STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusPHOOLCHAND RATHORE

                          [2023] 5 S.C.R. 601                            601


                 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                 A
                                  v.
                   PHOOLCHAND RATHORE
             (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1315-1316 of 2023)
                           APRIL 28, 2023                                B
        [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, MANOJ MISRA AND
                     ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 201 – Acquittal under –
Prosecution rested its case on the circumstances, inter-alia, (a) the
accused bore a grudge against his wife for keeping jewellery with        C
her sister (PW8); (b) on the fateful day, during day time, accused
on that count, quarrelled with PW8 and threatened to kill the
deceased and set the house on fire; (c) in the evening of that fateful
day, the accused quarrelled with the deceased and took her with
him on a bicycle, while extending threats that he would kill her; (d)    D
later, that evening, the deceased was found in a seriously injured
condition; (e) the deceased died on account of those injuries; and
(f) blood-stained clothes etc. were recovered at the instance of the
accused thereby making the chain complete – Trial Court convicted
the accused and death penalty was awarded to the accused – High
Court gave accused benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted         E
him – On appeal, held: Reason of the quarrel that deceased had
kept her jewellery with her sister (PW8) was not found proved – As
prosecution evidence revealed that jewellery was returned back –
Thus, prosecution failed to prove motive – There appears no reason
for accused to carry stones from the spot and hide them in his hut       F
and leaving blood-stained stones near railway line – As far as blood
stained clothes are concerned, PW4 stated that her father (accused)
on return had washed those clothes and spread them to dry – How
could they be recovered from hut – So, the recovery of the blood-
stained clothes etc. was doubtful – Police prepared two
memorandums (disclosure statement, as per the memorandum (Ex.P-          G
9), at Seoni Trisection, witnessed by PW6 and the recovery memo
(Ex.P-10), was prepared at accused’s hut near railway line at the
same time also witnessed by PW-6) – Both memorandums were
prepared at the same time and different places, meaning all papers
were signed at one go rendering the entire exercise of disclosure
                                                                         H
                                 601
602            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     and consequential discovery/recovery doubtful – Alleged extra
      judicial confession made by the accused to PW4 was neither
      disclosed in the FIR nor in the previous statement of PW4 made
      during investigation – Extra judicial confession also not proved
      beyond reasonable doubt – Also, accused and the deceased were
      noticed quarrelling with each other at about 1630 hours and soon
B
      thereafter, the appellant took deceased on his cycle – As per
      prosecution deceased was found injured at around 2000 hours,
      there was quite a large time-gap for other intervening factors to
      operate – Therefore, motive, disclosure, recovery and extra judicial
      confession was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
C           Constitution of India – Art. 136 – When it appears that the
      High Court has on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a
      legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case
      and ignoring some of the most vital facts, acquitted the respondent
      and the order of acquittal passed by the High Court has resulted in
D     a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice, extraordinary
      jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India may
      rightfully be exercised.
            Dismissing the appeals, the Court
            HELD: 1. The prosecution relied on the following
E     circumstances: (a) Motive; (b) Disclosure Statement and
      Recovery; (c) Extra Judicial Confession; and (d) Accused taking
      the deceased with him and soon thereafter the deceased was found
      in an injured state [Para 24][618-G]
            2. (a) Motive
F
            According to the prosecution, the appellant and the
      deceased used to quarrel because the deceased had kept her
      jewellery with her sister. However, the above reason for the
      quarrel was not found proved because the prosecution evidence
      led revealed that the jewellery had already been returned back
G     much before the date of the incident. Therefore, to prove motive,
      during trial, prosecution developed another story, which is, that
      the appellant desired his wife to claim a share in her ancestral
      property which resulted in quarrels. This motive neither appealed
      to the High Court nor to this Court. [Para 24 (i)][619-A-C]
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE                         603


      (b) Disclosure Statement and Recovery                           A
       The disclosure statement, as per the memorandum (Ex.P-
9), was prepared at Seoni Trisection and witnessed by PW6; the
recovery memo (Ex.P-10), was prepared at accused’s hut near
railway line in Model village at 1400 hours 02.02.2010 and the
same was witnessed by PW6. Interestingly, PW6 is the only public      B
witness of disclosure and recovery to be examined and he has
not supported the prosecution case. What is even more interesting
is that the other seizure memorandum prepared in respect of
lifting blood-stained saree, gravel, slippers etc. from near the
railway line, that is the spot from where the deceased was lifted,
was prepared at 1400 hours on 02.02.2010. How could it be             C
possible that the police prepared two memorandums at the same
time at different places. The answer to it lies in the testimony of
PW6, a witness to both, who stated that he was made to sign the
papers at the police station. Meaning thereby that all papers were
prepared at one go rendering the entire exercise of disclosure        D
and consequential discovery/recovery doubtful. Not only that,
there appears no cogent reason for the accused to carry stones
from the spot and hide them in his hut while leaving several blood-
stained stones near the railway line. In such circumstances, it
appears to us that those stones were picked from the spot near
the railway track to show recovery from the hut. Insofar as the       E
recovery of blood-stained clothes is concerned, in addition to
the above reasons, the same is doubtful also because of the
statement of PW4 that her father on return had washed those
clothes and had spread them to dry over the cattle shed in the
house therefore, how could they be recovered from the hut. It be      F
noted that the house is shown located in the village, whereas the
hut is shown in the field at quite a distance from the house. For
all the reasons above, the High Court was justified in doubting
the recovery of blood-stained clothes etc. at the instance of the
accused from the hut and on the basis of a disclosure statement
made by him. [Para 24 (ii)][620-C-H; 621-A-B]                         G

