SANATAN NASKAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

                   [2010] 7 S.C.R. 1023


                SANATAN NASKAR & ANR.                             A
                             v.
                 STATE OF WEST BENGAL
             (Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2008)
                        JULY 8, 2010
                                                                  B
 [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

    Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134, 392 and 411 - Murder
and robbery - Unknown miscreants ransacking house of
complainant's and committing death of complainant wife -          C
Conviction and sentence u/ss. 302134, 392 and 411 by court
below - Justification of - Held: Justified - Prosecution was
able to establish and prove complete chain of circumstances
and events - Said circumstances collectively point to the guilt
of accused beyond any reasonable doubt.                           o
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313 - Object and
scope of - Discussed.

    According to the prosecution case, unknown
miscreants caused death of complainant's wife. The                E
assailants also ransacked the rooms of the complainant's
house. Investigation was carried out. The appellants
were arrested. On basis of the statement of the accused,
the wrist watches as well as camera which were looted
from the house of the deceased were recovered. The                F
Sessions Judge as well as the High Court convicted and
sentenced the accused u/ss. 302/34, 392 and 411 IPC.
Hence the appeal.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                                  G
    HELD: 1. The doctrine of circumstantial evidence is
brought into aid where there are no witnesses to give eye
version of the occurrence and it is for the prosecution to
establish complete chain of circumstances and events
                          1023                                    H
    1024   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A leading to a definite conclusion that will point towards
  the involvement and guilt of the accused. [Para 1) [1030·
    B·C]
       2.1 Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 clearly states
  that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in
8 consequence of the information received from a person
  accused of any offence, in the custody of the police
  officer, so much of such, information, whether it amounts
  to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact
  thereby discovered, may be proved. [Para 5) [1035-G]
c
       2.2 In the instant case, the handkerchief, that was
  recovered from the place of occurrence, was
  subsequently owned by the accused. The fact recorded
  that he admitted his guilt was not admissible and could
D not be proved and has rightly been rejected by the trial
  court in the impugned judgment. The wrist watches and
  the camera, which were recovered after the statement of
  the accused was recorded, while in custody, cannot be
  faulted with as those items have not only been recovered
E but duly identified by the owners during investigation as
  well as at the trial stage. PW 13-lnvestigating Officer, in
  his statement has referred to the recording of the
  statement of the accused after they were taken into
  custody and resultant recoveries of the articles. While
F referring to the cross examination of PW 13, efforts were
  made to involve the local witnesses, which he did not
  succeed and later when the seizure memos were
  prepared PW8 and PW9 were present. Ext. 18 clearly
  shows their presence and nothing contrary was
  suggested to them in their cross examination. Their
G presence during search and seizure of the house of the
  accused on two occasions has been c9mpletely
  established by the prosecution. No confessional
  statement made to the police, as alleged, has been relied
   upon by the Courts. It is only the objects recovered, in
H
  SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST              1025
                 BENGAL

furtherance to the statement of the accused while in           A
police custody like wrist watches, camera etc., that has
been relied upon to by the court to complete the chain
of events relating to the crime in question. Thus, any of
these acts are not hit by section 27 of the Act. [Para 5]
[1035-G-H; 1036-A-F]                                           B

    Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC 657;
Salim Akhtar v. State of UP. (2003) 5 SCC 499 - referred
to.
     2.3 PW 8 and PW 9 specifically stated that on the date    C
of occurrence they had seen the accused near the place
of occurrence. PW5 and PW 6 also stated that the
accused were known to the family of the deceased. Most
important statement pointing towards the normal practice
of the house and likely involvement of the accused is          o
pointed out in the statement of PW6, the daughter-in-law
of the deceased. Besides referring to their departure from
the house along with others and returning back to the
house at about 9.30 P.M., she also stated that she found
her mother-in-law, the deceased, lying on the floor and        E
blood coming out of her mouth from the right side. The
house was ransacked. She specifically stated that she
would be able to identify the wrist watches and the
camera and she gave the make of wrist watches and
camera. All the articles were identified by her. [Para 7]
                                                               F
(1038-A-D]

     2.4 The forensic experts had taken the foot prints but
the report was not definite as to whether the foot prints
found at the site were the foot prints of the accused,
however, this fact loses significance for the reason that      G
the Investigating Officer had clearly stated in his evidence
that at the place of occurrence, which was later on sealed
by him, there were lot of foot prints as number of persons
had gathered there. This small discrepancy cannot be of
much advantage to the appellants inasmuch immaterial           H
    1026    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010) 7 S.C.R.

