RUMI BORA DUTTAversusSTATE OF ASSAM

                    (2013] 3 S.C.R. 801


                    RUMI BORA DUTIA                            A
                             V.
                     STATE OF ASSAM
           (Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 2006 etc.)

                       MAY 24, 2013
                                                               B
      [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860:

     s.302134 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence -             c
Conviction and life sentence awarded by courts below - Held:
The circumstances clearly establish that the prosecution has
proved the guilt of the accused-appellants and the
circumstances are conclusive in nature to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved - The chain       0
of evidence is absolutely complete - Conviction and
sentence upheld - Criminal law - Motive - Evidence Act,
1872 - s.27 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313.

      The appellants - the aunt and the nephew - were
 prosecuted for causing the death of the bread winner of E
 the family. The prosecution case was that on the day of
 occurrence, the police learnt about hospitalization of a
 person because of bullet injuries. When the police
 reached the hospital, they were informed that the victim
 was brought dea.d at 1.30 a.m. The police then reached . F
 the house of the deceased and finding the narration of
 his wife absolutely false, arrested the appellants. In the
 investigation, illicit relationship between the two accused-
 appellants surfaced. Both of them confessed to the
 Investigating Officer, which led to recovery of a knife, a G
 skipping rope and its missing handle from the house. The
 post-mortem report indicated that the death was caused
 by strangulation, and there was no bullet injury on the
·chest but it was a stab injury with a kni'fe. The trial court
                                801                            H
    802      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A convicted both the accused u/s 302/34 IPC and
  sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court
  dismissed their appeal.

          Dismissing the appeals, the Court
B      HELD: 1.1. The whole case of the prosecution rests
  on the circumstantial evidence and, as such, it is the duty
  of the court to see that the circumstances which lead
  towards the guilt of the accused have been fully
  established and they must lead to a singular conclusion
C that the accused is guilty of the offence and rule out the
  probabilities which are likely to allow the presumption of
  innocence of the accused. [para 10] [908-D-F]

      Han um ant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M. P. 1952
D SCR 1091 = AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
  v. State of Maharashtra 1985 (1) SCR 88 = 1984 (4)
  SCC 116; C. Chenga Reddy and Others v. State of A.P. 1996
    (3) Suppl. SCR 479 = 1996 (10) SCC 193 - referred to.

          1.2. On a studied scrutiny of the evidence on record,
E   this Court is convinced that the circumstances that have
    been proven are that (i) occurrence took place about 1.30
    a.m.; {ii) the deceased was found lying dead on his bed;
    (iii) the accused appellants lived with him in his house
    and were present at the time the incident took place; (iv)
F   accused-appellant (nephew) made a statement u/s 27 of
    the Evidence Act and led the police to recover the knife,
    the weapon of assault, and the missing handle of the
    skipping rope; (v) the skipping rope was found in the bed
    room and was recovered at the instance of the wife; (vi)
G   the wife of deceased gave a false information and tried
    to mislead the police; (vii) she disowned the information
    in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C; (viii) that the accused
    persons had not offered any explanation with regard to
    recovery of weapons from their house except making a
H   bald denial; (ix) there is evidence on record that the wife
      RUMI BORA DUTTA v. STATE OF ASSAM                 803


had developed an illicit relationship with the nephew of       A
the deceased, which provides a motive; (x) nothing had
been stated in their examination u/s 313 that any one had
any animosity with the deceased; (xi) nothing was stolen
from the house; and (xii) the child (who was stated to
have been taken by miscreants as stated by wife) was           B
immediately found from the road. [para 23] [813-E-H; 814-
A-B]
     1.3. Besides, the doctor (PW-6), who conducted the
post-mortem, in his report opined that the cause of death      C
was due to asphyxia following !.trangulation and the
same was caused with a rope. It is further opined that the
injury on the chest of the deceased was caused with
some pointed weapon like dagger. Thus, from the post
mortem report it is manifest that the FIR lodged by the wife
was a maladroit attempt to save her skin. It was totally       D
false. [para 9] [808-B-D]                                  ·