      (c) Extra Judicial Confession to PW4
      The alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused
to PW4 was neither disclosed in the FIR nor in the previous
statement of PW4 made during investigation. PW4 was confronted        H
604            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     with that omission during her deposition in court. That apart, the
      testimony of PW4 with regard to the accused returning home,
      making extra judicial confession, changing clothes, washing blood-
      stained clothes and spreading them to dry has been found
      unreliable and shaky by the High Court for cogent reasons
      extracted above, which do not appear perverse as to warrant an
B     interference. Thus, the circumstance of extra judicial confession
      is also not proved beyond doubt. [Para 24 (iii)][621-C-E]
            (d) Accused taking the deceased from home on a bicycle
             When the court peruse the detailed reasons recorded by
C     the High Court in its judgment to hold that the testimony of PW4
      is not of a stellar quality as to merit conviction solely on its basis,
      this Court finds no perversity in the High Court’s conclusion as
      may warrant a reversal of acquittal into a conviction in exercise
      of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. At what time
      the accused had taken the deceased on his bicycle is not clear
D     from the testimony of PW4 though, from the first part of her
      testimony, it appears that the accused and the deceased were
      noticed quarrelling with each other at about 1630 hours and soon
      thereafter, the appellant took the deceased on his cycle. If, from
      that, the event of taking the deceased on bicycle at about 1630
      hours there is still quite a large time-gap between 1630 hours
E     and 2000 hours for other intervening factors to operate. In light
      thereof, considering that the place of occurrence was an open
      place and the other circumstances (i.e. motive, disclosure,
      recovery and extra judicial confession) were not proved beyond
      reasonable doubt, shifting the burden on the accused to explain
F     the circumstances in which the deceased sustained injuries, or
      to demonstrate that he parted company of the deceased, would
      not be justified in the facts of the case. [Para 24 (iv)][621-H; 622-
      A-B; 623-A-D]
            State of U.P. v. Sahai & Others (1982) 1 SCC 352; State
            of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah & Others (2005) 3
G
            SCC 169 : [2005] 1 SCR 710; Basheera Begam v.
            Mohd. Ibrahim & Others (2020) 11 SCC 174: [2020] 3
            SCR 562 – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference

H     (1982) 1 SCC 352                referred to                 para 20
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE                              605


[2005] 1 SCR 710                referred to               para 21          A
[2020] 3 SCR 562                referred to               para 22
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos.1315-1316 of 2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2015 of the High Court       B
of M.P. Principal Seat at Jabalpur in CRLR Nos.1292 and 02 of 2015.
      Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Mrs. Anuradha Mishra, Vikas Bansal,
Advs. for the Appellant.
      Yashraj Singh Deora (Amicus Curiae), Abhishek Singh, Adv. for
the Respondent.                                                            C
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      MANOJ MISRA, J.
      1. Leave granted.
       2. These appeals are by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the     D
judgement and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
(for short “the High Court”) dated 11.12.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.1292
of 2015 connected with Criminal Reference No.2 of 2015 whereby, the
order of conviction and sentence including death penalty awarded to the
respondent by the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Anuppur in         E
Sessions Trial No.72 of 2010, under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) has been set aside and the respondent
has been acquitted.
       3. To have a clear understanding of the issues raised in these
appeals a brief description of the prosecution case and the evidence led   F
by the prosecution would be apposite.
      Introductory Facts
      4. The prosecution story narrated in the first information report
(FIR), lodged by deceased’s brother Kamla (PW2), is that the accused-
respondent was unhappy that his wife Sundariya (the deceased) had          G
kept her jewellery with her sister Jaimatiya Bai (PW-8); on the fateful
day i.e. 01.02.2010, at around 1400 hours, the accused came to the
house of PW2, while PW8 was there, fought with PW8 and told her that
he would kill Sundariya and set the house on fire; when PW2 returned
from his shop at around 1900 hours, on getting the above information, he
                                                                           H
606            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     telephoned Madhuri (PW4), daughter of Sundariya, who informed PW2
      that her father had taken her mother on a bicycle towards the field while
      making utterances that he would kill her. On receipt of information from
      PW4, PW2 came to the village where Sundariya resided and went to
      search her out with the help of Manoj (not examined) and PW2’s brother-
      in-law Mathura (PW3). During the course of search, they found the
B
      deceased lying seriously injured between the railway tracks. They,
      therefore, rushed her to Jaithari Hospital but, on way, she succumbed to
      her injuries. The FIR was promptly lodged at P.S. Jaithari on 01.02.2010
      at 2130 hours expressing suspicion against the respondent (i.e. the
      accused) of having killed his wife.
C             5. As per arrest memo (Ex. P-11), the accused was arrested on
      02.02.2010, at about 1240 hours, from Seoni Tri-section. Vide Ex. P-9,
      on the same day i.e. 02.02.2010, at 1300 hours, a disclosure statement
      of the accused was recorded wherein, he assured recovery of stones
      (gitti) and blood-stained pant and shirt kept in his hut. Pursuant thereto,
D     vide seizure memo (Ex. P-10), on 02.02.2010, at 1400 hours, a moss
      coloured full shirt and dark brown full pant with blood stains on them,
      three blood-stained stones with hair stuck on it and one old hero jet cycle
      were recovered from that hut.
            6. Interestingly, on the same day, at the same time i.e. 1400 hours,
E     vide Ex. P-12, another seizure was made from near the railway line of 5
      blood-stained gravel (gitti - stone), 5 plain gravel (gitti - stone), blood
      stained red coloured saree and chappals.
             7. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid
      against the appellant and, after taking cognizance thereon, the case was
F     committed to the Court of Session. The Sessions Court charged the
      appellant for committing murder of his wife on 01.02.2010 at 2000 hours,
      punishable under section 302 IPC, and of concealing blood-stained stones/
      shirt/pant and cycle used in the offence with a view to remove evidence
      thereof, punishable under Section 201 IPC. The accused pleaded not
      guilty and claimed trial.
G
            Prosecution Evidence
             8. As there existed no eyewitness account of the murder, the
      prosecution rested its case on circumstances, inter alia, (a) the accused
      bore a grudge against his wife for keeping jewellery with her sister (PW8);
      (b) on the fateful day, during day time, accused on that count, quarrelled
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE                                   607
               [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