A contradictions or variations are bound to arise in the
  investigation and trial of the case for various factors
  attributable to none. [Para 8) [1038-H; 1039-A-C)

        State of Haryana v. Ram Singh 2002 CLJ 987 - referred
B to.
         2.5 The answers by an accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. are
    of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the
    veracity of the case of the prosecution. The scope of s.
    313 Cr.P.C. is wide and is not a mere formality. The object
C   of recording the statement of the accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
    is to put all incriminating evidence to the accused so as
    to provide him an opportunity to explain such
    incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the
    evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also permit
o   him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so
    chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the
    crime. The Court has been empowered to examine the
    actused but only after the prosecution evidence has
    been concluded. The statement of the accused can be
E   used to test the1 veracity of the exculpatory of the
    admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken
    into consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not
    strictly evidence in the case. The use is permissible as
    per the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations.
F   The Courts may rely on a portion of the statement of the
    accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other
    evidence against him led by the prosecution, however,
    such statements made under this Section should not be
    considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence
    adduced by the prosecution. Another important caution
G   that Courts have declared in the pronouncements is that
    conviction of the accused cannot be based merely on the
    statement made u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. as it cannot be regarded
    as a substantive piece of evidence. [Para 10) [1040-D-G;
    1041-C-G)
H
  SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST             1027
                 BENGAL

     Vijendrajit v. State of Bombay AIR 1953 SC 247 -         A
referred to.
     2.6 It was expected of the accused to provide some
reasonable explanation in regard to various
circumstances leading to the commission of the crime.
                                                              8
He was known to the family along with other accused
and by giving just a bare denial or lack of knowledge he
cannot tilt the case in his favour. Rather their answers
either support the case of the prosecution or reflect the
element of falsehood in the statement recorded u/s.313
Cr.P.C. In both these circumstances the court would be        C
entitled to draw adverse inference against the accused.
[Para 11] [1042-D-F]
     2.7 It cannot be said that the appellants have been
falsely implicated. The articles have been duly identified    o
which were recovered from the possession of the
accused at their instance. It is also not correct that the
court has relied upon the confessions made to the police.
Only that much of the relevant fact has been taken into
consideration which has resulted in the recovery of the       E
wrist watches, camera etc. and the statement, to the
extent they admitted their crime, has not been referred
much less relied upon by the courts. [Para 12] [1042-G-
H; 1043-A]
     2.8 There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is   F
a case ot circumstantial evidence as there was no eye
witness to the occurrence. An accused can be punished
if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial
evidence provided, the prosecution is able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt complete chain of events and          G
circumstances which definitely points towards the
involvement and guilt of the suspect or accused, as the
case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal
merely because there is no eye witness in the cas~. It is
also equally true that an accused can be convicted on         H
    1028   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to
  satisfaction of accepted principles in that regard. [Para
  13] [1043-B-D]
         Sharad v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 -
    referred to.
B
       2.9 The accused, after having known the entire case
  of the prosecution, is required to be examined u/s. 313
  Cr.P.C. All the material evidence has to be put to the
  accused and he has to be awarded the fair opportunity
c of answering the case of the prosecution, as well as to
  explain his version to the court without being subjected
  to any cross-examination. The answers given by the
  accused can be used against him in the trial in so far as
  they support the case of the prosecution. [Para 15] [1045-
D E-G]
       2.10 In the instant case, the prosecution has been
  made able to establish and prove complete chain of
  circumstances and events which if collectively examined,
  clearly points to the guilt of the accused. [Para 18] [1046-
E G-H; 1047-A]
      2.11 It is in evidence that the entrance door of the
  house was used to be locked. It was opened only when
  the visitor to the house press the call bell and such
F person was duly identifiable to the member of the family,
  watching from the 1st floor and that the keys were sent
  down with the help of a thread to enable the visitor to
  open the outside lock and then to enter the house.
  Keeping this routine practice adopted by the family of the
  deceased, it is clear that both the accused could enter the
G house only by the process indicated above or by break
  opening the lock of the entrance door. This is nobody's
  case before the Court that the lock or the door itself was
  broken by the miscreants who enter , the house of the
  deceased. The only possible inference is that these
H accused were known to the family, as stated by the
  SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST              1029
                BENGAL

witnesses including PW 6 and they entered the house in           A
the manner afore stated and upon entering the house
they ransacked the house and committed the murder of
PG and fled away with stolen articles. The stolen articles
were subsequently recovered from them and duly
identified during investigation and trial. All these             B
circumstances established the case of the prosecution
beyond any reasonable doubt. [Pa~a 19) [1047-A-E]
     Anant Lagu v. State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 500;
Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa AIR 2003 SC 3915 -
referred to.                                                     C

