# [1975] 1 S.C.R. 165

- **Citation:** [1975] 1 S.C.R. 165
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-04-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1973
- **Bench:** P. Jaganmohan Reddy, H. R. Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1975-1-s-c-r-165-6314
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Bf
Circ11111stantial evidence-Crhninal case-Vafue of.
The [lCcused was convicted for the· offences of murder a°'d ~ttemPt tO commit
rape.
The evidence againSt him was purely circumstantial consisting of, (a)
recovery of some petty ornaments belonging to the victini.
(b) an extrajudicial confession made by him to one of the prosecution witnesses .. (c). his
presence near the place of occurrence on the day of occ.urrencc, and ,(d) injuries
on the person of the a·ccused.
C
Allowing the appeal and acquitting the accused:
D
E
F
G
H
HELD : This Court does not normally, in an appeal under Art. 136- re"".
appraise the evidence, but there are glaring infirmities in the prosecution
evidence in the case.
Circumstantial evidence in order to \Varra·nt convictio1;1.
:..hould be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and
when there is reasonable doubt the -accused is entitled to its benefit.
[172 C;
l 71F]
(a) No reliance could be placed upon the evidence that the deceased was
wearing the ornaments on the day of the occurren::e and that those ornaments
were ren1oved from the pcrsnn of tht decca·;~d by the accused beLause, (i) N'o
n1ention of the ornaments not being found upon the body of the deceased was
mentioned in the F.1.R. by her father and other witnesses who discovered her
body.
(ii) No mention was made in the inquest report prepared in broad daylight
even though there is a specific column in the report relating to ornaments and
clothes of the deceased, (iii) The nature of the crime shows that the crime i-.;
one of sex and not one for pecuniary gain; and (iv) It is extremely unlikely
that the accused, who was a landowner, would carry ~way such petty ornament->
to his house and keep them in his shirt pocket, and thus provide evidence of his
complicity in the crime.
l169G-H; 170A-D]
(b) There is absolutely no. reason why the accused, instead of surrendering:
himself to the police, should go to the house of a prosecution witness. blurt out
a confession before him, and ask him to take him to the police.
Since the
evidence as to whether the accused at all made a confession is unreliable and
lacking in probability, the question as to wh:at value would have been attached
to the confession if the evidence had been found to he reliable and trustworthy,
need not be considered.
The· attempt bv the Investigating agency to introduce
a false story rega-rding the removal of the ornaments and their recovery from
the accused also affects the credibility of the evidence regarding the extra-judicial
confession. Also, though the dead body was discovered according to prosecution
at 11.30 p.m. even b:!fore, by 8.00 p.m., the father of the victim anrl the
sarpanch were declaring that it was the accused who had committed the murder.
It shows that body must have been recovered even by 8.00 p.m.
[170E-G]
( c) The fact that the accused was in his field at 1.00 p.m. and was walking
away at a fast pace at sun set time would not necessarily point to the guilt of
the accused especially when there is no evidence.
(i) that no oiJier persons v1ere
present in the field, and (ii) regarding the time at which the offence \Vas committed. [171DJ
(d) Assuming that the explanation of the accused that t4e injuries on his
person were caused by the police is not •trustworthy. that circumstance though
suspicious, would not be sufficient -to warrant his conviction of a serious offence
entailing death· penalty; [171&FJ
·
·
· (o) -The 'mere fact that the accused cut an indecent joke with sisttr-in·la\V
of the victim 20 days before the occurrence could hardly be a valid basis fat
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] l S.C.R.
suspicion, or in any case for a positive assertion. iliat it was the accused who
A
l1ad murdered the deceased. [171Hl
.

## Text

•
'
A
JAGTA
~.
STATE OF HARYANA
April 23, 1974
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]
Bf
Circ11111stantial evidence-Crhninal case-Vafue of.
The [lCcused was convicted for the· offences of murder a°'d ~ttemPt tO commit
rape.
The evidence againSt him was purely circumstantial consisting of, (a)
recovery of some petty ornaments belonging to the victini.
(b) an extrajudicial confession made by him to one of the prosecution witnesses .. (c). his
presence near the place of occurrence on the day of occ.urrencc, and ,(d) injuries
on the person of the a·ccused.