    State of Maharashtra v. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde and
Others 2000 (3) SCR 880 = 2000 (6) SCC 269; State of
Punjab v. Gurnam Kaur and Others 2009 (3) SCR 1195 =           E
2009 (11) SCC 225; Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of
Uttarancha/ 2010 (1) SCR 1027      =2010 (2) SCC 583;
Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT) of Delhi AIR 2011 SC 1863;
Manu Sharma v. State 2010 (4) SCR 103 = 2010 (6)
SCC 1; and State of Maharashtra v. Suresh 1999 (5) Suppl.      F
          =
SCR 215 2000 (1) SCC 471 - referred to.

     1.4. The circumstances clearly establish that the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused-
appellants and the circumstances are conclusive in
nature to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed        G
to be proved. The chain of evidence is absolutely
complete. The conviction and sentence is upheld. [para
24] [814-8-C]

                                                               H
    804      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A                         Case Law Reference:
          1952 SCR 1091                referred to        para 11
          1985 (1) SCR 88              referred to        para 12
          1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 479 referred to             para 13
B
          2000 (3) SCR 880             referred to        para 16
          2009 (3) SCR 1195            referred to        para 17
          2010 (1) SCR 1027            referred to        para 18
c
          AIR 2011 SC 1863             referred to        para 19
          2010 (4) SCR 103             referred to        para 19
          1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 215 referred to             para 21
D       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 737 of 2006.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 23.06.2005 of the High
    Court of Assam at Gauhati in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2002.
E
                               ·WITH

    Crl. A. No. 738 of 2006.

          Kiran Bhardwaj (A.C.) for the Appellant.
F
        Navnit Kumar (for Corporate Law Group) for the
    Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G      DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The factual score from which the
  present appeals arise has a sad and sordid story to tell
  reflecting the morbid obsession of the appellants with lust,
  abandonment of kernel of all human virtues and deep addiction
  with carnal desires. The deceased- husband, as expected,
H trusted the wife, Ruma Bora, and such an emotional trust has
       RUMI BORA DUTTA v. STATE OF ASSAM                     805
                [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
always been regarded as a great complemen~ to any person.            A
The other appellant, Probal, nephew of the deceased, was
shown affection, a beautiful and sacred sentiment in a human
being and also charity, the wonder of life without a ceremony,
and kept at his home to prosecute his studies but, an obnoxious
one, the infidelity of the wife with incurable sensuality and the    B
monstrous ingratitude of the nephew, brought his tragic end. The
falsehood of both the wife and the nephew culminated in the
murder of the deceased, an Upper Division Clerk in the office
of the Deputy Superintendent of Schools, Jorhat. The wife, a
teacher in the school and the nephew, a student of Class-X,          c
ultimately faced trial and being convicted. by the learned trial
Judge under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code
{for short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default
of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for      D
three months, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2002 before
the Gauhati High Court which affirmed the conviction and the
sentence. Hence, they have preferred the present appeals by
special leave.
           -
      2. Shorn of details, the prosecution case is that on           E·
4.6.1997 about 4.30 a.m. the police came to know that at 1.30
a.m. one Naren Dutta had been hospitalized on being hit by a
bullet by the unknown miscreants. The police rushed to the
hospital and found him. dead. A general diary entry was made
on 4.6.1997 and thereafter the police moved to the house of          F
the deceased at Gajpuria Village. When the Investigating
Officer reached the house, wife of the deceased lodged a
written FIR, Ext.-2, stating that about 1.30 a.m. three unknown
persons with their faces covered with black clothes had entered
into the house, tied her up with the point of pistol and while one   G
guarded her, two others entered their bed room and after 15
minutes they came out. As alleged, they lifted their child,
Pranjal, and took him out. When she shouted, her nephew
Probal Dutta, who was inside the house, came out and both of
them looked for the child first and found him from the road.         H
    806      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A Thereafter, they proceeded to the bed room where the
   deceased was lying on the bed and a rope had been fastened
   around his neck. They moved him to the civil hospital where he
  was declared brought dead by the doctor. The Investigating
  Officer on enquiry found the story narrated, vide Ext. P-2, to be
B absolutely false, concocted and incredible and, accordingly,
  arrested the accused persons. In course of investigation Probal
  Dutta confessed before the police that he along with his aunt
  had strangulated the deceased and he had stabbed him on his
  chest. Similar confession was made by the wife. Thereafter a
c case u.1der Section 302/34 IPC was registered and during
  investigation Probal Dutta, in pursuance of his disclosure
  statement, Ext.-6, led to discovery of the two pieces of handle
  of the skipping rope and the knife hidden inside the house. The
  wife led to the discovery of the skipping rope that was used
D for strangulation. Thereafter, the investigating agency got the
  post mortem done, recorded the statements of the witnesses
  and after completing all the formalities placed the charge-sheet
  before the competent court which, in turn, committed the matter
  to the court of Session.
E        3. The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed to
    be tried.