      Sudama Pandey v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 679 -
distinguished.
                    Case Law Reference:
                                                                 D
    (2004) 1o sec 657           Referred to.      Para 6
    (2003) 5 sec 499            Referred to.      Para 6
                                                         .  ,)

    2002 CLJ 987                Referred to.      Para 8
    AIR 1953 SC 247             Referred to.      Para 10        E·

    (1984) 4 sec 116            Referred to.      Para 14
    AIR 1960 SC 500             Referred to.      Para 16
    AIR 2003 SC 3915            Referred to.      Para 17
                                                                 F
    (2002) 1 sec 679            Distinguished.    Para 18
    CRIMINAL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 686 of 2008.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 07 .02.2005 of the High      G
Court at Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2001.
    B.S. Malik, Mehtab Ahmed Ali Khan for the Appellants.
    Avijit Bhattacharjee for the Respondent.
                                                                 H
    1030    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 7 S.C.R.


A       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. This case .is a typical
  example, where conviction is entirely based upon circumstantial
  evidence. It is a settled principle of law that doctrine of
8 circumstantial evidence is brought into aid where there are no
  witnesses to give eye version of the occurrence and it is for
  the prosecution to establish complete chain of circumstances
  and events leading to a definite conclusion that will point towards
  the involvement and guilt of the accused. The challenge in the
C present appeal is to the concurrent judgments of conviction
  passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High
  Court, primarily, on the ground that the prosecution has been
  able to establish by leading cogent and reliable evidence and
  the chain of circumstances leading to the commission of the
  offence by the accused persons. The challenge, primarily, is
D that findings of the Court are erroneous in law and on the facts
  of the case. According to the accused-appellants, the
  prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt beyond
  reasonable doubt. Secondly, it is submitted that the
  confessions, alleged to have been recorded by the police
E officer on the basis of which recoveries were effected, are
  contrary to law and, therefore, could not be the basis of the
  conviction of the appellants. For these reasons the appellants
  claim acquittal from charge.

F        2. To examine the merits of these contentions reference
    to the case of the prosecution and the facts, as they emerged
    from the record, would be necessary.

       3. On 28th April, 1999 at Police Station Jadavpur, a case
  was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code
G (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') against unknown miscreants
  for causing death of one Smt. Phool Guha, wife of Dr. Ashim
  Guha, resident of 11/1 East Road within Jadavpur Police
  Station. This case was registered on the basis of the complaint
  made by Dr. Ashim Gu ha (Ext. P.1) which reads as under:
H
   SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST                  1031
        BENGAL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

    'To                                                             A
    The Officer-in-Charge
    Jadavpur, P.S.
    Dist-south 24-Parganas
    Sir,
                                                                    B
           This is to inform you, that on 28.4.99 at aroud 20.15
    hrs. myself along with my son Debmalya and daughter-in-
    law Indira left for Gariahat for some personal work. My wife
    Smt. Phul Guha was in the house alone at 21.35 hrs. we
    all returned hume and noticed a large gathering in front of     c
    our house. I found my wife lying dead inside the room of
    my daughter-in-law having her tongue prosuded and some
    marks of bruises could to detected on her body and blood
    was seen trickled out of the right angle of her mouth. It was
    also noticed that the assailants after (illegible) the murder
                                                                    0
    of my wife, ransacked both the rooms and the household
    articles were scattered.

          It appeared that the assailants entered through the
    main door after obtaining the keys and the lock along with
    the key was found in the stair case.                            E

           I, therefore, request you to kindly take necessary
     action and do the needful to (illegible) the miscreants.

                                                Yours faithfully,
                                                                    F
                                       Sd/- Asim Kumar Guha"