C
Allowing the appeal and acquitting the accused:
D
E
F
G
H
HELD : This Court does not normally, in an appeal under Art. 136- re"".
appraise the evidence, but there are glaring infirmities in the prosecution
evidence in the case.
Circumstantial evidence in order to \Varra·nt convictio1;1.
:..hould be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and
when there is reasonable doubt the -accused is entitled to its benefit.
[172 C;
l 71F]
(a) No reliance could be placed upon the evidence that the deceased was
wearing the ornaments on the day of the occurren::e and that those ornaments
were ren1oved from the pcrsnn of tht decca·;~d by the accused beLause, (i) N'o
n1ention of the ornaments not being found upon the body of the deceased was
mentioned in the F.1.R. by her father and other witnesses who discovered her
body.
(ii) No mention was made in the inquest report prepared in broad daylight
even though there is a specific column in the report relating to ornaments and
clothes of the deceased, (iii) The nature of the crime shows that the crime i-.;
one of sex and not one for pecuniary gain; and (iv) It is extremely unlikely
that the accused, who was a landowner, would carry ~way such petty ornament->
to his house and keep them in his shirt pocket, and thus provide evidence of his
complicity in the crime.
l169G-H; 170A-D]
(b) There is absolutely no. reason why the accused, instead of surrendering:
himself to the police, should go to the house of a prosecution witness. blurt out
a confession before him, and ask him to take him to the police.
Since the
evidence as to whether the accused at all made a confession is unreliable and
lacking in probability, the question as to wh:at value would have been attached
to the confession if the evidence had been found to he reliable and trustworthy,
need not be considered.
The· attempt bv the Investigating agency to introduce
a false story rega-rding the removal of the ornaments and their recovery from
the accused also affects the credibility of the evidence regarding the extra-judicial
confession. Also, though the dead body was discovered according to prosecution
at 11.30 p.m. even b:!fore, by 8.00 p.m., the father of the victim anrl the
sarpanch were declaring that it was the accused who had committed the murder.
It shows that body must have been recovered even by 8.00 p.m.
[170E-G]
( c) The fact that the accused was in his field at 1.00 p.m. and was walking
away at a fast pace at sun set time would not necessarily point to the guilt of
the accused especially when there is no evidence.
(i) that no oiJier persons v1ere
present in the field, and (ii) regarding the time at which the offence \Vas committed. [171DJ
(d) Assuming that the explanation of the accused that t4e injuries on his
person were caused by the police is not •trustworthy. that circumstance though
suspicious, would not be sufficient -to warrant his conviction of a serious offence
entailing death· penalty; [171&FJ
·
·
· (o) -The 'mere fact that the accused cut an indecent joke with sisttr-in·la\V
of the victim 20 days before the occurrence could hardly be a valid basis fat
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] l S.C.R.
suspicion, or in any case for a positive assertion. iliat it was the accused who
A
l1ad murdered the deceased. [171Hl
.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 149
of 1973.
Appeal by special lel)ve from the judgment & Order dated the
5th January, 1973 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 931 of 1972 and Murder Ref. No. 46 of 1972.
B
R. K. Garg, S. C. Aggarwal, S. S. Bhatnagar and V. !. Francis,
for the oappellant.
·
H. S. Marwah and Girish Chandra, for the respondent.
B. D. Sharma, for the complainant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
KHANNA, J. This appeal by special leave by Jagta alias Jagdish
(34) ·is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court affirming on appeal and reference the conviction of the
appellant under section 302 Indian Penal Code for causing the death
of Phu! Pati (23) and the sentence of death. The appellant was also
convicted by the trial court under section 376 Indian Penal Code and
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
D
eight years, but the High Court altered the conviction on that score
to that under section 3 7 6 read with section 511 Indian Penal Code
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two years.
Phu! Pati deceased was the daughter of PW Roopa of village Guhna
in district Rohtak. She was married to Head Constable Baldev Singh
E
of village Bajana. About two days before the present occurrence
Phu! Pati came to her father's house.
