ROOP SINGH @ RUPAversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

                          [2008] 10 S.C.R. 52
                                                                        ,..,
A                      ROOP SINGH @ RUPA
                                  v.
                      THE STATE OF PUNJAB
                 (Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2005)
                                                                               r
                           JUNE 20, 2008                                y.
B
         [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ]

         EVIDENCE:
         Circumstantial evidence - HELD: Conviction can be based
c on circumstantial evidence, but it should be tested by the touch-
  stone of the law relating to circumstantial evidence - On facts,
  the circumstances highlighted by High Court while upholding
  the conviction of accused do not present a complete chain of
  circumstances to rule out the possibility of any other person being    I-
                                                                         I


D assailant and/or to unerringly point to the accused as being guilty          \
                                                                               '
  of the offences charged - Conviction u/ss 302134 and 449134
  /PC set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 and 449134.
        The appellant alongwith two others was prosecuted
  for murder of the brother-in-law of PW-7. The deceased
E
  was found dead in his house. The prosecution case
  rested on circumstantial evidence. The four factors, which
  weighed with the trial court were: (1) presence of left foot
  print of the appellant on the spot of occurrence, (2) finger
  print on the bottle of liquor found near the place of occur-          ~
F rence matched with right index finger of the appellant, (3)
  extra-judicial confession before PW 2 and (4) evidence of
  PW3 that he saw all the three accused together. The trial
  court convicted all the three accused of the offences pun-
  ishable u/ss. 302/34 and 449/34 IPC. On appeal, the High
G Court did not find the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 as cred-
  ible and cogent and acguitted two of the accused. It, how-
  ever, held the chain of circumstances as complete so far              >-
  as the appellant was concerned and accordingly upheld
  his conviction.
H                               --
              ROOP SINGH @ RUPA v. THE STATE OF               53
                          PUNJAB

         Allowing the appeal, the Court                             A
          HELD: 1.1 There is no doubt that conviction can be
    based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be
    tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstan-
    tial ev.idence. [para 1O] [59-E]
                                                                    8
        Hanumant Govind· Nargundkar and Anr. V State of
    Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; and Sharad Birdhichand
    Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 - relied on.
          1.2 It has been consistently laid down by this Court
    that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evi- C
    dence, 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
1   of any other person. The circumstances from which an in-
    ference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be D
    proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown
    to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to
    be inferred from those circumstances. [Para 5] [57-D-G]
          Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 197.7 SC 1063; E
    Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316 ;
    Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446 ; State
    of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC1224; Ba/winder
    Singh v. State of Punjab AIR1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar
r   Chatterjee v. State of MP AIR 1989 SC 1890; Bhagat Ram v.
    State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and F
    Ors. V State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy
    v. State A.P and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; and State of UP v.
    Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Crl.LJ 1104 - relied on.
         "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI), by Alfred   G
    Wills - referred to.
         1.3. In the instant case, the two circumstances - pres-
    ence of left foot print of the appellant on the spot and the
    finger print on the bottle of liquor found near the place of
    occurrence - highlighted by the High Court while uphold-        H
    54         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A ing the conviction of the appellant do not present a com-
  plete chain of circumstances to rule out the possibility of
  any other person being the assailant and/o~ to unerringly
  point to the accused appellant as being guilty of the of-
  fences charged. There was no evidence led by the pros-
B ecution to show that the prints in question came into ex-
  istence at the time the alleged incjdent took place. Convic-
  tion as recorded by the High Court cannot be maintained
  and is· set aside. [para 2, 13-14] [56 F; H; 60 G-H; 61 A-B]
        CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
C   NO. 1307 of 2005
         From the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.2004 of the High
    Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No.
    80-DB/2004                                                                r ,
D         Rana Ranjit Singh for the Appellant.
          Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra and H.S. Sandhu
    for the Respondent.
          The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E         Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In this appeal challenge is to
    the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
    High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence
    punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sec-
    tion 449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
F   (in short the 'IPC'). The co-accused persons who were similarly
    convicted were acquitted by the High Court.
          2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
             Jarnail Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased')
G and his wife Nasib Kaur immigrated to Canada about 12 years
      earlier but had both returned to Kotla about two months before
      Jarnail Singh's murder on April 10, 2001. Pala Singh (PW 7)
      was deceased's brother in law being ~he husband of Nasib
     .KatJr;s•sister. He also belonged to Kotla. Jarnail Singh lived in
tf:~~,fifs ~h-ouse in th·e fields, about half a kilometre from the village,
         ROOP SINGH @ RUPA v. THE STATE OF                   55
            PUNJAB [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

