-7 when they were obviously in a hurry to
· board the scooter and escape from the scene. Assuming
  that there was street light, as is t_he claim of the
  prosecution, it is obvious the accused persons were E
  fleeing from the place of occurrence on the scooter..
  Therefore, excepting a fleeting glance PW-3 had very little
  chance of seeing A-4, A-5 and A-7. [Para 23] [134-8-D]

     2.4. The evidence of PW-3 that A-4, who was driving       F
the scooter, was repeatedty looking back is highly
improbable. PW-3 is a highly interested witness, being a
very close relative of the deceased. That by itself, is not
a ground to discard his evidence. But it is a golden rule
that in such a situation, the evidence of PW-3 has to be       G
weighed very carefully and cautiously before accepting
the same. [Paras 24, 25 and 26] [134-D; 135-A-B]

    3.1. Identification test is not substantive evidence.
Such tests are meant for the purpose of helping the
investigating agency with an assurance that their              H
    122    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A . progress with the investigation into the offence is
    proceeding on right lines. It can only be used in
    corroboration of the statements in Court. [Paras 27 and
    28] [135-C-D]

B        Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs. The State of Uttar
    Pradesh 1971 (2) SCC 75; Santokh Singh vs. fzhar Hussain
    and Anr. (1973) 2 SCC 406; Amitsingh Bhikam Singh Thakur
    vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 SCC 310, relied on.

 ,      3.2. In the instant case, A-4 was apprehended on
C 05.12.2000 and was arrested on 06.12.2000 and the
   identification parade was held on 10.12.2000. It is admitted
   that A-4 was kept in open police custody for all these
   days, prior to his identification. About the identification
   by him PW-3 deposed that he recognized all the three
D persons in Court even though the fact remains that out
   of the three accused persons A-7 absconded and never
                                                             1
   faced trial. This is a clear discrepancy in the evidence of
   PW-3 about identification. It is an admitted position that
   A-4 is bald but in his evidence PW-3 admitted that during
E investigation the heads of none of the persons were
   covered. Though in his evidence PW-3 has said that the
   persons were covered with a blanket upto the neck but
   PW-12, who held the identification parade, in his cross
   examination admitted that there is no reference of blanket
F in the reports of T.I. parade of A-4 and A-5 respectively.
   This is a vital contradiction between the versions of
   witnesses identifying and the person conducting the T.I.
   Parade. [Para 31] [136-A-E]

       4. Delay in holding the T.I. parade by itself throws a
G doubt on the genuineness of such identification and it is
  difficult to remember the facial expression of the accused
  persons after such a long gap in the facts of the instant
  case. Therefore, the alleged identification of A-5 after a
  gap of two months throws a doubt on the genuineness
H
  MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR. v.                   123
              STATE OF M.P.
of such identification especially when PW-3 had very little      A
chance to see either A-4 or A-5. No reliance ought to have
been placed by the courts below or High Court on such
delayed T.I. parade for which there is no explanation by
the prosecution. [Paras 32 and 37] [136-F-G; 138-A-B]
                                                                 B
      Soni vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 3 SCC 368, relied
on.

      Pramod Manda/ vs. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 150,
distinguished.
                                                                 c
     5.1. The evidence of finger print expert falls under the
category of expert evidence u/s. 45 of the Evidence Act,
1872. Under the Act, the word 'admissibility' has very
rarely been used. The emphasis is on relevant facts. In a
way relevancy and admissibility have been virtually              o
equated under the Act. But one thing is clear that
evidence of finger print expert is not substantive
evidence. Such evidence can only be used to corroborate
some items of substantive evidence which are otherwise
on record. [Paras 38 and 39] [138-C-E]                           E

     5.2. It is nowhere alleged by the prosecution that
there was any altercation between the deceased and the
accused persons at the scene of occurrence. There is no
whisper of any evidence that accused persons had any
physical contact with the deceased or chased the                 F
deceased or dragged the deceased out of the car. The
evidence is only of hearing shots of fire arm and that the
deceased was fired from a point blank range and he
immediately fell down and in such a way as his body was
half inside the car and half outside the same. Therefore,        G
there is no prosecution evidence to the effect that A-4 and
A-5 had any occasion to touch the car and that too with
the ring finger. It is obvious that the accused, being hired
criminals, according to the prosecution, must be busy in
escaping from the scene of occurrence after the                  H
   124     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A deceased had been shot from the point blank range and
  immediately the deceased fell down. There is no evidence
  of the deceased running away from his assailants or
  offering any resistance. Having' regard to this state of
  evidence, the evidence of finger print on the car ceases
B to have any relevance. [Paras 43 anit 44] [139-A-E]

        5.3. PW-23-finger print expert, did not give any
  evidence of finger print on the alleged weapon of offence
  which was discovered pursuant to the statement of
  accused persons u/s. 27 of the Act. Therefore, in the facts
C of the case and in view of the prosecution evidence, the
  evidence of finger print expert does help the prosecutio'l'.
  Even if the evidence of finger print expert on the scooter
  is accepted, that by itself does not prove anything. If
  certain persons are riding on the scooter, it may have the
D finger prints of the person who is riding the scooter. That
  t>y itself does not connect the persons with the crime.
  [Para 45] [139-E-G]

        6.1. In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must
E look for complete chain of circumstances and not on
    snapped and scattered links which do not make a
    complete sequence. The instant case is entirely based on
    circumstantial      evidenc~.    While     appreciating
    circums~antial evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious
F approach as circumstantial evidence is 'inferential
 , evidence' and proof in such a case is derivable by
  'inference from circurristances. [Paras 46 and 47] [139-G-
    H;;140-A-B]