with PW8 and threatened to kill the deceased and set the house on fire;         A
(c) in the evening of that fateful day, the accused quarrelled with the
deceased and took her with him on a bicycle, while extending threats
that he would kill her; (d) later, that evening, the deceased was found in
a seriously injured condition; (e) the deceased died on account of those
injuries; and (f) blood-stained clothes etc. were recovered at the instance
                                                                                B
of the accused thereby making the chain complete. To prove these
circumstances, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Gist of their
testimony is noticed below:
      (i)     PW-1 - Ganga Bai
                 She is the aunt of the accused. She did not support the        C
              prosecution case and was accordingly declared hostile.
              Nothing much turns on her testimony.
      (ii)    PW-2 – Kamla Singh Rathore (the informant)
                  He deposed about — receipt of information, at 1900
              hours, of the quarrel that took place on the fateful day during   D
              day time; search operation; discovering the deceased, at
              around 2000 hours, in an injured condition near railway
              track; rushing her to the hospital; the deceased succumbing
              to her injuries on way to the hospital; and lodging of the
              FIR. During cross-examination, PW2 admitted that no               E
              quarrel/fight took place in his presence. On being questioned
              as to how PW2 communicated with PW4 on that fateful
              day, PW2 stated that PW4 had used mobile of some third
              person but could not disclose his name or number.
      (iii)   PW-3 – Mathura Prasad Rathore                                     F
                 He corroborated PW2’s statement that the deceased
              was found lying near the railway tracks and from there she
              was rushed to Hospital though she succumbed to her injuries
              on way.
      (iv)    PW-4 – Madhuri Singh Rathore (Daughter of the                     G
              deceased)
                 She is the star witness. She deposed about — fights
              between her father (the accused) and mother (the
              deceased); her returning from maternal uncle’s home at
              1630 hours and noticing her father and mother fighting/           H
608         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A             quarrelling and, later, her father forcibly taking her mother
              on his cycle to the fields. PW4 also stated that she followed
              them up to the village pond but, on being scolded, she came
              back and that near the pond, she met Sushila (PW-12), her
              paternal aunt, to whom she narrated the incident.
              Whereafter, on coming back, she made a phone call to her
B
              maternal uncle (PW2). Then her maternal uncle called back
              to know the whereabouts of her mother. When she told him
              that her father had taken her mother and had asked her to
              remain in the house, her maternal uncle came to the village
              in search of her mother. PW4, during her deposition, added
C             that in between her father had returned alone and had told
              her that he had killed her mother.
                  During cross-examination, PW4 admitted that the
              ornaments that were kept by her mother with her aunt (i.e.
              mother’s sister) were returned by her aunt eight days before
D             the incident. She also admitted that on the fateful day she
              gave her examination from 1100 hours till 1500 hours and
              that, at present, she is living with her maternal uncle. PW4
              was also confronted with her previous statement wherein
              there was an omission regarding confession made by her
              father.
E
      (v)     PW-5 – Dr. Sunil Khanna (Autopsy Surgeon)
                   He proved the autopsy report (Ex.P-8) wherein he
              recited eight lacerated wounds, ante mortem in nature,
              caused by hard and blunt object within 24 hours of
              examination conducted on 02.02.2010 at 1100 hours
F             According to his opinion, deceased died within 24 hours of
              the examination, on account of head injuries leading to
              haemorrhage, resultant shock and cardio respiratory failure.
                 During cross examination, he stated that if train is moving
              and any person, walking on foot, gets dashed by the train
G             then such injuries may occur.
                  This witness was re-examined and questioned by Court.
              At that stage, the witness stated that if injuries were
              sustained during a train accident then it might reflect fracture
              on face. He accepted the possibility of injuries being caused
H             as a result of assault with Gitti (Gravel - small stones).
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE                              609
               [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