       4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge,
  examined nine witnesses and two witnesses were examined
F as court witnesses. The defence chose not to adduce any
  evidence.

       5. The trial court, appreciating the material brought on
  record, came to hold that death was homicidal in nature; that
  there was no bullet injury on the chest but a stab injury with the
G knife that had been seized; that though the confession made
  before the police officer was not admissible in evidence, yet
  the statement that provided information pertaining to recovery
  was admissible; that the recovery made by the prosecution was
  absolutely believable; that the story put forth by the wife being
H disowned by her was a circumstance against the accused to
      RUMI BORA DUTTA v. STATE OF ASSAM                       807
               [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
be taken note of; and that there was motive as the evidence           A
on record would show existence of illicit relationship between
the accused persons and, accordingly, found them guilty and
imposed the sentence as has been stated hereinbefore.

      6. On an appeal being preferred the High Court re-              B
appreciated the evidence, took note of all the circumstances
and opined that the prosecution had proven the charge to the
hilt and consequently declined to interfere with the impugned
judgment of conviction:

     7. We have heard Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, learned counsel for C
the appellant, and Mr. Navnit Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondent-State.

     8. First we shall refer to the post mortem report conducted
by Dr. Narayan Bardoloi, PW-6. The relevant part of the report        D
is as follows: -
    "(1) The dead body was in stout condition. One stab wound
    on the right side of the chest wall, size 5 c.m. lateral to the
    sternum, measuring 1 c.m. in length and 1.5 c.m., in length
    and 1.5 c.m. in depth. The wound is gapping. Clotted              E
    blood seen at the external margin and at the level of the
    rib. Underlying bony cage is intact.

    (2) One transverse, continuous ligature mark seen around
    the neck at the level of thyroid cartel edge. The breadth of      F
    the mark is about 4 m.m. The base of the mark is redid
    and there is achymosis at the edges of the ligature mark.
    On dissection - the subcutenous tissue is found
    acchymosed.
         The head and the facre are congested. The tongue             G
    is swelled.

          The scalp, membrance and brain are all congested

                                                                      H
    808       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A              Pleaurae, lungs, pericardium and heart are all
          congested (affected)

          Paritonium, stomach, intestine are also congested.

                The injuries were ante mortem."
B
         9. In his report he has opined that the cause of death is
    due to asphyxia folluwing strangulation and the same was
    caused with a rope. It is further opined that the injury on the chest
    of the deceased was caused with some pointed weapon like
c   dagger. Thus, from the post mortem report it is manifest that
    the .FIR lodged by the wife was a maladroit attempt to save her
    skin. It was totally false. It is interesting to note that she in her
    statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
    Procedure has disowned the same. We would advert to the
0   effect of the same at a later stage.