        6.2. Certain rules have been judicially evolved for
G appreciation of circumstantial evidence. The firs~ rule is
   that the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference
   from circumstantial evidence must be clearly proved
   beyond any reasonable doubt. If conviction rests solely
 . on circumstantial evidence, it must create a network from
H which there is no escape for the accused. The facts
   MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR. v.                 125
               STATE OF M.P.

 evolving out of such circumstantial evidence must be           A
 such as not to admit of any inference except that of guilt
 of the accused. The second principle is that all the links
 in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond
 reasonable doubt and they must exclude the evidence of
 guilt of any other person than the accused. When in a          B
 criminal case there is conflict between presumption of
 inn~cence and any other presumption, the former must
 prevail. The next principle is that, in order to justify the
 inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be
 incompatible with the innocence of the accused and is          c
 incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable
 hypothesis except his guilt. [Paras 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52]
 [140-0-G; 141-A-B]

    Raghav Prapanna Tripathi and others vs. State of U.P.
AIR 1963 SC 74; State of UP vs. Ravindra Prakash Mittal         D
1992 Crl.L.J 3693(SC); Govinda Reddy vs. State of Mysore
AIR 1960 SC 29; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and anr. vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Mohan Lal
Pangasa vs. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 1144, relied on.
                                                                E
   Ashraf Ali vs. Emperor 43 Indian Cases 241; Nibaran
Chandra Roy vs. King Emperor 11 CWN 1085, referred to.

     6.3. A3 was acquitted by the trial court and also by
the High Court. The State appeal against the same has
already been dismissed by this Court. The State also            F
filed an appeal against the order of acquittal by the High
Court in respect of A1, A2 and A6. While acquitting A1,
A2, and A6, the High Court has taken a plausible view.
This Court in exercise of its juris~iction under Article 136
is not inclined to take a different view. [Para 56] [142-C-     G
E]

     State of Haryana vs: 'Krishan (2008) 15 SCC 208; State
·of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Swarna/atha and others (2009) 8
 sec 383 - relied on.                                           H
    126     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [201 O] 2 S.C.R.


A      6.4. As a result of acquittal of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-6,
  the conspiracy theory of the prosecution in this case fails.
  A substantial part of the prosecution case has not been
  accepted on valid grounds either by the High Court or by
  this Court. Thus, a very vital part of the prosecution case
B is finally knocked off. As the prosecution fails to prove
  its case of conspiracy, the motive angle behind the
  alleged crime committed by A-4 and A-5 disappears. The
  prosecution case is that A-4 and A-5 are hired criminals
  and were engaged on payment by A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-6
c for killing the deceased. The acquittal of A-1, A-2, A-3 and
  A-6 which is upheld, casts a serious doubt on the entire
  prosecution and its case against A-4 and A-5 suffers a
  serious set back. (Para 57] (142-G-H; 143-A-B]

         7.1. Reliability of the materials discovered pursuant
D   to the facts deposed by the accused in police custody
    depends on the facts of each case. If the discovery is
    otherwise reliable, its evidentiary value is not diluted just
    by reason of non-compliance with the provision of s.
    100(4) or s. 100(5) of Cr.P .C. The reason is that s. 100 falls
E   under Chapter VII of the Code which deals with
    processes initiated to compel the production of things on
    a search. Therefore, the entire gamut of proceedings
    under Chapter VII of the Code is based on compulsion
    whereas the very basis of facts deposed by an accused
F   in custody is voluntary and pursuant thereto discovery
    takes place. Thus, they operate in totally different
    situations. Therefore, the safeguards in search
    proceedings based on compulsion cannot be read into
    discovery on the basis of facts voluntarily deposed.
G   (Paras 65 and 66] [144-F-H; 145-A-B]

      State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Sunil and another (2001)
  1 SCC 652; The Transport Commissioner, A.P., Hyderabad
  and another vs. S. Sardar Ali, Bus Owner, Hyderabad and 41
H others (1983) 4 sec 245, relied on.
     MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR. v.                  127
                 STATE OF M.P.
     7 .2. Section 27 starts with the word 'provided'.             A
Therefore, it is a proviso by way of an exception to ss.
25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. If the facts deposed u/s.
27 are not voluntary, then it will not be admissible, and
will be hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. [Para
67] [145-C-D]                                                      B

    State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC
1808, relied on.

     Pulukori Kottaya vs. King Emperor (1947) PC 67,
referred to.                                                       C

     7.3. The objection that in the matter of discovery of
the weapon pursuant to the facts deposed by A-4 and A-
5, the prosecution has not followed the safeguards which
are statutorily engrafted in connection with a search u/s.         o
100(4) and s. 100(5) Cr.P .C. and that the discovery
pursuant to facts deposed u/s. 27 of the Act can only
become relevant if it is made following the safeguards u/
s. 100(4) and s. 100(5), cannot be sustained. But the
discovery by itself does not help the prosecution to               E
sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on A-4 and
A-5 by the High Court. [Paras 59, 60 and 70] (143-E-F; 146-
A]
                     Case Law Reference:
                                                                   F
      1971(2) sec 75           Relied on.            Para 27
      (1973) 2 sec 406        Relied on.             Para 28
      (2001) 2 sec 31 o       Relied on.             Para 29
      (2004) 13 sec 150       Distinguished.         Para 36       G

      (1982) 3 sec 368        Relied on.             Para 37
      AIR 1963 SC 74          Relied on.             Para 49
      1992 Crl.L.J 3693(SC) Relied on.               Para 50       H
          128      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 2 S.C.R.