As is evident from .the above complaint that Dr. Ashim Guha,
husband of the deceased, his son Debmalya and daughter-in-
law Indira had left for Garihat on 28th April, 1999 at about 8.15
P.M. The deceased was all alone at home. When they returned         G
home at about 9.30 P.M. they found a large gathering in front
of the house. Upon entering the house, they found that Phool
Guha was lying dead inside the room of her daughter-in-law with
tongue protruded and with some marks of bruises on her body
and blood trickling out of her mouth. It transpired that the        H
    1032    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A   assailants committed the murder of his wife and had ransacked
    both the rooms as the household articles were lying scattered.
    Mrinal Kanti Roy, the Investigating Officer, who was later
    examined as PW 13, commenced his investigation. He called
    for experts including dog squad. The photographs were taken.
B   The dog squad was brought to the place of occurrence. After
    sniffing the place of occurrence, taking the round of the house
    and also sniffing the handkerchief lying on the face of the
    deceased, the dogs could not identify anyone present there.
    Thereafter inquest of the deceased was taken with the help of
C   the relatives. The body was taken to Mominpur Police Morgue
    by the constable where the post mortem of the deceased was
    conducted and the report is Ext. 8. From the place of
    occurrence certain articles were recovered and seizure memos
    were prepared whereafter both the rooms at the upper floor of
    the house were locked. The saliva and blood staines, where
0
    the body was found, were also seized by scraping floor and
    separate seizure memo was prepared and marked as Ext. 3.
    After some enquiry and investigation, the Investigating Officer
    arrested Sanatan Naskar, Appellant No. 1 on 8th July, 1999 from
    village Khasiara. He admitted his guilt in commission of the
E   crime as well as identified the handkerchief recovered as his
    own. During investigation this appellant made a statement,
    which led to the recovery of wrist watches, which were allegedly
    looted from the house of the deceased. He also informed about
    the involvement of accused Mir !smile, Appellant No. 2, who was
F   arrested on 11th July, 1999 from Jugi Battala and he also,
    during investigation, made a statement leading to the recovery
    of two wrist watches as well as camera. The watches were
    recovered vide recovery memo Ext.6. The camera was
    recovered on the statement of the said accused from village
G   Jhijrait for which the seizure memo Ext. 5 was also prepared.
    An attempt was made to recover jewellery from the shop, which
    was raided, but nothing could be recovered. The Investigating
    Officer then recorded the statements of number of witnesses,
    but in particular Jahar Chatterjee@ Kakuji (PW5),' Indira Guha
H   (PW6), Ali Anam (PW8) and Biplab Talukdar (PW9)
  SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST                  1033
       BENGAL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

respectively and after completion of the investigation, a charge   A
sheet under Sections 302/411 /34 IPC was filed before the
Court of competent jurisdiction. The case was committed to the
Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate vide order dated
28th November, 1999. After trial and recording of the
statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal        B
Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') the
learned Sessions Judge, by a detailed judgment, convicted
both the accused and punished them as under:

    "Both the convicts are produced from J.C. They are given       C
    hearing with regard to question of sentence u/s 235(2)
    Cr.P.C. The convicts are informed that the sentence u/s
    302/34 l.P.C. which has been established yesterday is life
    imprisonment or death penalty and the sentence for
    committing robbery u/s 392 l.P.C. is imprisonment for 10
    years and the sentence for having possession of the looted     D
    property u/s 411 1.P.C. is 3 years. The convicts plead
    mercy. Heard Ld. PP and Ld. defence counsels in this
    regard.

           As the convicts are found guilty u/s 302/34 IPC the     E
    minimum punishment is imprisonment for life and this .is
    not a case of rarest of the rare cases and as such the
    death penalty is not called for. Accordingly, both the
    convicts are sentenced to R.I. for Life. With regard to
    offence of robbery u/s 392 IPC the convicts are sentenced      F
    to R. Imprisonment for five years. With regard to offence
    u/s 411 IPC for possessing the looted properties the
    convicts are sentenced to R. Imprisonment for one year.
    All the sentences shall run concurrently."

     4. Aggrieved from the judgment of guilt and order of          G
sentence dated 6.12.2000, the appellants filed an appeal
before the High Court. The High Court declined to interfere with
the judgment of the learned trial Court. Even on the question of
sentence the High Court found that adequate and just sentence
had been awarded. In other words, the High Court even declined     H
    1034    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A   to interfere on the question of quantum of sentence and
    dismissed the appeal vide order dated 7th February, 2005
    giving rise to the filing of the present appeal under Article 136
    of the Constitution.

       5. Since we have noticed, at the very opening of the
8
  judgment, that it is a typical case of circumstantial evidence and
  the entire challenge to the concurrent judgments is based on
  the facts that the chain of events has not been completely
  proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the
  appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt on the facts of
C the present case. Besides challenging the recoveries alleged
  to have been made from and/or at the instance of the accused,
  it was contended that the same are hit by the provisions of
  Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to
  as 'the Act'). That being the sole and paramount circumstance,
D which had weighed with the Courts for convicting the appellants,
  the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside. We are of
  the considered view that the chain of events and circumstances
  has been quite aptly stated by the trial Court in its judgment
  which are as follows:
E
         "Thus, therefore, it is now settled that the deceased died
         in between 8.15 P.M. to 9.00 PM. No other hypothesis in
         the alternative can be drawn.