        10. It is seemly to state here that the whole case of the
  prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. The learned
  trial Judge as well as the High Court has referred to certain
  circumstances. When a case is totally hinges on the
E circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the Court to see that
  the circumstances which lead towards the guilt of the accused
  have been fully established and they must lead to a singular
  conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence and rule out
  the probabilities which are likely to allow the presumption of
F innocence of the accused.

        11. More thc:n six decades back this Court in Hanumant
    Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. 1 , had laid down the
    principles as under:-
G         "lt is well to remember that in cases where the evidence
          is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which
          the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first
          instance be fully established, and all the facts so

H 1.   AIR 1952 SC 343.
       RUMI BORA DUTTA v. STATE OF ASSAM                     809
                [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
      established should be consistent only with the hypothesis      A
      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
      chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any          B
      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."

      12. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra2,      C
the five golden principles which have been stated to constitute
the panchsheel of the proof of the case based on circumstantial
evidence are (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely 'may
be' fully established, (ii) the facts so established should be       D
consistent only 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, (iii) the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the        E
one to be proved, and (v) there must be a chain of evidence
so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and
must show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.                                                 F

       13. In C. Chenga Reddy and Others v. State of A.P. 3, it
has been held that 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        G
circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the
circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap
left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances

2.   (1984) 4 sec 116.
3.   (1996) 10 sec 193.
     810        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
  accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.

         14. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view the
    circumstances that have been established in the present case
    are required to be scrutinized.
8
        15. The principal criticism advanced against the analysis
  in the impugned judgments by the learned counsel, appearing
  for the appellant, is that the trial court and the High Court have
  misdirected themselves in accepting the factum of recovery as
C admissible in evidence. It is her further submission that the
  recovery part being a part of the confession before a police
  officer should have been discarded and once the said fact is
  kept out of consideration, the dents into other circumstances
  would be manifest and the chain of circumstances would be
D incomplete to establish the charge against the accused-
  appellants.

        16. In this context, we may refer with profit to the ruling in
   State of Maharashtra v. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde and
   Others4 wherein it has been observed that the basic idea
E embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine
  of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded
  on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made
  on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner,
  such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied
F by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional
  or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact
  it becomes a reliable information. Hence, the legislature has
  permitted such information to be used as evidence by
  restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. Thereafter,
G the two learned Judges proceeded to state as follows: -
          "It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not
          discovery of a fact as envisaged in the section. The

H   4.   (2000) 6 sec 2se.
         RUMI BORA DUTTA v. STATE OF ASSAM                     811
                  [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
       decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v.           A
       Emperof' is the most quoted authority for supporting the
       interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the
       section embraces the place from which the object was
       produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the
       information given must relate distinctly to that effect."      B

       17. In State of Punjab v. Gumam Kaur and Others6, it has
 been laid down that if by reason of statements made by an
 accused some facts have been discovered, the same would
 be admissible against the person who had made the statement          C
 in terms of Section 27 of the Evidei ,ce Act.

       18. In Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchaf', after
. referring to earlier decision in Pu/ukuri Kotayya (supra), a two-
  Judge Bench opined in the context of the said case that when
  the accused was ready to show the place where he had                D
  concealed the clothes of the deceased, the same was clearly
  admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act because the
  same related distinctly to the discovery of the clothes of the
  deceased from that very place.
                                                                      E
      19. In Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT) of Delhi8, relying on
 the decisions in Aftab Ahmad Anasari (supra) and Manu
 Sharma v. State9 , the Court opined that when the accused had
 given a statement.that related to discovery of an electric wire
 by which the crime was committed, the said disclosure                F
 statement was admissible as evidence.

      20. In the case at hand, both the accused have led to
 discovery of the knife and the skipping rope used in the crime.
 It was within their special knowledge. The medicai evidence
                                                                      G.
 5.   AIR 1947 PC 67.
e.    c2009) 11 sec 225.
 1.   c2010) 2 sec 583.
 8.   AIR 2011 SC 1863.
 9.   AIR 2010 SC 2352.                                               H
    812       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A corroborates the fact that the deceased died because of
  strangulation and further there was a stab injury on his chest.
  Thus, the weapon and the other articles have direct nexus with
  the injuries found in the post mortem report.