   (vi)   PW-6 – Shivkumar Rathore                                         A
              He is a witness to the disclosure statement and seizure
          of blood-stained clothes etc. He, however, did not support
          the prosecution case and was therefore declared hostile.
          During cross-examination he admitted his signature on the
          memorandum(s) but claimed that his signatures were               B
          obtained by the police at the police station without informing
          him about the contents of the documents.
   (vii) PW-7 – Kiran @ Rambai
              She is another daughter of the deceased. She stated
          that at the time of the incident, she was in the house of her    C
          maternal uncle namely, Kamla Rathore, at Jaithari. During
          cross examination, she stated that disputes between her
          father and mother used to take place but they use to get
          resolved.
   (viii) PW-8 – Jaimatiya Bai Rathore                                     D
              She is sister of the deceased Sundariya. She deposed
          that the dispute between the deceased and her husband
          was on account of ancestral properties coming from
          deceased’s mother side. She stated that she does not have
          any other information about the incident. At this stage, the     E
          witness was declared hostile and was allowed to be cross-
          examined by the prosecution.
              During cross-examination, at the instance of prosecution,
          she stated that there was theft at Sundariya’s place
          therefore, for security reasons, Sundariya had kept her gold     F
          and silver at her house which, a week before the incident,
          were sent by her to the house of Sundariya. She also stated
          that the accused had come to her house and had threatened
          to kill Sundariya and set the house on fire.
              During cross-examination at the instance of the accused,     G
          upon a suggestion that a family dispute was going on, PW8
          stated the accused was pressurising the deceased to take a
          share in her ancestral property from her brother and since
          she was not agreeing to it, the accused had a dispute with
          her.
                                                                           H
610         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     (ix)    PW-9 – Rajiv Singh
                 He was the Halqa Patwari (Revenue Circle Inspector/
              Lekhpal) who inspected the crime scene under orders of
              the Tehsildar and prepared the spot panchnama (Ex. P-
              13) as also site plan (Ex. P-14) of the place from where the
B             deceased was taken in an injured condition to the hospital.
      (x)     PW-10 – Ashok Kumar Rathore
                  He is son of PW2 who brought his vehicle to take the
              deceased along with PW2 to the hospital. He corroborated
              the evidence that the deceased succumbed to her injuries
C             on way to the hospital.
      (xi)    PW-11 – Satish Dwivedi - Investigating Officer
                  He proved the various stages of investigation including
              registration of the FIR on 01.02.2010 at 2130 hours.
D             Interestingly, as per his deposition, he visited the site on
              02.02.2010 and vide seizure memo (Ex.P-12) lifted blood-
              stained gravel, plain gravel, blood-stained saree and two
              slippers from the spot. He deposed about — arresting the
              accused vide memo Ex.P-11; recording his disclosure vide
              Ex.P-9; and effecting recovery vide memo (Ex.P-10). He
E             stated that sealed articles were sent for forensic
              examination. He also produced the recovered articles as
              material exhibits.
                  During cross-examination, though PW11 admitted
              knowing PW2 (informant) from before but denied the
F             suggestion that he conspired with PW2 to falsely implicate
              the accused. In paragraph 25 he stated that saree was not
              found on the body of the deceased. He also admitted that a
              new railway track was being laid there and in that
              connection machines were there. However, he denied the
              suggestion that in connection with laying new track hundreds
G
              of workers (labourers) were there. In paragraph 32 he
              denied the suggestion that the accused had reached the
              police station on 01.02.2010 itself. He also denied the
              suggestion that the alleged arrest, disclosure and recovery
              at the instance of the accused are bogus.
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE                                    611
               [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

                 In respect of the distance between Seoni Trisection and         A
              Seoni village, PW11 denied the suggestion that the distance
              between the two is of 6 km. Rather, claimed it to be 600
              meters. He also admitted that the witnesses of the
              memorandum were not residents of Seoni Trisection.
       (xii) PW-12 – Sushila (Sister-in-Law of the Deceased)                     B
                 PW-12 disclosed no knowledge about the prosecution
              case and was therefore declared hostile.
       Forensic Reports
       9. In addition to the oral testimony of the witnesses, forensic reports   C
confirmed presence of human blood on saree, shawl, petticoat, blouse,
shirt and stone. Likewise, blood was found on the gravel recovered from
the place of occurrence though its origin could not be determined as it
had disintegrated. Similarly, the classification of the blood could not be
made as it had disintegrated.
                                                                                 D
       Statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.
       10. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution
evidence were put to the accused while recording his statement under
section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”)
The accused denied the incriminating circumstances and claimed that
                                                                                 E
he has been falsely implicated.
       Findings of the Trial Court
       11. The Trial Court found the following incriminating circumstances
proved — (a) the deceased was assaulted, abused and forcibly taken by
the accused on a bicycle and she did not return thereafter rather, two           F
hours later, was found in badly injured condition; (b) the accused made
extra judicial confession of his guilt to his daughter (PW4); (c) human
blood was found on the clothes recovered; and (d) except bald denial no
explanation was offered by the accused. According to the trial court, the
said circumstances constituted a chain so far complete that it established
beyond doubt that it was the accused and no one else who committed               G
the crime. To conclude as above, the Trial Court placed reliance on the
testimony of PW-4. Upon finding the accused guilty, the trial court
convicted the accused and awarded death penalty to him under section
302 IPC and 7 years RI under section 201 IPC. For confirmation of
death penalty, a reference was made to the High Court under section              H
612             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     366 Cr.P.C., which was registered as Reference No.2 of 2015. In the
      meantime, the accused filed criminal appeal against the order of conviction
      and sentence, which gave rise to Criminal Appeal No.1292 of 2015 before
      the High Court. The appeal and the reference were connected and decided
      together by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated
      11.12.2015.
B
            High Court Findings
             12. The High Court set aside the judgment and order of the trial
      court and acquitted the appellant. While doing so, it discussed the testimony
      of prosecution’s star witness i.e. PW 4 in paragraphs 29 and 30 and did
C     not find the prosecution evidence reliable and trustworthy for the reasons
      recorded by it in paragraphs 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of its judgment, which
      are extracted below:-
            “31. This statement of Madhuri (PW-4) the main witness to the
            case becomes doubtful in view of the several omissions and
D           contradictions contained therein. The first is the fact that she states
            that her father took her mother forcibly on the cycle and while
            doing so he was seen by Ganga Bai (PW-1) and Sushila (PW-12)
            but both these witnesses have clearly denied this fact or any
            knowledge about the incident and have been declared hostile.
            Secondly, this witness Madhuri (PW-4) in her statement, on the
E           one hand, states that her father came back after committing the
            crime in bloodstained clothes, changed them in the night of 1.2.2010,
            hid them in the cattle shed and thereafter washed the clothes in
            the morning of the next day and spread them to dry on the roof
            whereas in the same paragraph she has stated that her father the
F           accused appellant was arrested in the night of the incident i.e.
            1.2.2010 from the ‘nala’ with an axe in his hand. Thirdly, it is also
            apparent that she states that her father hid the clothes in the house
            itself and subsequently he washed and dried them in the house
            itself whereas the bloodstained clothes of the accused appellant
            are said to have been seized from the hut situated in the field vide
G           seizure memo Exhibit P-9 and seizure panchnama Exhibit P-10.
            The statement of Madhuri (PW-4) is in direct conflict with and in
            contradiction of the prosecution story which in turn makes it clear
            that one of them is false thereby casting a deep shadow of doubt
            on the case against the appellant.
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE                               613
               [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