 A              43 Indian Cases 241    Referred to.          Para 51
                11 CWN 1085            Referred to.          Para 53
                AIR 1960 SC 29         Relied on.            Para 54
                AIR 1952 SC 343        Relied on.            Para 54
 B
                AIR 1974 SC 1144 .      Relied on.           Para 55
                (2008) 15 sec 208       Relied on.           Para 56
                (2009) 8 sec 383        Relied on.           Para 56
 c
                (2001) 1 sec 652        Relied on.           Para 61
                (1983) 4 sec 245        Relied on.           Para 62
                .AIR 1961 SC 1808       Relied on.           Para 67
 D              (1947) PC 67            Referred to.         Para 68
              CRIMINAL
                     l
                        APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal No.
          1180 of 2005.

 E        From the Judgment & Order dated 6/8.11.2004 of the High
      Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in CRL A. No. 1761 of
      2003.

                                      WITH

 F        Crl. A. Nos. 1181, 1204 & 1205 of 2005.

          Amrender Sharan, U.U. Lalit, Kunwar C M' Khan, lrshad
      Ahmad, lmran K. Burney, Vikas Singh, Ramesh Kr. Kol, Vibha
      Datta Makhija, Siddhesh Katwal, Philem'on Nongbei, Nitin
      Sangra for the Appellants.
 G
          S.K. Dubey, Yogesh Tiwari, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, C.D. Singh,
      Venkateswara Rao Anumolu for the Respondent.

                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
, H   i
   MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR. v.                     129
               STATE OF M.P.
    GANGULY, J. 1. Several appeals were heard together as           A
they arose out of similar incidents and some common
questions are also involved.

      2. The prosecution version as unfolded in the case is that
on 29.11.2000 around 7:10 P.M. one Pappu@ Prakash                   8
Tripathi (PW-3) was in his apartment. Then on hearing the firing
of three shots, he came out of his apartment and saw a light
blue coloured scooter, which was parked in front of the
apartment, was being started by a man and after him two other
persons also boarded that scooter. PW-3 also saw a Matiz car        C
which was parked by the side of the road and he saw the body
of Mallu Bhaiya, the deceased, half inside the car and the other
half was lying outside the same. PW-3 further saw that after
starting the scooter, those persons drove it towards the road
and took a turn to the right and drove towards the side of Dainik
Bhaskar Press. PW-3 further deposed that at the time those          D
persons left in the scooter they were "turning their heads back".
Then PW-3 came outside his apartment and started shouting.

     3. The further evidence of PW-3 is that he immediately ran
towards the deceased and found· there was no movement in            E
the body. On hearing the shots and the shouts of PW-3, the
nearby cable operator Brajendra Keshwani (PW-17), Umesh
Singh (PW-2) and one Gopal Jain (not examined by the
prosecution) came to the place of incident. Then PW-3 with the
help of those persons put the deceased on the back seat of          F
that Matiz car. PW-3 drove that car with PW-2 in the front seat
to Marble Hospital and PW-3 got the report written in the
hospital which is marked Exhibit P-11.

     4. PW-3 is virtually the star witness of the prosecution.
                                                                    G
     5. Prosecution also relied on the evidence of Shishir Tiwari
(PW-4) who was also on a scooter and was going to the house
of the deceased to meet him. As he reached near the Bungalow
of Major General in front of Park Apartment, he also claimed
to have heard three shots. Then he stopped his scooter and          H
    / 130    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [201 O] 2 S.C.R.


A  saw another scooter at a distance of 60-70 feet and that
   scooter "was started and three persons boarded it" and "that
   scooter took a turn to reach the road and drove past me."
 · According to him that scooter was driven 2-3 feet away from
   him towards Bhashkar Press side. He claimed to have seen
B those persons who were on that scooter.

       6. PW-4 claimed to have seen PW-3 with the help of PW-
  2, PW-17 and Gopal Jain lifting the deceased, in the Matiz car
  and driving it away with Umesh Singh (PW-2). He saw three
C ladies standing near the spot and on being asked by him the
  wife of the deceased, Jareena Chowrariya (PW-10), who was
  in tears, told PW-4 that the assailants had murdered the
  deceased. PW-4 then on his scooter went to the Marble
  Hospital.

D          7. About the presence of PW-4 at the place of occurrence,
     this Court has some serious doubts which shall be discussed
     later.

       8. This is admittedly a case based on circumstantial
E evidence and the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 form the main
  plank on which rests the prosecution case of circumstantial
  evidence.

         9. In this case charge sheet was filed against seven
     persons, namely, A-1 Shambhu, A-2 Sapna@ Shhjahan, wife
F    of Sambhu, A-3 Govinda @ Gudda, A-4 Musheer Khan @
     Badshah Khan, A-5 Basant Shiva Bhai Jadav, A-6
     Sattanarayan@ Sattu Sen, A-7 Mehffooz@ Chotey, remained
     an absconder and never faced trial. A-7 is the brother of A-2.

