Holding

The conviction was set aside because the circumstantial evidence did not exclusively establish the appellant's guilt.

Summary

Prem Thakur was charged with the murder of five co‑labourers and was convicted by the trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, receiving a death sentence under IPC sections 302 and 201. The prosecution's case rested solely on circumstantial evidence – a motive of theft, the appellant being the last person seen with the victims, his alleged absconding, an extra‑judicial confession, and the recovery of a tangli. The Supreme Court examined whether these circumstances could exclusively establish the appellant's guilt. It held that motive alone, presence with the victims, and disappearance are equivocal and do not clinch the issue of guilt, especially as medical evidence disproved the claim that the victims were rendered unconscious by liquor. Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitting the appellant of all charges.

Issues considered

The adequacy of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Whether a motive of theft can be used to infer the appellant's participation in the murders
Whether the appellant's being last seen with the deceased and his subsequent absence constitute sufficient proof of murder
Whether the appellant's alleged absconding indicates consciousness of guilt
Whether the medical evidence regarding liquor consumption undermines the prosecution's theory
The validity of the conviction under IPC sections 302 and 201 based on the evidence presented

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302

Subjects

circumstantial evidencemurderdeath penaltyacquittalmotiveabscondingIndian Penal Codesection 302section 201burden of proof

Judgment

b22
A
PREM THAKUR

v. •

B STATE OF PUNJAB

November 17, 1982

[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.J
'
Evidence-Circumstanlial evidence-How evaluated-Circumstances relied
c upon as establishing involvement of accused must clinch the issue of guilt.

The prosecution case against the ;lppeUant was that he, along ~ith five
wo.rkers migrated from Nepal and that at the time of occurrence all of them
were working in Pujnab as agricultural labourers. Out of a large sum of money
eained by them as wages' they spent a part and the balance was left with one
of the five deceased. On the evening prior to the day of occurrence the appellant •
was found by the employer cooking food for himself and his companions but
D when he went to his field the following mllrning be noticed the five dead bodies
Or the co-workers were' smouldering ·ill the pit of his tube well. Post-mortem
examination of the dead bodies revealed several ante-mortem injuries, most of
which were lacerated wounds. From that day onwards the appellant was found
missing.

E The trial Court, accepting the circumstantial evidence,· convicted and
sentenced the appellant to. death. The High Court affirmed the conviction. on
three grounds : (i) since the money was not found on the person of the deceased
with whom it was kept, the motive' was theft ; (ii) the appellant was last seen
in the company of all the deceased and (iii) the appeHant absconded thereafter
to coraceal his presence. \

Allowing the appeal,

HELD : It is impossible to believe that the crime was committed in
the mann~r alleged by the prosecution or that the appellant could possibly have
cotnmitted it in the circums~ances alleged. [826 C-D]
G
In a case which depends wholly upon circumstantial evidence, the
· circumstances must be of such a nature as to be capable of supporting· the
exclusive hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime of which he is charged.
That is to say, the circumstances relied upon as establishing the involvement of
the accused in the crime must clinch the issue of "guilt. Very often, circumstances
H which establish the commission of an offence in the ·abstract are identified as
circumstances which prove that the prisoner before the Court is guilty of a
~rime imputed to him. An a priori suspicion that the accused bas committed
PREM THAIW!l v. PUNJAB (Chandrachud, C.J.) .823

the crime transforms itself into a facile belief that it is he who has committed A
the crime. Human rD.ind plays that trick on proof of the commission of a crime
by resisting the frustrating feeling that no one can be identified as the author
. j
of that crime. [826 G-H]
~·

In. the instant case the circumstances attendant upon the incident
militate entirely against the conclusion that the five· murders were Committed
by the appellant. The fact that the assailant rtlbbcd the victims of the B
money cannot necessarUy lead to the conclusion that it was. the appellant~
who robbed them of their money. That the appellant and his co-workers were
p&id a. fairly large sum of money was known to others apart from the appellant
and his companions. No part of the money was traced to the appellant and
therefore he could not be connected with tho crime. [825 C-E]

Assumina that the deceased were administered liquor, medical evidence
c
did not show that the liquor consumed would have indu~d such stupor verging
upon hypnosis. It is also incredible .that the five persons doiie to death. by a
. single individual were under such a heavy spell of sleep that none of them woke ·
up when the other or others were attacked. [826 D·Fl

The fact that the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased D
and that he was not present at the place from which the dead bodies were
recovered the next morning are equivocal circumstances on which it is hazardous
to base the conviction. [827 DJ

The circumstance that the appellant absconded from the place of
occurrence does not lead to the conclusion that he had made himself scarce in
order to conceal his presence. If he· ·was found by the team of investigating E
officers in Nep1al going about openly, it is difficult to hold that he had absconded
to Nepal. (825 G-H]
•
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 187
. of 1982. F
Appeal by special leave from the . jndgment and order dated
7.10.81 of tile Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal No.
466-DB/81.