   32. From a perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is        A
   also clear that:
      (1) the statement made by Madhuri (PW-4) is unreliable and is
      full of embellishments, exaggerations as well as contradictions
      and omissions on account of the fact that her statement
      regarding fighting between the appellant on account of jewellery      B
      is apparently false in view of the clear and specific statement
      of Jaimataiya Bai (PW-8) who has emphatically stated that
      she had returned the jewellery eight days before the incident;
      (2) her statement regarding constant fighting between her
      parents on account of the jewellery is not corroborated and           C
      supported by her elder sister Kiran @ Rambai (PW-7) who
      has in fact stated that the fight between her parents was usual
      and normal fight between husband and wife;
      (3) that she has stated that her father, after committing the
      crime, returned back with bloodstained clothes, hid them in the
                                                                            D
      cattle shed, changed his clothes and went away and thereafter
      washed his clothes in the morning of the next day after the
      incident i.e. on 2.2.2010 whereas in the same breath she has
      also asserted that her father was arrested on the same night of
      the incident itself i.e. on 1.2.2010 by the police with an axe in
      his hand whereas there is no mention in her statement to the          E
      effect that her father had gone to the field with an axe in his
      hand or that he had taken the axe after the incident from the
      cattle shed.
      (4) There is also material contradiction in her statement to the
      effect that she had gone to her maternal uncle’s house to give        F
      her examination whereas in her own statement she has stated
      that her mother told her to go to her maternal uncle’s house.
      (5) Her statement is also quite unnatural inasmuch as she has
      stated the fact that she rang her maternal uncle Kamal (PW-
      2) informing him about the incident but did not inform her            G
      paternal uncle or any of her neighbours or persons residing
      nearby.
   33. It is also pertinent to note that a bare perusal of the case diary
   statement of Madhuri, Exhibit P-38, and the statement made by
   her in Court clearly indicates that there is omission and
                                                                            H
614             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A           contradiction in regard to the alleged extra-judicial confession made
            by the accused to Madhuri (PW-4) as she has not stated anything
            about any such extra-judicial confession in her case diary
            statement. In fact, this contradiction and omission, deficiency and
            weakness in the statement of Madhuri (PW-4) has also been taken
            note of by the court below in paras 33 and 44 of its judgment but
B
            the court below has chosen to ignore the same on the ground that
            there is a mistake committed by the prosecutor in recording of
            her statement and the interest of justice demands that the omissions
            and contradictions be ignored.
            34. The fact that her father had taken her mother forcibly to the
C           field and had told her that he would murder her mother but she did
            not inform this fact to either her paternal uncle who is her neighbour
            or any other neighbour residing nearby or any other person residing
            in the locality or her acquaintance except her maternal uncle who
            was residing 2 kms away also casts a shadow of doubt upon her
D           statement as this conduct is unnatural. The aforesaid omissions,
            contradictions and embellishments in the statement of Madhuri
            (PW-4) when read with the uncorroborated and unsupported
            unnatural statements made by her to the effect that her father
            told her on three occasions that he would murder her mother and
            after committing the crime again came back and confessed to the
E           commissions of the crime which confession was not disclosed by
            her in her case diary statement makes it clear that her statement
            cannot be said to be of unimpeachable and sterling quality and
            cannot be relied upon as it does not satisfy the tests laid down by
            the Supreme Court in the above referred judgments.
F           35. In view of the aforesaid detailed analysis of the evidence of
            Madhuri (PW-4) we arrive at a conclusion that her statement is
            full of embellishments, exaggerations and material discrepancies
            and, therefore, we find ourselves unable to pick out the grain of
            truth from the falsehood of her statement.”
G             13. In addition to above, the High Court noticed that neither younger
      sister of Madhuri (PW4) nor neighbours or members of the locality were
      produced as witnesses to lend assurance to the prosecution story. Further,
      the original motive for the crime was a dispute arising from keeping of
      jewellery by the deceased with her sister, whereas the statement of
      prosecution witnesses established that the jewellery had been returned
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE                                615
               [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