G      10. As per the prosecution, A-1, A2, A3 & A-6 had paid
  money to A-4 and A-5 for killing the deceased and pursuant
  thereto A-4 and A-5 had shot the,:.qeceased from a close range.
  A-4 & A-5 were arrested by the Jabalpur police at Ahmedabad.
  According:i9 the prosecution A-4 & A-5 were seen before the
H occurrence in the company of A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7 and after
                                                                           _;.:.·.··




   MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR. v.                       131
    STATE OF M.P. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
the occurrence, they were seen by other witnesses, namely,             A
PWs.3 & 4 as going away from the scene of occurrence on a
light blue coloured scooter along with the absconding accused
Mehfooz (A-7). According to prosecution A-4 and A-5 were
identified by witnesses in the T.I. Parade, their finger prints were
found on the car and on the recovered scooter. They had                8
suffered a disclosure statement and which had resulted in
discovery of the weapon of assault and the Ballistic Expert had
given the report, according to which it was proved that weapon
of assault recovered from the Appellants had been used by the
deceased.                                                              c
     11. In this case the Trial Court in its judgment dated
13.10.2003 acquitted A-3 and convicted A-4 and A-5 under
Sections 302/1208 of the Indian Penal Code read with
Sections 25(1)(b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and they were
awarded death penalty. A-7 being an absconder, trial against           D
him did not commence. The Trial Court convicted A-1, A-2 &
A-6 under Sections 302/1208 and gave them life sentence.

      12. The High Court in its judgment dated 8.11.2004 partly
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in confirming the death      E
sentence against A-4 & A-5, but reversed the conviction of the
other three accused, i.e. Shambhu (A-1), Sapna (A-2) and
Sattanarain @ Sattu Sen (A-6) and the charge of conspiracy
failed and they were acquitted.
                                                                       F
      13. Aggrieved by the conviction and death sentence
imposed by the Hon'ble High Court, Musheer (A-4) and Basant
(A-5), filed two special leave petitions being Crl.A. Nos.1180
& 1181/2005 before this Court. The State Government also filed
special leave petitions against the judgment of the Hon'ble High       G
Court acquitting Gobind (A-3), being Crl. Appeal No. 1206/
2005, as well as Shambhu (A-1), Sapna (A-2) and Satyanarain
@ Sattu Sen (A-6) being Crl. Appeal No. 1204/2005. The State
Government also filed an appeal against the dismissal of
petition for enhancement of sentence of these accused being
Crl. Appeal No. 1205/2005. The brother of the deceased had             H
    132     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A   also filed a special leave petition along with an application
    seeking permission for filing the same being Crl. Appeal No.
    4081/2005. That was dismissed by this Court by an order dated
    18.04.2005 in view of the appeals having been filed by the State
    Government.
B
        14. On an analysis of the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 the
  presence of PW-4 in the place of occurrence is very doubtful.
  PW-4's evidence is that he was coming to meet the deceased
  Asim Chansoriaji. They were known to each other for the last
C 20 years and PW-4 had a very good friendly relations with the
  deceased. PW-3 is a close relation of the deceased and lives
  in the same apartment where the deceased stayed. PW-4 also
  admitted that he knows PW-3.

       15. From the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, it is clear that
D they were present at the place of occurrence at the same time.

       16. PW-3 saw the accused persons from a distance of "20
  steps" while PW-4 saw the accused persons from a distance
  "60-70" feet. The accused persons were allegedly identified by
E PWs 3 and 4. However in his evidence PW-3 never stated that
  he saw PW-4 in the place of occurrence. PW-3 also stated that
  after coming to the place of occurrence he was shouting that
  the deceased had been shot at. Hearing his shouts "at first
  cable operator Kesharwani came out there at the incident site.
  After him Umesh, who lives in my apartment came out. After
F Umesh then came Gappu of Jain family, who also reside in our
  same apartment and then came out my wife and after her when
  we were lifting Mallu Bhaiya to put him in the car then his wife
  Zarina also arrived there".

G      17. In view of the evidence discussed above it is absolutely
  natural for PW-4 to immediately talk with PW-3 to find out about
  the incident. But there is no evidence of that. PW-3 never
  whispered anything about the presence of PW-4 at the place
  of occurrence. On the other hand, evidence of PW-3 is that he
H with the help of PW-2, PW-17 and Gopal Jain (not examined)
                             . '
   MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR. v.                      133
    STATE OF M.P. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
put the body of the deceased, half of which was hanging              A
outside the Matiz Car, in the back of that car and some of those
persons sat in the car and PW-3 drove the car to the hospital.

      18. PW-4, an athlete, and in his Tracksuit was obviously
having a sound physique. It is wholly improbable that PW-4, who      8
was known to PW-3 and was at the place of occurrence and
saw PW-3 shouting for help for putting the body of the
deceased in the car will not come forward to help PW-3
especially when he was very friendly with the deceased, having
a long standing relationship of 20 years. This is very very un-      C
natural. It also very un-natural for PW-4 to remain at the place
of occurrence as a passive spectator and watch the incident
of PW-3 taking the deceased in that Matiz car to the hospital
with help of others who had come to the place of occurrence
much after he was there. Evidence of PW-4 is that after PW-3
left for the hospital he talked with the ladies who came to the      D
place of occurrence after the incident and thereafter went to the
hospital. In the hospital also PW-4 did not talk with PW-3.