8      21. At this juncture, as mentioned earlier we proceed to
  advert to the· issue pertaining to falsehood. In this context we
  may fruitfully refer to the authority in State of Maharashtra v.
  Suresh 10, wherein it has been held that a false answer offered
  by the accused when his attention is drawn to the
  circumstances, it renders the circumstances can be of
C inculpating nature. In such a situation a false answer can also
  be counted as providing "a missing link" for completing the
  chain. In the case at hand, the factum of recovery through the
  witnesses has been proven that the accused-persons had led
  to recovery. When it was put to them they had given an answer
D in the negative in a non-challant manner. The incriminating
  materials were concealed and they were discovered being led
  by the accused persons. In the case of Suresh (supra) it has
  been held that there are three possibilities when an accused
  points out the place where the incriminating material is
E concealed without stating that it was concealed by himself.
  Elaborating on the three possibilities the Court proceeded to
  state as follows: -

          "One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second
F         is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it.
          And the third is that he would have been told bY. another
          person that it was concealed there. But if the accused
          declines to tell the criminal court that his knowledge about
          the concealment was on account of one of the last two
          possibilities the criminal court can presume that it was
G
          concealed by the accused himself. This is because the
          accused is the only person who can offer the explanation
          as to how else he came to know of such concealment and
          if he chooses to refrain from telling the court as to how else
H 10. (2000) 1 sec 471.
      RUMI BORA DUTTA v. STATE OF ASSAM                      813
               [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
     he came to know of it, the presumption is well-justified       A
     course to be adopted by the criminal court that the
     concealment was made by himself'

    22. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principle the factum
of recovery is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the
                                                                    B
prosecution.

     23. Presently to the cumulative effect of the circumstances
~rought by way of evidence. The prosecution witnesses have
clearly deposed that the deceased was lying on the bed and
they were told about the arrival of the miscreants and causing      C
the injury. It is also brought in evidence that apart from the
appellants the old mother of the deceased was in the house.
The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court has rightly
disbelieved the attack by any miscreant. It is also interesting
to note that the child was immediately recovered by the             D
accused Probal from the road. All probabilities thought to be
covered by the accused-appellants gradually melted and their
complicity in the crime and the criminality of the mind stood
revealed. On a studied scrutiny of the evidence on record, we
are convinced that the circumstances that have been proven          E
are that (i) occurrence took place about 1.30 a.m.; y(ii) the
deceased was found lying dead on his bed; (iii) the accused
appellants lived with him in his house and were present at the
time the incident took place; (iv) accused Probal made a
statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and led the          F
police to recover the knife, the weapon of assault and the
missing handle of the skipping rope; (v) the skipping rope was
found in the bed room and was recovered at the instance of
the wife; (vi) the accused-appellant Rumi Bora gave a false
information and tried to mislead the police; (vii) the wife had     G
disowned the information in her statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C; (viii) that the accused persons had not offered any
explanation with regard to recovery of weapons from their house
except making a bald denial; (ix) there is evidence on record
that the wife had developed an illicit relationship with the        H
    814     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 3 S.C.R.


A nephew of the deceased, which provides a motive; (x) nothing
  had been stated in their examination under Section 313 that
  any one had any animosity with the deceased; (xi) nothing was
  stolen from the house; and (xii) the child was immediately found
  from the road.
B
       24. The aforesaid circumstances clearly establish that the
  prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused-appellants and
  the circumstances are conclusive in nature to exclude every
  hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The chain of
C evidence is absolutely complete. Thus, we have no hesitation
  in affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
  passed by the learned trial Judge that has been given the stamp
  of approval by the High Court.

      25. Consequently, the appeals, being devoid of merit,
D stand dismissed.
    R.P.                                     Appeals dismissed.