much before the incident, therefore, there existed no cogent motive for      A
the crime. In paragraph 40 of the judgment, the High Court observed
that the recovery of blood-stained clothes and stones was doubtful
because the seizure witness Shiv Kumar Rathore (PW6) had
categorically denied seizure of those articles in his presence and had
stated that his signatures were obtained at the police station. Moreover,
                                                                             B
the evidence recorded revealed that the accused was arrested in the
night of 01.02.2010 itself. The High Court also noticed that the FSL
report Ex.P-35 could not confirm the blood group on the clothes as to
match it with the deceased. Otherwise also, once the seizure of articles
became doubtful and as per the statement of PW4 the accused had
washed off those clothes and had kept them in the house to dry, the          C
entire prosecution story in respect of seizure of blood-stained clothes
from the hut was rendered doubtful. Taking a conspectus of the
circumstances highlighted above, the High Court opined that the case
set up by the prosecution appeared extremely unnatural and hard to
believe. The High Court therefore discarded the circumstance of seizure
                                                                             D
of stones and blood-stained clothes from the hut of the accused and
upon finding that there were glaring contradictions in the prosecution
case, irreconcilable in nature, gave the benefit of doubt to the accused.
       14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record.
                                                                             E
      Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
      15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this is a
case where a daughter has deposed against her own father. The testimony
of PW-4 is straightforward and coupled with other evidences establishes
beyond doubt the following:                                                  F
      (i)     that there used to be fights/quarrels between the deceased
              and the accused;
      (ii)    that on the fateful day, there was a quarrel between the
              two; and
                                                                             G
      (iii)   that soon after the quarrel the deceased was taken on a
              bicycle by the appellant to the field and shortly thereafter
              near the hut/field of the accused, on a railway track, the
              deceased was found in a seriously injured state suggesting
              that she was badly assaulted.
                                                                             H
616            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A            16. It was argued that the High Court wrongly discarded the entire
      statement of PW4 upon noticing that she was not truthful on certain
      aspects, namely, — the accused had returned alone from the field wearing
      blood-stained clothes, changed his clothes in the house, washed them
      and made an extra judicial confession to PW4. It was contended that
      falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus doctrine is not applicable in India
B
      therefore, the High Court ought to have severed the unreliable part from
      the remaining part, noticed above, and examine whether the remaining
      part on its own could sustain conviction, particularly, when there was no
      explanation forthcoming from the accused as to where he was during
      that period and how his wife sustained those injuries. It was argued that
C     the evidence that the accused took the deceased on cycle to the field
      and shortly thereafter, near the field, in between railway tracks, the
      deceased was found with multiple injuries, by itself, in absence of any
      explanation from the accused as to when he parted company of the
      deceased, was sufficient to record conviction.
D            17. In addition to the above, the learned counsel for the appellant
      submitted that it is a case where the deceased had died at around 2000
      hours on 01.02.2010, the FIR was promptly lodged at 2130 hours narrating
      the circumstances in which the incident occurred and those circumstances
      have been confirmed by the testimony of prosecution witnesses therefore,
      even if subsequent story of confession/recovery is discarded, the proven
E     circumstances by itself form a chain so complete as to sustain conviction
      of the accused as justifiably recorded by the trial court. Consequently, it
      was prayed, the judgment and order of the High Court be set aside and
      the Trial Court’s judgment and order be restored.
            Submissions on behalf of the respondent -accused
F
             18. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted
      that the view taken by the High Court is a plausible view and is not
      perverse as to warrant an interference under Article 136 of the
      Constitution of India. It was urged that the High Court is a final court of
      fact and the view of the High Court is not in ignorance of any evidence
G     or by misreading any piece of evidence. Its view being a plausible view,
      based on analysis of the evidence, no interference with it is called for,
      particularly when the case rests on circumstantial evidence.
           19. It was also urged that the testimony of PW4, when read as a
      whole, does not inspire confidence as it is found unreliable on several
H
    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE                               617
                   [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