      19. If one reads the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 it would
appear that one is totally insulated from the other as if they are   E
strangers and reside in different islands. This is totally
improbable. Unfortunately in the appreciation of evidence
neither the High Court nor the trial Court has considered this
glaring improbability in the prosecution case.
                                                                     F
       20. Taking into account the aforesaid factual background
it is very doubtful whether PW-4 was at all present at the place
of occurrence having regard to the evidence of PW-3.
Therefore, identification by PW-4 of the scooter and the
accused A-4 and A-5 in the T.I Parade becomes doubtful and
no reliance can be placed on that.                                   G

      21. Coming to the question of assessing the evidence of
identification of the accused persons by PW-3 and PW-4, this
Court is of the opinion that identification by PW-4 cannot be
relied upon at all inasmuch as this Court has grave doubts about     H
    134       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A   the presence of PW-4 at the place of occurrence.

        22. So far as identification by PW-3 is concerned, the Court
    must take into consideration the extremely limited opportunities
    which PW-3 had Qf seeing the accused persons.
B       23. It is the prosecution case that A-4 and A-5 are hired
  criminals and are not persons of the locality. Prosecution has
  not also claimed that A-4 and A-5 were known to PW-3 from
  before. From the evidence of PW-3 it is clear that PW-3,only
  had a fleeting chance of seeing A-4, A-5 and A-7 when·they
C were obviously in a hurry to board the scooter and escape from
  the scene. Assuming that there was street light, as is the claim
  of the prosecution, it is obvious the accused persons were.
  fleeing from the place of occurrence on the scooter. Therefore,
  excepting a fleeting glance PW-3 had very little chance of
D seeing A-4, A-5 and A-7.                         ·

         24. The evidence of PW-3, that A-4, who was driving the
    scoote,, was repeatedly looking back is highly improbable for
    the following reasons:
E         (i) A-4, being a hired man, was new to the place. Obviously
          he was not acquainted with the topography of the area.
          Therefore, he would be very busy in finding his way out of
          the place of occurrence and would concentrate on that;

F         (ii) A-4 was driving the scooter, it is difficult for the driver
          of the scooter in a new area to repeatedly look back. Being
          hired criminals, as is the prosecution case the accused
          persons will not do anything to facilitate their investigation;

         (iii) It is not the prosecution case that the accused persons
G        were given a chase and therefore there was no reason for
         them to look back. The only evidence of PW-3 is that he
         was shouting that Mallu Bhaiya had been killed by the
       . assailants. A-4 was mere a spectator, assuming but not
         accepting that A-4 was present at the place of occurrence.
H
    MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR. v.                         135
     STATE OF M.P. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
       25. The Court must remember that PW-3 is a highly                 A
  interested witness, being a very close relative of the deceased.
  That by itself, of course, is not a ground to discard his evidence .
. But it is a golden rule that in such a situation, the evidence of
  PW-3 has to be weighed very carefully and cautiously before
  accepting the same.                                                    B

     26. Applying these principles, in the facts of the case, the
 evidence of PW-3 that while driving the scooter A-4 was
 repeatedly looking back becomes highly doubtful.

     27. It may be pointed out that identification test is not           C
substantive evidence. Such tests are meant for the purpose of
helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their
progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding
on right lines. (See Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs. The State
of Uttar Pradesh - 1971(2) SCC 75 at para 17)                            D

     28. It is also held by this Court that identification test parade
is not substantive evidence but it can only be used in
corroboration of the statements in Court. (See Santokh Singh
vs. lzhar Hussain and Anr. - (1973) 2 SCC 406 at para 11)
                                                                         E
     29. Recently in the case of Amitsingh Bhikam Singh
Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra - (2007) 2 SCC 310 this court
held on a consideration of various cases on the subject that the
identification proceedings are in the nature of tests and there
is no procedure either in Cr. P.C., 1973 or in the Indian                F
Evidence Act for holding such tests. The main object of holding
such tests during investigation is to check the memory of
witnesses based upon first impression and to enable the
prosecution to decide whether these witnesses could be cited
as eye witnesses of the crime.                                           G
     30. It has also been held that the evidence of the
identification of accused for the first time is inherently weak in
character and the court has held that the evidence in test
identification parade does not _constitute substantive evidenc~          H
    136     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A   and these parades are governed by Section 162 of Cude of
    Criminal Procedure and the weight to be attached to such
    identification is a matter for the courts.

         31. In the instant case A-4 was apprehended on
    05.12.2000 and was arrested on 06.12.2000 and the
8
    identification parade was held on 10.12.2000. It is admitted that
    A-4 was kept in open police custody for all these days from 6th
    December to 1oth December, 2000 prior to his identification.
    About the identification by him PW-3 deposed that he
C   recognized all the three persons in Court even though the fact
    remains that out of the three accused persons A-7 absconded
    and never faced trial. This is a clear discrepancy in the
    evidence of PW-3 about identification. It is an admitted position
    that A-4 is bald but in his evidence PW-3 admitted that during
    investigation the heads of none of the persons were covered.
D   Though in his evidence PW-3 has said that the persons were
    covered with a blanket upto the neck but PW-12, who held the
    identification parade, in his cross examination admitted that
    there is no reference of blanket in Ext. P-14 and Ext. P-16 which
    are the reports of T. I. parade of A-4 and A-5 respectively. This
E   is a vital contradiction between the versions of witnesses
    identifying and the person conducting the T.I. Parade.

       32. In so far as the identification of A-5 is conc'erned that
  has taken place at a very delayed stage, namely, his
F identification took place on 24.01.2001 and the incident is of
  29.11.2000, even though A-5 was arrested on 22.12.2000.
  There is no explanation why his identification parade was held
  on 24.01.2001 which is after a gap of over a month from the
  date of arrest and after about 3 months from the date of the
G incident. No reliance ought to have been placed by the courts
  below or High Court on such delayed T.I. parade for which there
  is no explanation by the prosecution.