               In this regard the chain of circumstances rest on the
F        following clues:-

         1J Presence of a handkerchief with a empty packet of
         capstan tobacco pouch beside the dead body;

G        2) Seizure .of camera with cover and two ladies wrist
         watches from the hideout as laid by both aced. Separately;
         and

         3) presence of aced. Persons near the PO house at the
         approximate time of murder;
H
  SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST                   1035
       BENGAL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

    4) medical evidence by the auto pay surgeon (PW-10) who         A
    suggested that the death of the deceased might be
    resulted from suffocation caused by this handkerchief
    (produced to him) if pressed against the mouth and nazal
    cavity with sufficient force and that the scuffling might due
    to force applied by more than one person;                       B

    5) result of chemical examination of the handkerchief.

           Regarding time no. 1 the handkerchief was sent for
    chemical examination and the report is marked as exbt-
    14 with objection. It appears from the said report that         C
    traces of saliva was detected in the item-A (handkerchief)
    and item-B (floor scrapings) and floor swab in cotton wool.
    Blood was detected in item-A and B. Regarding the blood
    group of these items report of the serologist was called
    for. The report of serologist is marked exbt-14/9. It appears   D
    from the said report that the handkerchief cuttings floor
    scraping and blood soaked in filter paper were stained with
    human blood but the blood group of those human blood
    could not be determined as the sample was not sufficient
    for test for the first two items and item no. 4 viz. blood      E
    soaked filter paper was stained with B-group blood.

          It however appears from the said report that the
    blood of the deceased belongs to group-B. So the report
    of F.S.L. and the serologist do not help the prosecution.
    So I shall have to rely on the other evidence on record."       F

The provisions of Section 27 of the Act clearly states that when
any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of the
information received from a person accused of any offence, in
the custody of the police officer, so much of such, information,    G
whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly
to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. In the present
case the handkerchief, that was recovered from the place of
occurrence, was subsequently owned by the accused. The fact
recorded that he admitted his guilt was not admissible and could    H
        1036    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 7 S.C.R.


    A   not be proved and has rightly been rejected by the learned trial
        Court in the impugned judgment. The wrist watches and the
        camera, which were recovered after the statement of the
        accused was recorded, while in custody, cannot be faulted with
        as those items have not only been recovered but duly identified
    B   by the owners during investigation as well as at the trial stage.
        PW13, the Investigating Officer, in his statement has referred
        to the recording of the statement of the accused after they were
        taken into custody and resultant recoveries of the articles. The
        contention is that the confessions extracted by the police officer
    C   are illegal and inadmissible, the alleged recoveries made in
        furtherance thereto and preparation of seizure memos are also
        unsustainable. In other words, these exhibits cannot be
        admitted or read in evidence. We may notice, on the contrary,
        that even the learned trial Court has specifically dealt with this
        objection. While referring to the cross examination of PW 13,
    0
        efforts were made to involve the local witnesses, which he did
        not succeed and later when the seizure memos were prepared
        PW8 and PW9 were present. Ext. 18 clearly shows their
        presence and nothing contrary was suggested to them in their
        cross examination. Their presence during search and seizure
I
    E   of the house of the accused on two occasions has been
        completely established by the prosecution. No confessional
        statement made to the police, as alleged, has been relied upon
        by the Courts. It is only the objects recovered, in furtherance to
        the statement of the accused while in police custody like wrist
    F   watches, camera etc., that has been relied upon to by the Court
        to complete the chain of events relating to the crime in question.
        Thus, any of these acts are not hit by the provisions of Section
        27 of the Act.

    G      6. Usefully, reference can also be made to the judgments
      of this Court enunciating the principles under Section 27 of the
      Act. The Court in Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2004)
      1O sec 657] has held that the first condition necessary for
      bringing Section 27 into operation is the discovery of a fact,
    H albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information
  SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST                     1037
       BENGAL [SWATANTER KUMA~. J.]

received from a person accused of an offence. The second is           A
that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third
is that, at the time of the receipt of the information, the accused
must be in police custody. The last but the most important
condition is that, only "so much of the information" as relates
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest     B
of the information has to be excluded. The Court further held
as under:

     "The various requirements of the section can be summed
     up as follows:
                                                                      c
     (1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must
     be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the
     provision has nothing to do with the question of relevancy.
     The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established
     according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other    D
     evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the
     fact discovered admissible.

     (2) The fact must have been discovered.

     (3) The discovery must have been in consequence of· E
     some information received from the accused and not by
     the accused's own act.

     (4) The person giving the information must be accused of
     a~o~nm.                                                          F

     (5) He must be in the custody of a police officer.

     (6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information
     received from an accused in custody must be deposed to.
                                                                      G
     (7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which
     relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be
     proved. The rest is inadmissible."