aspects therefore, being the sole witness of the circumstance that the          A
deceased was taken from home by the accused, could not on its own
form the basis of conviction. More so, when the original motive stood
not proved giving rise to possibility of false implication on account of
property dispute with informant (PW2) as would be clear from the
statement of PW8, which possibility gains support from the statement of
                                                                                B
the Investigating Officer (PW11) that he had known the informant (PW2)
from before. More so, when a false arrest/disclosure and recovery was
set up. It was also argued that the public witnesses examined by the
prosecution have disclosed about the arrest of the accused in the night
itself whereas, the police witnesses have tried to disclose his arrest on
the next day leaving them opportunity to plan a case against him. For all       C
the reasons above, it was prayed, the view taken by the High Court is a
plausible view, not liable to be interfered.
         Discussion and Analysis
       20. Having considered the submissions and perused the record,
before we proceed further, it would be useful for us to notice the law as       D
to when it would be appropriate for this Court, exercising its power
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, to reverse an acquittal into
a conviction. Normally, the Court is reluctant to interfere with an order
of acquittal. But when it appears that the High Court has on an absolutely
wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse                 E
approach to the facts of the case and ignoring some of the most vital
facts, acquitted the respondent and the order of acquittal passed by the
High Court has resulted in a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice,
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
may rightfully be exercised (See: State of U.P. v. Sahai & Others1).
                                                                                F
       21. In State of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah & Others2,
reiterating the same view it was observed:
         “8. … This being an appeal against acquittal, this Court would be
         slow in interfering with the findings of the High Court, unless
         there is perverse appreciation of the evidence which resulted in
                                                                                G
         serious miscarriage of justice and if the High Court has taken a
         plausible view this Court would not be justified in interfering with
         the acquittal passed in favour of the accused and if two views are
         possible and the High Court had chosen one view which is just
1
    (1982) 1 SCC 352
2
    (2005) 3 SCC 169                                                            H
618               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A              and reasonable, then also this Court would be reluctant to interfere
               with the judgment of the High Court.”
           22. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in Basheera Begam
      v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others3, it was observed:
               “190. … Reversal of a judgment and order of conviction and
B              acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with
               unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other
               words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court
               finds that no person properly instructed in law could have upon
               analysis of the evidence on record found the accused to be “not
C              guilty”. …”
              23. Seen in light of the decisions above, we would examine whether
      there is any perversity in the view taken by the High Court while converting
      conviction into an acquittal. Admittedly, this is a case based on
      circumstantial evidence. There is no direct eye witness account of the
      murder. The body of the deceased was not found within the confines of
D
      her house but in the open on a railway track. In such circumstances to
      sustain a conviction the court would have to consider — (i) whether the
      circumstances relied by the prosecution have been proved beyond
      reasonable doubt; (ii) whether those circumstances are of a definite
      tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) whether
E     those circumstances taken cumulatively form a chain so far complete
      that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability
      the crime was committed by the accused; (iv) whether they are consistent
      only with the hypothesis of the accused being guilty; and (v) whether
      they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
F            24. We shall now examine as to what were the circumstances
      relied by the prosecution and as to how they were sought to be proved.
      Additionally, we shall examine as to how the High Court dealt with the
      evidence on those circumstances with a view to find out whether there
      is any perversity in its view/ reasoning warranting an interference. In
      the instant case, the prosecution relied on the following circumstances:
G     (a) Motive; (b) Disclosure Statement and Recovery; (c) Extra Judicial
      Confession; and (d) Accused taking the deceased with him and soon
      thereafter the deceased was found in an injured state. We shall examine
      each of these circumstances, separately, herein below—
      3
          (2020) 11 SCC 174
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE                                  619
               [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

   (i)    Motive:                                                              A
              According to the prosecution, the appellant and the
          deceased used to quarrel because the deceased had kept
          her jewellery with her sister. However, the above reason
          for the quarrel was not found proved because the prosecution
          evidence led revealed that the jewellery had already been            B
          returned back much before the date of the incident.
          Therefore, to prove motive, during trial, prosecution
          developed another story, which is, that the appellant desired
          his wife to claim a share in her ancestral property which
          resulted in quarrels. This motive neither appealed to the
          High Court nor to us because, firstly, it was an improvement         C
          in the prosecution story; secondly, not much evidence was
          laid to substantiate the same; and, thirdly, if the wife is killed
          how could her husband derive interest in the property. Thus,
          in our view, the prosecution failed to prove the motive set
          out by it. No doubt absence of motive by itself may not be           D
          sufficient to dislodge the prosecution case if the other proven
          circumstances could form a chain so complete as to indicate
          that in all human probability it is the accused and no one
          else who committed the crime but, in a case based on
          circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important part.
          Because, not only it makes the story believable but also             E
          helps the court in fortifying an inference which may be
          drawn against the accused from other attending
          circumstances.
   (ii)   Disclosure Statement and Recovery
              The prosecution placed heavy reliance on recovery of             F
          blood-stained clothes and stones from the hut of the accused
          on the basis of disclosure made by him. The disclosure as
          well as recovery has been refuted by the accused as also
          by PW-6 who is a witness to it. The High Court has noticed
          that there is material contradiction in the statement of             G
          prosecution witnesses with regard to the time when the
          accused was arrested. The public witnesses examined by
          the prosecution indicated that the accused was arrested in
          the night of 01.02.2010 itself, whereas the police witnesses/
          documents disclosed his arrest on 02.02.2010 at 1240 hours
                                                                               H
620   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A       at Seoni Trisection. What may be interesting is the time
        sequence of arrest, recording of disclosure statement and
        preparing of recovery memos.
        According to police witnesses and papers, the arrest was
        effected on 02.02.2010 at 1240 hours; the disclosure
B       statement was recorded on 02.02.2010 at 1300 hours and
        recovery was effected on 02.02.2010 at 1400 hours. The
        arrest of the accused was shown from a place known as
        Seoni Trisection whereas the public witnesses including PW4
        stated that the accused was arrested in the night of
        01.02.2010 from a Nala (drain) where he was hiding with
C       an axe. The disclosure statement, as per the memorandum
        (Ex.P-9), was prepared at Seoni Trisection and witnessed
        by PW6; the recovery memo (Ex.P-10), as per
        memorandum, was prepared at Phoolchand’s (accused’s)
        hut near railway line in Model village at 1400 hours and the
D       same too, was witnessed by PW6. Interestingly, PW6 is
        the only public witness of disclosure and recovery to be
        examined and he has not supported the prosecution case.
        What is even more interesting is that the other seizure
        memorandum prepared in respect of lifting blood-stained
        saree, gravel, slippers etc. from near the railway line, that
E       is the spot from where the deceased was lifted, was
        prepared at 1400 hours on 02.02.2010. How could it be
        possible that the police prepared two memorandums at the
        same time at different places. The answer to it lies in the
        testimony of PW6, a witness to both, who stated that he
F       was made to sign the papers at the police station. Meaning
        thereby that all papers were prepared at one go rendering
        the entire exercise of disclosure and consequential
        discovery/recovery doubtful. Not only that, there appears
        no cogent reason for the accused to carry stones from the
        spot and hide them in his hut while leaving several blood-
G       stained stones near the railway line. In such circumstances,
        it appears to us that those stones were picked from the
        spot near the railway track to show recovery from the hut.
        Insofar as the recovery of blood-stained clothes is
        concerned, in addition to the above reasons, the same is
        doubtful also because of the statement of PW4 (Madhuri)
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE                              621
               [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