        33. At the Bar some decisions were cited about how the
    Court should consider the evidence in the test identification
H   parade.
   MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR. v.                      137
    STATE OF M.P. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
     34. Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the State relied on   A
the decision in Pramod Manda/ vs. State of Bihar - (2004) 13
sec 150 in order to contend that mere delay in holding the test
identification parade will not prevent the Court from accepting
the evidence when defence failed to impute any motive to the
prosecution by way of cross exami.nation for delay in holding        B
the T.I. parade. In Pramod Manda/ (supra) it was held that delay
of one month in holding the T.I. parade was not fatal.

     35. The aforesaid decision of this Court has to be
appreciated in the factual context of that case. From the facts C
in Pramod Manda/ (supra) it appears that dacoity had taken
place in the house for about 25 minutes in which PW-4
sustained several injuries from the accused in trying to resist
the dacoity. Therefore, PW-4 had sufficient opportunity to notice
the appearance and physical features of the accused and there
was sufficient light. The Court found that the traumatic D
experience of PW-4 for a considerable period must have left
the faces of the assailants firmly imprinted in his memory whicb-
could not be erased within a period of only 30 days. Under those
circumstances, this Court held that the evidence in T.I. parade
cannot be doubted.                                                E

     36. But in the instant case the facts are totally different.
Here PW-3 had nothing more than a fleeting chance of seeing
A-4, A-5 and who hurriedly boarded the scooter while escaping
from the place of occurrence. There is no evidence that PW-3         F
had any physical contact or confrontation with A-4 and A-5.
Therefore, the ratio in Pramod Manda/ (supra) cannot apply
here.

     37. However, the decision of this Court in Soni vs. Stat~
of Uttar Pradesh - (1982) 3 SCC 368(1) is more relevant to           G
the facts of the case in hand. In Soni (supra), the facts have
not been discussed in the judgment which was rather brief but
one thing is made clear that T.I. Parade was held after a lapse
of 42 days from the date of the arrest of the appellant. This
                                                                     H
     138      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 2 S.C.R.


 A Court held that such delay in holding the T. I. -parade by itself
   throws a doubt on the genuineness of such identification and
   we respectfully agree with the view that it is difficult to remember
   the facial expression of the accused persons after such a long
   gap in the facts of this case. Therefore, the alleged identification
 B of A-5 after a gap of two months throws a doubt on the
   genuineness of such identification especially when PW-3 had
   very little chance to see either A-4 or A-5.

        38. Learned counsel for the State relied very much on the
 C evidence of finger print expert (PW-23). It is well known that the
   evidence of finger print expert falls under the category of expert
   evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

         39. It will be noticed that under the Indian Evidence Act,
   the word 'admissibility' has very rarely been used. The emphasis
 D is on relevant facts. In a way relevancy and admissibility have
   been virtually equated under the Indian Evidence Act. But one
   thing is clear that evidence of finger print expert is not
   substantive evidence. Such evidence can only be used to
   corroborate some items of substantive evidence which are
 E othel"Wise on record.

          40. In the instant case, PW-23 (finger print expert) claimed
     to have matched the transparent marked 'C' with finger print
     marked 'ka'. This according to him is the index finger of right
 F   hand of A-4 (Musheer alias Badshah). PW-23 when compared
     the transparent 'F' with finger print marked 'kha' it was found
     identical with the finger print mark of A-5's right hand ring finger.

      41. According to PW-23, he lifted these finger prints while
  going to the police station on 1.12.2000 from the Bajaj Super
G Scooter which was associated with the case and also from the
  Matiz Car both of which were parked in the police station.

          42. According to the finger print expert (PW-23) 'C' was
     found on the right side of the rear mudguard of the scooter and
     'F' was found on the side glass of the Matiz car .
.d
   MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR. v.                      139
    STATE OF M.P. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
     43. Before this Court can appreciate the relevance of those     A   ··
prints, the Court has to look to the substantive evidence on
record. It is nowhere alleged by the prosecution that there was
any altercation between the deceased and the accused
persons at the scene of occurrence. There is no whisper of any
evidence that accused persons had any physical contact with          B
the deceased or chased the deceased or dragged the
deceased out of the car.

      44. The evidence is only of hearing shots of fire arm and
the further evidence is that the deceased was fired from a point     C
blank range and he immediately fell down and in such a way
as his body was half inside the car and half outside the same.
Therefore, there is no prosecution evidence to the effect that
A-4 and A-5 had any occasion to touch the car and that too
with the ring finger. It is obvious that the accused, being hired
criminals, according to the prosecution, must be busy in             D
escaping from the scene of occurrence after the deceased had
been shot from the point blank range and immediately the
deceased fell down. There is no evidence of the deceased
running away from his assailants or offering any resistance.
Having regard to this state of evidence the evidence of finger       E
print on the car ceases to have any relevance.

      45. PW-23 (Finger print expert) has not given any evidence
of finger print on the alleged weapon of offence which was
discovered pursuant to the statement of accused persons              F
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, in the facts
of this case and in view of the prosecution evidence the
evidence of finger print expert does help the prosecution. Even
if we accept the evidence of finger print expert on the scooter
that by itself does~not prove anything. If certain perscfos are      G
riding on the scooter, it may have the finger prints of the person
who is riding the scooter. That by itself does not connect the
persons with the crime .