Similar view was taken by this Court in Salim Akhtar v. State         H
orUP. [(2003) s sec 499].
    1038   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A      7. Now let us examine certain material facts which would
  help in understanding the chain of events in its correct
  perspec:tive. PW 8 and PW 9 have specifically stated that on
  the datE~ of occurrence they had seen the accused near the
  place of occurrence. PW5 and PW 6 have also stated that the
B accused were known to the family of the deceased. Most
  important statement pointing towards the normal practice of the
  house and likely involvement of the accused is pointed out in
  the statement of PW6, Smt. Indira, the daughter-in-law of the
  deceasE~d. Besides referring to their departure from the house
c along with others and returning back to the house at about 9.30
  P.M., she also stated that she found her mother-in-law, the
  deceasE!d, lying on the floor and blood coming out of her mouth
  from the! right side. The house was ransacked. She specifically
  stated that she would be able to identify the wrist watches and
  the• camera and she gave the make of wrist watches and
0
  camera i.e. HMT and Titan wrist watches and Paintax camera.
  All the articles were identified by her as Ex.P.4 and P.5
  respectively. About the accused knowing the family as well as
  how they used to open the entrance door she stated as under:

E       "These two accused persons in the lock up were
        occasionally engaged by us as hired labours for watering
        the flower tubs at roof top and cleaning the cars and for
        carrying drinking water. My mother in law also used their
        rickswa for visits. The accused are identified.
F
              The upper story is used for our residence. The
        accused persons during their call rang an door bell. The
        inmate of the house used to come to balcony to identified
        the coler and in case he appears to be known man, the
        key in usually lowered by a string when the coler opens
G
        then door and on his entering recock the same and
        returned the key. We observed this system as a safety
        measure."

      8. The forensic experts had taken the foot prints but the
H report was not definite as to whether the foot prints found at
   SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST                    1039
        BENGAL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

the site were the foot prints of the accused, however, this fact      A
looses significance for the reason that the Investigating Officer
had clearly stated in his evidence that at the place of
occurrence, which was later on sealed by him, there were lot
of foot prints as number of persons had gathered there. This
small discrepancy cannot be of much advantage to the                  B
appellants inasmuch immaterial contradictions or variations are
bound to arise in the investigation and trial of the case for
various factors attributable to none. Reliance was placed by the
Court on the judgment of State of Haryana v. Ram Singh [2002
CLJ 987] to say that in serious offences it is not fair to extend     c
the rule relating to burden of proof to this extent that justice is
the casualty. The appreciation of evidence by the Court can
hardly be faulted with. At this stage, reference to the statements
of accused under Section 313 Cr.P .C. would also be
significant. Accused Sanatan Naskar in answer to Question No.         0
3 completely denied the knowledge of murder and death of
Phool Guha despite the fact that he was known to the family
and he was being engaged for different works at the same
place. In relation to Question No.13 he answered that that this
was not his handkerchief and in contradiction to the same we
 may refer to Question No. 16 and answer thereof:                     E

     "Q. No. 16 Officer-in-charge stated that dog of Police, first
     sniffed the hanky and then showed you and he became
     sure that the handkerchief was yours. What do you say?
                                                                      F
     A 16. There were lasts of people alongwith the Police-
     Dog. They wiped the swet of my armpit and gave that to
     the 'Dog'. It came and stated before me."

    9. In relation to recovery of the items from him he was
questioned by the Court to which he offered t~e following             G
answer:

     "Q. 27 That witness had stated that on that day at about
     1.30 clock in the afternoon he along with the officer-in-
     charge Anu Alam and you went to the house of Kartick             H
    1040     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A        Naskar at Gangaduara. Village boarding in a police jeep
         and you recovered two wrist watches, one H.M.T. and one
         Titan Wrist-watch all tied in a packet. Inspector prepared
         the seizure list in front of this witness and Anuu Alam and
         you took a copy of the by putting your thumb impression.
B        What do you say?

         A. 27 He did not give me any copy and he also did not go
        with me. I only put my thumb impression in a plain paper
        at the office."

C        He further stated that he had been implicated and does
         not wish to offer any defence.

         10. The answers by an accused under Section 313 of the
    Cr.PC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining
o   the veracity of the case of the prosecution. The scope of
    Section 313 of the Cr.PC is wide and is not a mere formality.
    Let us examine, the essential features of this section and the
    principles .of law as enunciated by judgments, which are the
    gurding factors for proper application and consequences which
E   shall flow from the provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.PC. As
    already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the
    accused under Section 313 of the Cr.PC is to put all
    incriminating evidence to the accused so as to provide him an
    opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances
F   appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At
    the same time, also permit him to put forward his own version
    or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or
    otherwise in the crime. The Court has been empowered to
    examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence
    has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the Court
G   and, besides ensuring the compliance thereof, the Court has
    to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain
    his conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain silence
    coupled with simplicitor denial or, in the alternative, to explain
    his version and reasons, for his alleged involvement in the
H   commission of crime. This is the statement which the accused
   SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST                     1041
        BENGAL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