           that her father on return had washed those clothes and had      A
           spread them to dry over the cattle shed in the house
           therefore, how could they be recovered from the hut. It be
           noted that the house is shown located in the village, whereas
           the hut is shown in the field at quite a distance from the
           house. For all the reasons above, the High Court was
                                                                           B
           justified in doubting the recovery of blood-stained clothes
           etc. at the instance of the accused from the hut and on the
           basis of a disclosure statement made by him.
   (iii)   Extra Judicial Confession to PW4
               The alleged extra judicial confession made by the
           accused to PW4 was neither disclosed in the FIR nor in the      C
           previous statement of PW4 made during investigation. PW4
           was confronted with that omission during her deposition in
           court. That apart, the testimony of PW4 with regard to the
           accused returning home, making extra judicial confession,
           changing clothes, washing blood-stained clothes and             D
           spreading them to dry has been found unreliable and shaky
           by the High Court for cogent reasons extracted above, which
           do not appear perverse as to warrant an interference. Thus,
           the circumstance of extra judicial confession is also not
           proved beyond doubt.
                                                                           E
   (iv)    Accused taking the deceased from home on a bicycle
               In respect of this circumstance, the only evidence is of
           PW4 i.e. the daughter of the accused and the deceased.
           Her evidence has been doubted by the High Court, inter
           alia, on the ground that the two witnesses Ganga Bai (PW1)
           and Sushila (PW12) have not supported her statement. PW4        F
           stated that when she followed her parents who were going
           on a bicycle she met Sushila (PW12) and she narrated the
           incident to her. PW12, who appeared as a witness, denied
           having met PW4 on that fateful day. Similarly, Ganga Bai
           (PW1) who were to corroborate PW4 on that aspect was            G
           declared hostile. Even, if we assume that the testimony of
           those two witnesses would not damage the testimony of
           PW4 as they may have their own reasons for not supporting
           the prosecution case yet, when we peruse the detailed
           reasons recorded by the High Court in its judgment (i.e.
                                                                           H
622   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A       paragraphs 31 to 35 thereof) to hold that the testimony of
        PW4 is not of a stellar quality as to merit conviction solely
        on its basis, we find no such perversity in the High Court’s
        conclusion as may warrant a reversal of acquittal into a
        conviction in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of
        the Constitution.
B
            The argument that doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in
        omnibus is not applicable in India hence PW4’s testimony,
        even if not acceptable on certain aspects, could be relied to
        prove other circumstances, is not acceptable because the
        High Court, on basis of analysis of the entire evidence, has
C       discarded the witness as not reliable while observing:
           “that her statement is full of embellishments,
           exaggerations and material discrepancies and, therefore,
           we find ourselves unable to pick out the grain of truth
           from the falsehood of her statement.’’
D
            Further, even if we accept PW4’s testimony that the
        accused, on that fateful day, took the deceased on a bicycle
        to the fields that by itself is not conclusive to indicate that
        he took her to kill her; because, admittedly, the accused
        held agricultural holding and it is quite possible that he may
E       have taken his wife to assist him in the agricultural
        operations. It is common practice in villages for ladies to
        help their menfolk in agricultural operations. The allegation
        that while taking her a declaration was made that she would
        be killed does not inspire our confidence for the reason that
        the motive set out by the prosecution for such a quarrel has
F       not been proved. Otherwise also, quarrels and disputes
        between husband and wife are every day phenomena and
        not such an event which may create a strong suspicion of
        an impending crime much less murder. More so, where, as
        in the present case, marriage is subsisting since long with
G       children out of the wedlock. Further, this circumstance by
        itself is not so clinching as to conclusively point towards the
        guilt of the appellant by ruling out possibility of a third-party
        hand in the murder. In this regard, it be noticed that, as per
        the prosecution case, the deceased was found injured at
        around 2000 hours in an open area at some distance from
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE                                       623
               [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

               the hut of the accused. At what time the accused had taken           A
               the deceased on his bicycle is not clear from the testimony
               of PW4 though, from the first part of her testimony, it
               appears that the accused and the deceased were noticed
               quarrelling with each other at about 1630 hours and soon
               thereafter, the appellant took the deceased on his cycle. If,
                                                                                    B
               from that, we put the event of taking the deceased on bicycle
               at about 1630 hours there is still quite a large time-gap
               between 1630 hours and 2000 hours for other intervening
               factors to operate. In light thereof, considering that the place
               of occurrence was an open place and the other
               circumstances (i.e. motive, disclosure, recovery and extra           C
               judicial confession) were not proved beyond reasonable
               doubt, shifting the burden on the accused to explain the
               circumstances in which the deceased sustained injuries, or
               to demonstrate that he parted company of the deceased,
               would not be justified in the facts of the case.
                                                                                    D
      25. For all the reasons above, if the High Court has extended the
benefit of doubt to the accused, its view being a plausible view, in our
opinion, does not call for any interference.
       26. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
                                                                                    E
Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeals dismissed.
(Assisted by : Kavya Agarwal and Mayank Batra, LCRAs)




                                                                                    F




                                                                                    G




                                                                                    H