N.K. Agarwala Amicus Curiae for the Appellant. G

Ashwani Kumar and D.D. Sharma for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered .by
R
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. The appellant, Prem Thakur, was
co11victed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rupna~ar, Ul!der section~
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (1983] I S.C.R.

A 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to death
for the former offence. The conviction and sentence having been
upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the appellant has '> '-
filed this appeal by special leave. · •

B The charge against the appellant is that he committed the
murder of five co· labourers on the night between the 8th and 9th
November, 1980 in the village of Rolu Majra. The case of the
prosecution is that the appellant came to India from Nepal in search
of work along with his companion workers and a few others. They

c
· worked with one Mobinder Singh for about 14 days for which
they were paid a sum of Rs. 2;900. The appellant and his co-
...
workers spent a sum of Rs. 800 therefrom and the balance of
Rs. 2!00 was kept with Rama Nand who was one of the five co-
workers of the appellant. The appellant and his companions th~re;
after went to the village of Rolu Majra where they worked in the
field of Ujjagar Singh. On the evening of the day following Diwali,
D Ujjagar Singh saw the. accused cooking meals for himself and his
five companions. When Ujjagar Singh went to the field . next
morning at 8.00 a.m., he noticed that smoke was coming out of the
pit of his tubewell. When he peeped into the well be saw five dead
bodies smouldering. Ujjagar Singh lodged .informatio'l of tlie
offence with A.SJ. Jarnail Singh. The post-mortem examination
E
on the five dead bodies revealed-several ante-mortem injuries, most
of which .were in the nature of lacerated wounds .

•
Since Ujagar Singh had seen the appellant in the company
of five deceased persons and the appellant was not to be seen any-
F where, the suspicion of the police. naturally fell upon him. The case·
of the prosecution is that on December l, 1980, the appellant was ·
arrested while be was working near the ·tubewell of Sohan Singh.
'-
There is no direct evidence to ·connect the appellant with the
G .. five murders. In. support of the charges leveiled against him,
the prosecution relied upon circumstantial ·evidence which
consisted ·of : (i) motive for the offence ; (ii) the fact that !he ·
appellant was seen last in .the company of the deceased on the
evening preceding the discovery of the dead bodies ; (iii) the fact
that the accused had absconded ; (iv) the extra-judicial confession
H of the appellant ; (v) the recovery of a 'Tangli' in pursuance of the
·statement made by the appellant; (vi) the recovery of the dead
bodies from the pit near the tubewell of Ujjagar Sin!lh ; and (vii) a
PREM THAKUR v. PUNJAB (Chandr~chud. C.J.) 825

false statement·made by the appellant to Ram Ishar, the son of one A
./ of the deceased; Rama Nand, that the latter would return to the
village after Puran Mashi.

The learned Sessions Judge accepted ~ome of these circum-
stances as proved and convicted the appellant f-Or the five murders
on the basis of those circumstances. The High Coµrt has relied B
,I upon three circumstances, namely, (i) mo.live, (ii) the fact. that the
appellant was seen last in the company of the deceased and (iii) the
conduct ·Of th~ appeliant after th~ occurrence. '

As regards motive, the High Court observes in its judgment
that since. no money was found on the ·dead bodies, theft was
c
obviously the motive for the crime. That may be so, but we are
unable to understand bow' the fact that theft was the motive for
the crime can connect the appellant .with the crime. It is quite
... . likely that whosoever committed the five murders robbed the victims
.of the money which they had ·on their person, but that cannot D
n.ecessarily lead to the conclusion that it is ihe appellant who robbed
the deceased of their money. The fact that a fairly large sum w.as
paid to the appellant and his co-workers by way of their wages 1
would be known to others apart from the appellant and bis
companion's. No part of the money was traced to the appellant and
therefore, we are unable to accept that the accused can be connected
with the crime merely because the motive. for the crim!l was
theft.