  makes without fear or right of the other party to cross-examine A
  him. However, if the statements made are false, the Court is
  entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass consequential
  orders, as may be called for, in accordance with law. The
  primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the<
  Court and the accused and to put every important incriminating B
  piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity
  to answer and explain. Once such a statement is recorded, the
  next question that has to be considereq by the Court is to what
  extent and consequences such statement can be used during
  the enquiry and the trial. Over the period of time, the Courts       c
  have explained this concept and now it has attained, more or
  less, certainty in the field of criminal jurisprudence. The
  stcitement of the accused can be used to test the veracity of
  the exculpatory of the admission, if any, made by the accused.
  It can be taken into consideration in any enquiry or trial but still D
  it is not strictly evidence in the case. The provisions of Section
  313 (4) of Cr.PC explicitly provides that the answers given by
  the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry
  or trial and put in evidence for or against the accused in any
  other enquiry into or trial for, any other offence for which such
                                                                       E
  answers may tend to show he has committed. In other words,
  the use is permissible as per the provisions of the Code but
  has its own limitations. The Courts may rely on a portion of the
  statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration
  of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution,
  however, such statements made under this Section should not F
  be considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence
  adduced by the prosecution. Another important caution that
  Courts have declared in the pronouncements is that conviction
  of the accused cannot be based merely on the statement made
  under Section 313 of the Cr.PC as it cannot be regarded as a G
· substantive piece of evidence. In the case of Vijendrajit v. State
  of Bombay, [AIR 1953 SC 247], the Court held as under:

  _"(3) ....._............. As the appellant admitted that he was in
    charge of the godown, further evidence was not led on the          H
    1042    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A       point. The Magistrate was in this situation fully justified in
        referring to the statement of the accused under S.342 as
        supporting the prosecution case concerning the
        possession of the godown. The contention that the
        Magistrate made use of the inculpatory part of the
B       accused's statement and excluded the exculpatory part
        does not seem to be correct. The statement under S.342
        did not consist of two portions, part inculpatory and part
        exculpatory. It concerned itself with two facts. The accused
        admitted that he was in charge of the godown, he denied
c       that the rectified spirit was found in that godown. He alleged
        that the rectified spirit was found outside it. This part of his
        statement was proved untrue by the prosecution evidence
        and had no intimate connection with the statement
        concerning the possession of the godown."
D      11. In the light of the above stated principles it was
  expected of the accused to provide some reasonable
  explanation in regard to various circumstances leading to the
  commission of the crime. He was known to the family along
  with other accused and by giving just a bare denial or lack of
E knowledge he cannot tilt the case in his favour. Rather their
  answers either support the case of the prosecution or reflect
  the element of falsehood in the statement recorded under
  Section 313 of Cr.PC. In both these circumstances the Court
  would be entitled to draw adverse inference against the
F accused.

        12. As already noticed, this is a case of circumstantial
  evidence. We are not able to accept the contention that the
  appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The
G articles have been duly identified which were recovered from
  the possession of the accused at their instance. It is also not
  correct that the Court has relied upon the confessions made
  to the police. Only that much of the relevant fact has been taken
  into consideration which has resulted in the recovery of the
  articles i.e. wrist watches, camera etc. and the statement, to
H
  SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST                     1043
       BENGAL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

the extent they admitted their crime, has not been referred much      A
less relied upon by the Courts. In the case of circumstantial
evidence, law is now well settled.

      13. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case
of circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness to the
                                                                      B
occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that an accused can
be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial
evidence provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt complete chain of events and circumstances
which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the      C
suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not
be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye witness
in the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be
convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to
satisfaction of accepted principles in that regard.
                                                                      D
    14. A Three Judge-Bench of this Court, in the case of
Sharad v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116], held as
under:

     "152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High E
     Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature,·
     character and essential proof required in a criminal case
     which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most
     fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant
     v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343). This case
     has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in F
     a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance,
     the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
     [( 1969) 3 SCC 198] and Ramgopa/ v. State of
     Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625] It may be useful to
     extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case: G

             "It 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 in the first ins.tance be fully       H
    1044   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A             established, and all the facts so 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
B             the one proposed to be proved. In other words,
              there must be 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
c             all human probability the act must have been done
              by the accused."

       153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
       following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against
       an accused can be said to be fully established:
D
       (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
       to be drawn should be fully established.