on the passage leading to Baghapurana. According to Pala           A
Singh, he~ and Jarnail Singh used to sleep at night at Jarnail
Sing h's farm house while Nasib Kaur would sleep with her sis-
ter in Pala Singh's house.
      On the evening of April 10, 2001 Nasib Kaur and Pala
Singh's son Darshan Singh had gone to visit Jarnail Singh's 8
sister in Bukhanwala. Pala Singh's grand son Jaswant Singh
had taken food for Jarnail Singh to his house at about 7.30 P.M.
But Jarnail Singh was not there. Later at about 9 P.M. Gurnam
Singh (PVV 5) came to Pala Singh and told him that someone
had inflicte~d injuries on Jarnail Singh. Gurnam Singh had learnt C
about this from Assa Singh, who was employed as a guard at
Jarnail Singh's house. Pala Singh alongwith Lambarder Gurmit
Singh of the village went to Jarnail Singh's house and found·
Jarnail Singh's dead body lying on a cot. Assa Singh told Pala
Singh that Jarnail Singh had come home at about 8 P.M. on a D
scooter and about half an hour later Jarnail Singh had come to
him and told him that he had been stabbed.
      Pala Singh went to the courtyard and saw Jarnail Singh's
chappals lying there and a trail of blood from the courtyard to
Assa Singh's cot where Jarnail Singh's dead body lay. Pala E
Singh immediately went to Bukanwala to fetch Nasib Kaur and
his son. According to Pala Singh, Jarnail Singh was fond of
drinking and would indulge even in this habit during day time.
      The matter was reported by Pala Singh to Inspector           F
Joginder Singh and his statement was recorded by the Investi-
gating officer at Rajeana bus stand at 6 A.M. on April 11, 2001.
The statem13nt was sent to the Police Station, Baghapurana,
and on its basis F.l.R. was registered at 6.30 A.M. under Sec-
tion 302 IPC. Special report of the case was received by Judi-     G
cial Magistrate, Moga at 10 A.M. on the same day.
     Immediately thereafter Inspector Joginder Singh (PW 19)
set out for the spot, which was inspected whereafter inquest
report was prepared in the presence of Ajaib Singh and
Lambardar Gurmit Singh. The statements of these two wit-           H
    56         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A   nesses were also incorporated in the inquest report. After
    completion of the inquest proceedings, the dead body of Jarnail
    Singh was sent for post-mortem examination which was con-
    ducted by Dr. Navraj Singh (PW4), Civil Hospital, Moga at 12.45
    PM.
B          After sending the dead body for post-mortem examina-
    tion, Inspector Joginder Singh continued his investigation at the
    spot. He lifted bloodstained earth from the spot, blood stained
    quilt, mattress and bed sheet were also taken into possession
    from the cot on which Jarnail Singh's dead body was lying. The
C   Investigating officer had actually cut the blood stained portions
    of the above items before taking them separately into posses.-
    sion. A bottle containing 100 ml of liquor, which was lying up
    stairs, was also recovered and taken into possession. Three
    foot prints moulds ·were prepared of the foot prints found at the
D   spot. One of these was of a right shoe and the other two were of
    left bare feet. Moulds were separately taken into possession.
    A pair of chappals was also picked up from the spot. The site
    plan of the place of the occurrence was prepared.
          On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed
E   and since the accused persons aojured guilt, they faced trial.
    The trial court, as noted above, directed conviction and imposed
    sentence. According to the trial court the case rested on cir-
    cumstantial evidence and four factors weighed with the trial court
    to record conviction. They were (a) finding of the left foot print of
F the appellant on the spot of occurrence, (b) finger print on the
    bottle of liquor which was found near the place of occurrence
    matched with the right index finger of the appellant (3) there
    was extra judicial confession before PWs i and 4 evidence of
  · Wazir Singh (PW3)having seen all the three accused persons
G together. ·
         The High Court did not accept the conclusions of the trial         'r
    court relating to the relevance of the evidence of PWs 2 & 3.
    The High Court found the same was not credible and cogent
    However, relying on the other two circumstances, the High Court
H
           ROOP SINGH @ RUPA v. THE STATE OF                    57
              PUNJAB [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