The circumstances that the appellant was last seen in the
company of the deceased can be accepted as proved but no inference
~an arise therefrom that the appellant had committed their murder. F ...
The appellant was working with the deceased and others and there
was nothing unnatural in the appe)lant being in the company of
bis companions on the evening before the murders were committed.

In so far as the allegation that the accused had ·absconded is.'
concerned, it is not easy io rely upon that circumstance as leading. G
to the conclusion that be bad made himself scarce in order to
conceal his presence. The story of the prosecution· that he was
arrested in Punjab itself has been disbelieved by the High Court
according to ivbich, the. appellant was brought from Nepal by the
team of Investigating Officers. The appellant belongs to Nepal and H
if he was found in Nepal going about openly, it is difficult to accept
the charge that he. bad absconded to Nepal. .
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19831 I s.c.R.

A The ·circumstance that the appellant told Ram Ishar that the
latter's father Rama Nand would return to the village after l'uran
Mashi cannot clinch the issue unless one stars with the presumption
that the appellant had committed the crime. But then one cannot
put the cart before the horse. At the highest, what the appellant '
said to . Ram Ishar may raise a cloud o( suspicion but nothing
B
more.
\.
We have considered carefully the entire evidence in the case
and the various facts attendant upon the five murders. It seems to
us quite impossible to believe that. the crime was. committed in the
c manner alleged by the prosecution or that the appellant could
possibly have committed it in the circumstances alleged. It is said
that the five deceased persons were administered liquor, that after
drinking liquor they lapsed into a deep spell of sleep, that while they
were asleep they were killed, that they were carried one by one to
the bottom of a 35 ft. tubewell and that thereafter, they were set
D on fire. The post-mortem notes and the medical evidence show
that the liquor consumed by the deceased could not have produced
unconsciousness. How it could induce such stupor verging upon
hypnosis is more than one can reasonably iruagine .. The prosecution
case requires for its success the incredible assumption that the five
persons done to death by a single individual were under such a heavy
E spell of sleep that none of them woke up when the others were
attacked. When the first of the five victims was attacked, he wo.uld
have shrieked or shouted and thereby the others would be aroused
from their sleep. They were young, able· bodied labourers. It puts
quite some strain on .our credulity to accept that a single. person
, could have finished off his five companions in the fiction-like manner
F alleged by the prosecuiion.

The High Court could not but be aware of the principle that
in a case which depends wholly upon circumstantial evidence the
'circnmstances must be of such a nature as tq be capable of sup~ort
G ing the exclusive hypothesis that. the accused is guilty of the crime
of which he is charged. That is to say; the circumstances relied
upon as establishing the envolvement of the accused in the crime
must clinch the issue of guilt. Very often, circumstances which
establish the commission of an offence in the abstract are identified ·
H as circumstances which prove that the prisoner. before the court is
guilty of the crime imputed to liim. An a priori suspicion that the
a
11~cusc\I h~~ ~O!l11!1itted the ~rim~ trl!l!sfQrms itself into facile belief
PREM THAKUR v. PUNJAB (Chandrachud, C.J.) 827

'that it is be who bas committed the crime. Human mind plays that A
trick on proof of the . com.mission of a crime by resisting the
frustrating feeling that no one can be identified as the author of
that crime~ In the case before us, there is DO doubt that five
persons were murdered. Unquestionably, every effort had. to be
made to find out'who committed those. murders. But the duty is
not done by holding someone or the other guilty s·omehow or other. B
In the instant case, the circumstances attendant upon the incident
militate entirely against the conclusion that the five murders were
committed by the appellant. The very pattern of the crime belies
that conclusion. We are unable to share Jbe High Court's view •
that'the evidence showing "that the appellant was present with the
deceased persons on the evening of November 8, 1980 and he was
c
then missing from there on• the next morning proves the offences
alleged against the appellant beyond any shado~ of doubt''. In
support of its conclusion that the appellant had committed the
· murders, the High Court has even pressed into service the circum-
stances that the appellant was not present "at the place from which
the dead bodies were recovered" .the next morning. These are
D
equivocal circu~stances on which it is hazardous to base· the
conviction.

Iri the resuit we allow the appeal, set aside the conviction of
the appellant OD all the COUn.ts and the sentences imposed upon him
including the sentence of death and acquit him of all the charges.
E
.( He shall be released forthwith. . ·

~.B.R. Appeal allowed.

•• •

•