       It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
       circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may
E
       be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
       distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or
       should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji
       Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
       793] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19,
F      p. 807: sec (Cri) p. 1047]

              "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
              must be and not merely may be guilty before a court
              can convict and the mental distance between 'may
G             be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague
              conjectures from sure conclusions."

              (2) the facts so established should be consistent
              only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
              that is to say, they should not be explainable on any
H
   SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST                 1045
        BENGAL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

           other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,     A

            (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive
            nature and tendency,

           (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
           except the one to be proved, and                        B

           (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete
           as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
           conclusion r.onsistent with the innocence of the
           acrused and must show that in all human probability     C
           the act must have been done by the accused.

    154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
    constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
    circumstantial evidence."
                                                                   D
     15. So, the first and the foremost question that this Court
has to examine in the present case is, whether the prosecution
has been able to establish the chain of event and circumstances
which certainly points out towards the involvement and guilt of
the accused. Even, before we enter upon adjudicating this          E
aspect of the case, it will be appropriate to narrow down the
controversy keeping in view the admissions, if any, made by
the appellants. Th'e accused, after having known the entire case
of the prosecution, is required to be examined under Section
313 of Cr.PC. All the material evidence has to be put to the       F
accused and he has to be awarded the fair opportunity of
answering the case of the prosecution, as well as to explain
his version to the Court without being subjected to any cross-
examination. As already noticed, the answers given by the
accused can be used against him in the trial in so far as they     G
support the case of the prosecution.

    16. In the cases of circumstantial evidence, this Court has
even held accused guilty where the medical evidence did not
support the case of the prosecution. In Anant Lagu v. State of
Bombay [AIR 1960 SC 500], where the deceased died of               H
    1046    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A poison, the Court held that there were various factors which
  militate against a successful isolation of the poison and its
  recognition. It further noticed that while the circumstances often
  speak with unerring certainty, the autopsy and the chemical
  analysis taken by them may be most misleading. No doubt, due
B weight must be given to the negative findings at such
  examination. But, bearing in mind the difficult task which the
  man of medicine performs and the limitations under which he
  works, his failure should not be taken as the end of the case,
  for on good and probative circumstances an irresistible
c inference of guilt can be drawn.

       17. Similar view was taken by a Bench of this Court in the
  case of Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa, [AIR 2003 SC
  3915], where in a case of circumstantial evidence the Court
  even confirmed the death sentence as being rarest of rare
D case. The Court clearly held that it is not a circumstance or some
  of the circumstances which by itself, would assist the Court to
  base a conviction but all circumstances put forth against the
  accused are once established beyond reasonable doubt then
  conviction must follow and all the inordinate circumstances
E would be used for collaborating the case of the prosecution.

       18. This Court in Sudama Pandey v. State of Bihar
  [(2002) 1 sec 679], has stated the principle that circumstances
  shall form a chain which should point to the guilt of the accused.
F The evidence led by the prosecution should prove particular
  facts relevant for that purpose and such proven facts must be
  wholly consistent with the guilt of the accused. Though in that
  case the Court, as a- matter of fact, found that the prosecution
  had failed to prove the chain of circumstances pointing towards
G the guilt of the accused and gave the benefit of doubt to the
  accused. This judgment cannot be of any assistance to the
  case of the appellants. In fact, the principle of law stated in that
  case has been completely satisfied in the present case. The
  prosecution, in the case in hand, has been able to establish
  and prove complete chain of circumstances and events, which
H
    SANATAN NASKAR & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST                      1047
         BENGAL [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

 if collectively examined, clearly points to the guilt of the accused.   A

        19. We have already noticed that statement of PW 6 along
  with other prosecution witnesses is of definite significance. It
  is in evidence that the entrance door of the house was used to
  be locked. It was opened only when the visitor to the house
                                                                         8
  press the call bell and such person was duly identifiable to the
  member of the family, watching from the 1st floor and that the
  keys were sent down with the help of a thread to enable the
  visitor to open the outside lock and then to enter the house.
  Keeping this routine practice adopted by the family of the             C
  deceased, it is clear that both the accused could enter the
  house only by the process indicated above or by break opening
  the lock of the entrance door. This is nobody's case before the
  Court that the lock or the door itself was broken by the
  miscreants who entered the house of the deceased. The only
  possible inference is that these accused were known to the             D
  family, as stated by the witnesses including PW 6 and they
  entered the house in the manner afore stated and upon entering
· the house they ransacked the house and committed the murder
  of Phool Guha and fled away with stolen articles. The stolen
  articles were subsequently recovered from them and duly                E
  identified during investigation and trial. All these circumstances
  established the case of the prosecution beyond any reasonable
  doubt.

        20. For the reasons afore stated the appeal is dismissed.        F

 N.J.                                           Appeal dismissed.