upheld the conviction of the appellant while directing acquittal      A
of the co-accused persons. The High Court noted that the chain
of the circumstances was not complete so far as PWs 2 & 3
are conce~rned, but it is complete so far as the present appel-
lant is concerned.
     3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the          8
conclusions of the High Court are based on surmises and con-
jectures a1nd having held that the evidence of PWs 2 & 3 so far
as the alleged confession, or to have seen the accused per-
sons alto~lether, to be unreliable, should not have directed con-
viction.                                                              C
    4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
hand supported the judgmeot of the High Court.
      5. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that
where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the           D
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. (See
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu
and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316);                     E
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (Al R 1983 SC 446); State
of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Ba/winder
Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar
ChatterjeE~ v. State of M.P (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circum-
stances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused        F
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. In Bhagat Ram
v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that
where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from cir-
cumstancies the cumulative effect of the circumstances must           G
be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring
the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.

     6. We may also make a reference to a decision of this
Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A. P ( 1996) 10         H
    58         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A   SCC ·193, wherein it has been observed thus:
         "In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled
         law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of
         guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
         circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all
B        the circumstances should be complete and there should
         be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved
         circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis
         of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
         innocence .... ".
c
        7. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. (AIR
    1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon
    circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the follow-
    ing tests:
D        "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
              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 e'Jidence should not
               only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
G              should be inconsistent with his innocence."
         8. In State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ
    1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evalu-
  ating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is
H reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the
                  ROOP SINGH @ RUPA v. Tl-jE STATE OF                  59
                     PUNJAB [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

        accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the           A
        circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully es-
        tablished and the cumulative effect of all the facts so estab-
        lished must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
               9. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circum-
        stantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules B
        specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
        (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be
        clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with
        the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the
        party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal C
        accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstan-
        tial evidenc;e the best evidence must be adduced which the na-
        ture of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of
""""'   guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the inno-
        cence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any D
        other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be
        any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled
        as of right to be acquitted".
              10. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely
        on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-     E
        stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by
        the this Court as far back as in 1952.

              11. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V State of
        Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed F
        thus:

             "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence
             is of ai circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which
             the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn shquld be in the first
             instance be fully established and all the facts so              G
             established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
             of the guilt 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          H
    60         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A         chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
         ·reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
          innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
          that within all human probability the act must have been
          done by the accused."
B      12: A reference may be made to a later decision in Sha rad
  Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC
  1622). Therein. while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it
  has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that
  the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution
C cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions pre-
  cedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be
  based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.
  They are:
         (1)   the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
D
               is to be drawn should be fully established._ The
               circumstances concerned must or should and not
               may be established;
         (2)   the facts so established should be consistent only
E              with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is
               to say, they should not be explainable on any other
               hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
         (3)   the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
               and tendency;
F
         (4)   they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
               the one to be proved; and
         (5)   there mu:;t be a chain of evidence so compete as
               not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
G              consistent with the innocence of the accused and
               must show that in all human probability the act 'Tlust
               have been done by the accused.
         13. As rightly contended by the learned counsel the ap-
H   pellant that the two circumstances highlighted by the High Court
             ROOP SINGH @ RUPA v. THE STATE                    61
             OF PUNJAB [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

while upholding the conviction of the appellant do not present a     A
complete chain of circumstances which ruled out the possibility
of any other person being the assailant and/or unerringly points
to the accused appellant as being guilty of the charged offences.
There was no evidence led by the prosecution to snow that the
prints in question came into existence at the time the alleged       B
incident took place.
      14. We, therefore, find merit in this appeal, which is al-
lowed. Conviction as recorded by the High Court cannot be
maintained. The appellant is in custody. He be released forth-
with unless required to be in custody in connection with any other   C
case. We record our appreciation for the able manner in which
learned Amicus Curiae assisted the court.
       15. Appeal is allowed.
R.P.                                             Appeal allowed