  . 46. In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for
complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and               H
    140      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A scattered links which do not make a complete sequence.

         47. This Court finds that this case is entirely based on
    circumstantial evidence. While appreciating circumstantial
    evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious approach as
    circumstantial evidence is "inferential evidence" and proof in
8
    such a case is derivable by inference from circumstances.

        48. Chief Justice Fletcher Moulton once observed that
  "proof does not mean rigid mathematical" formula since "that
  is impossible". However, proof must mean such evidence as
C would induce a reasonable man to come to a definite
  conclusion. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, has
  been compared by Lord Coleridge "like a gossamer thread,
  light and as unsubstantial as the air itself and may vanish with
  the merest of touches". The learned Judge also observed that
D such evidence may be strong in parts but it may also leave
  great gaps and rents through which the accused may escape.
  Therefore, certain rules have been judicially evolved for
  appreciation of circumstantial evieence.

E        49. To my mind, the first rule is that the facts alleged as
    the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence
    must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If
    conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence, it must create
    a network from which there is no escape for the accused. The ·
    facts evolving out of such circumstantial evidence must be such
F   as not to admit of any inference except that of guilt of the
    accused. {See Raghav Prapanna Tripathi and others vs. State
    of U.P. - AIR 1963 SC 74}.

      50. The second principle is that all the links in the chain of
G evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they
  must exclude the evidence of guilt of any other person than the
  accused.

           {See: State of UP vs. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, 1992
          Crl. L.J 3693(SC) - (Para 20)}
H
  MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR. v.                          141
   STATE OF M.P. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
     51. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, we must            A
remember the principle laid down in Ashraf Ali vs. Emperor -
(43 Indian Cases 241 at para 14) that when in a criminal case
there is conflict between presumption of innocence and any
other presumption, the former must prevail.
                                                                        B
     52. The next principle is that in order to justify the inference
of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused and is incapable of explanation upon
any other reasonable hypothesis except his guilt.

      53. When a murder charge is to be proved solely on                C
 circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of
 innocence of the accused must have a dominant role. In
 Nibaran Chandra Roy vs. King Emperor - (11 CWN 1085) it
was held the fact that an accused person was found with a gun
in his hand immediately after a gun was fired and a man was             D
killed on the spot from which the gun was fired may be strong
circumstantial evidence against the accused, but it is an error
of law to hold that the burden of proving innocence lies upon
the accused under such circumstances. It seems, therefore, to
follow that whatever force a presumption arising under Section          E
106 of the Indian Evidence Act may have in civil or in less
serious criminal cases, in a trial for murder it is extremely weak
in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence.

     54. Same principles have been followed by the Constitution
                                                                        F
Bench of. this Court in Govinda Reddy vs. State of Mysore -
(AIR 1960 SC 29) where the learned Judges quoted the
principles laid down in. Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and anr.
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - (AIR 1952 SC 343). The ratio
in Govind (supra) quoted in paragraph 5, page 30 of the
reports in Govinda Reddy (supra) are:                                   G

    "in cases where the evidence of a circumstantial nature,
    the circumstances which lead to the conclusion of guilt
    should be in the first instance fully established, and all the
    facts so ·established should be consistent only with the guilt      H
    142       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 2 S.C.R;


A         of the accused. Again the circumstances should be of a
          conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such
          as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to
          be proved. In other words there must be a chain of
          evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable
B         doubt for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
          accused and it must be shown that within all human
          probability the act must have been committed by the
          accused."

C       55. The same principle has also been followed by this
    Court in Mohan Lal Pangasa vs. State of U.P. -AIR 1974 SC
    1144.

        56. As noted above, along with the appeal of A4 and AS
  against their judgment and order of conviction, in this case,
D several State appeals have been filed. A3-Govinda was
  acquitted by the trial court and also by the High Court. The
  State appeal against the same has already been dismissed
  by this court by an orqer dated 24.11.06. The State also filed
  an appeal against the order of acquittal by the High Court in
E respect of A 1, A2 and A6. This Court finds that in acquitting
  A 1, A2, and A6, the High Court has taken a plausible view. This
  Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 is not
  inclined to take a different view.

          [See State .of Haryana vs. Krishan reported in (2008) 15
F         sec 208, paras 10 and 11, pages 211-212 of the report
          and State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Swamalatha and
          others, reported in (2009) 8 sec 383, paras 25 and 26,
          pages 388-389 of the report.]

G     57. As a result of acquittal of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A..,6, the
  conspiracy theory of the prosecution in this case fails. A
  substantial part of the prosecution case has not been accepted
  on valid grounds either by the High Court or by this Court. Thus,
  a very vital part of the prosecution case is finally knocked off.
H As the prosecution fails to prove its case of conspiracy, the
   MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR. v.                    143
    ·STATE OF M.P. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
motive angle behind the alleged crime committed by A-4 and         A
A-5 disappears. The prosecution case is that A-4 and.A-5 are
hired criminals and were engaged on payment by A-1, A-2, A-
3 and A-6 for killing the deceased. The acquittal of A-1, A-2,
A-3 and A-6 which is upheld by this Court casts a serious doubt
on the ·entire prosecution and its case against A-4 and A-5        B
suffers a serious set back.

     58. Considering the aforesaid facts and also going by the
test of appreciation of circumstantial evidence as discussed
above, this Court has to extend the benefit of doubt to A-4 and    C
A-5 and cannot sustain the judgn:ient and order of conviction
of A-4 and A-5 under Sections 302/120.;B of l.P.C read with
Sections 25(1 )(a)(b) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and
consequently the death sentence awarded to them by the High
Court is set aside. This Court is of the view that the so called
circumstantial evidence against A-4 and A-5 does not constitute    D
a complete chain which is consistent with the guilt of A-4 and
A-5 and incompatible with their innocence.

     59. {~fore parting, it may be noticed that in this case, it
has been' argued by the learned defence Counsel that in the        E
matter of discovery of the weapon pursuant to the facts
deposed by A-4 and A-5, the prosecution has not followed the
safeguards which are statutorily engrafted in connection with a
search under Section 100(4) and Section 100(5) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.                                             F

     60. The learned Counsel argued that discovery.pursuant
to facts deposed under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can only
become relevant if it is made following the safeguards under
Section 100(4) and section 100(5) of the Code.
                                                                   G
     61. In State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Sunil and another,
[(2001) 1 SCC' 652], almost a similar contention has been
negatived by this Court in Para 19 of the report. The learned
judges held:
                                                                   H
    144      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [201 O] 2 S.C.J~.


A         ".. recovery of an object pursuant to the information supplied
          by an accused in custody is different from the searching
          endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code."

        62. In doing so, the learned judges relied on a decision of
  this Court in The Transport Commissioner, A.P., Hyderabad
8
  and another vs. S. Sardar Ali, Bus Owner, Hyderabad and 41
  others - [1983 4 SCC 245]. It may be true that the decision in
  Sardar Ali was rendered in the context of Motor Vehicles Act,
  but the propositions in Para 20, at page 662 of the report are,
C if I may say so, based on sound logic.

        63. In Para 20, page 662 of the report it was held when
  discovery is made pursuant to any facts deposed 'by the
  accused, the discovery memo prepared by the investigating
  officer is necessarily attested by independent witnesses. But
D if in a given case, no witness is present or nobody agrees to
  attest the memo, it is difficult to lay down as a proposition that
  the discovery must be treated tai.nted or that the discovery
  evidence is unreliable. In such a situation, the Court has to
  consider the report of the investigating officer who made
E discovery on its own merits.

         64. In para 21, this Court further elaborated this principle
    by saying when a police officer gives evidence in Court about
    discovery made by him on the strength of facts deposed by
    accused it is for the Court to believe the version, if it is
F   otherwise shown to be reliable and it is for the accused to cross
    examine the investigating officer or rely on other materials to
    show that evidence of police officer is unreliable or unsafe.

        65. Therefore, reliability of the materials discovered
G pursuant to the facts deposed by the accused in police custody
  depends on the facts of each case. If the discovery is otherwise
  reliable, its evidentiary value is not diluted just by reason of non-
  compliance with the provision of Section 100(4) or Section
  100(5) of the Code.
H
   MUSHEER KHAN @ BADSHAH KHAN & ANR. v.                      145
    STATE OF M.P. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
     66. The reason is that Section 100 falls under Chapter VII      A
of the Code which deals with processes initiated to compel the
production of things on a search. Therefore the entire gamut
of proceedings under Chapter VII of the Code is based on
compulsion whereas· the very basis of facts deposed by an
accused in custody is voluntary and pursuant thereto discovery       B
takes place. Thus, they operate in totally different situations.
Therefore, the safeguards in search proceedings based on
compulsion cannot be read into discovt..ry on the basis of facts
voluntarily deposed.

      67. Section 27 starts with the word 'provided'. Therefore,
                                                                     c
it is a proviso by way of an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of
the Evidence Act. If the facts deposed under Section 27 are
not voluntary, then it will not be admissible, and wiJI be hit by
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. [See State·of Bombay
vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, [AIR 1961 SC 1808].                            0

     68. The Privy Counsel in Pulukori Kottaya vs. King
Emperor, [1947 PC 67] held that Section 27 of the Evidence
Act is not artistically worded but it provides an exception to the
prohibition imposed under the preceding sections. However,           E
the extent of discovery admissible pursuant to the facts deposed
by accused depends only to the nature of the facts discovered
to which the information precisely relates.

      69. The limited nature of the admissibility of the facts
                                                                     F
 discovered pursuant to the statement of the accused under
 Section 27 can be illustrated by the following example:
 Suppose a person accused of murder deposes to the police
officer the fact as a result of which the weapon with which the
crime is committed is discovered, but as a result of such
discovery no inference can be drawn against the accused, if          G
there is no evidence connecting the knife with the crime alleged
to have been committed by the accused.

    70. So the objection of the defence counsel to the
discovery made by the prosecution in this case cannot be             H


                                                  ..
    146     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A sustained. But the discovery by itself does not help the
  prosecution to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on
  A-4 and A-5 by the High Court.

       71. For the reasons discussed above, the Appeal filed by
  A-4 Musheer. Khan @ Badshah Khan and A~S Basant Shiva
8
  Bhai Jadav are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction
  of the High Court dated 8.11.2004 passed in the Criminal
  Appeal No. 1761 of 2003 against them under Sections 302/
  120-8of1.P.C and under Sections 25(1)(a)(b) and Section 27
C of the Arms Act is set aside. They are set at liberty forthwith, if
  not required to be detained in any other case.

       72~ All the appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh
   are dismissed.

   N.J.                                      Appeals disposed of.