In the afternoon of January
13; 1972 Phu! Pati left her father's house to go to his field to cut
grass. The said field is in the area of vil~age Farmana at a distance
of 1 t kos from the abadi of village Guhna. The three villages Guhna,
Farmana and Ridhao are near each other. The accused be!ongs to
villllge Ridhao. The field of the accused adjoins that of Roopa,
F
·father of Phul Pati. As Phu! Pati did not .retnrn from the field in
the evening, it is alleged, her father Roopa and brother Maha Singh
went to the fields in search of her. On reaching their field
they
fonnd a heap of grass.· They shouted for Phu! Pati but got no response. Khcs Pl which had been taken by Phul Pati was seen lying;
on the patri of a drain. Roopa and Maha Singh shouted for Phu!
Pati at the patri of the drain also but got no response. Roopa and
G
Maha Singh thereupon returned to their village
abadi and told
Dharam Singh sarpanch, Bhima lamb>ardar. and Sube member
Panchayat · and others of their village that their daughter Phu! Pati
was ·not traceable. It became dark by th•at time.
Dharam Singh,
Bhima, Sube, Roopa, Maha Singh and fonr or five other l?ersons took
four lanterns and went to the fields to search for Phu! Patt. The party
found the· dead body of Phu! Pati lying in the field ·of Risala. The
H
string of the soalwar of Phu! Pati ha~ been untie~ and she was lying
with her face downwards. Her choti had been tied round her neck.
Blood ·was found to have oozed from her mouth and nose. Leaving
•
•
+
'
•
,..,
••
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
JAGTA v. H4RYANA (Khanna, I.}
.
' '
Dharam Singh, Bhima, Sube and others near the dead body, Roopa
left for police station Kharkhoda at a dist11nce of 14 miles from the ·
place of occurrence and lodged report PF at the police station at
5.30 a.m. on the following morning. In that report Roopa a£ter
giving the above facts stated that he suspected J agl'a accused as the
culprit responsible for the murder of the deceased. The basis
of
that suspicion, according to Roopa, was that the accused had about
20 days earlier cut indecent joke with his daughter-in-law Birhlni
(PW 3), wife of Muha Singh.
Sub Inspector Gugan Singh after recording the first information
report, took a police party and went with Roopa to the place of
occurrence on scooter. The party reached the place of occurrence at
about 8.30 a.m.
The Sub Inspector found the dead body of Phu!
Pati lying there guarded by Dharam Singh sarpanch, Maha Singh and
others. Blood was found to have fallen on the ground. There were
also signs of struggle. The Inspector prepared the inquest report and
the injury statement. The dead body was then sent for post mortem
examination to, Rohtak. Post mortem examination on the dead body
of Phu\ Pati was performed by Dr. K. K. Sen at Rohtak on January
15, 1972 at IO a.m.
·
According further to the prosecution case, the accused could not
be found by the Sub Inspector on January 14, 1972. On the morning
of January 15, 1972 the Sub Inspector was present in the office of the
co-operative society of village Farmana. At about 6.30 a.m. on that
day, it is stated, the 'accused went to the house of PW Ram Singh of
vlllage Farmana and told him that Phu\ Pati had been murdered at
his hands in the fields and that he had committed a sin. The accused
also requested Ram Singh to produce him before the police. Rum
Singh accordingly produced the accused before Sub Inspector Gugan
Singh in the office of the ce>-operative society at 7.30 a.m. The Sub
Inspector put the accused under arrest. On interrogation by the Sub
lllspector the accused disclosed in the presence of Dharam Singh and
Sube that he had kept one Dhol (a small ornament for wearing round
the neck) and one Koka (nose pin) in a shirt pocket in his house
and could get the same recovered. Statement PW of the accused was
then recorded by the Sub Inspector. The accused then led the police
party to his house in village Ridhao, at a qistance of two furlongs
from Farmana, and from the pocket of shirt PS hanging in his house
the accused got recovered Dhol P2 and Koka P3. The shirt, though
washed, appeared to be blood stained. Dhol, Koka and shirt were
taken into possession and were sealed.
The accused at the time of his arrest was also found to have injuries on his person. He was got exmnined from Dr. Pawan Kumar
at. 12.30 p.m. on that day. The doctor found 12 abrasions on the
person of the accused. The injuries were simple and had been caused
by blunt weapon. In answer to a question, the doctor stated that t:wo
of the abrasions on the left hand could be caused by nails or tooth
bite. Smegma was also found on the organ of the accused at the
time he was examined.
i68·
SUPREME COIJRT REPO~TS ;.:. '{li9'J.5] 1-·S:'C,n.
· _ Identification proceedings·· in respect of. Dhol P2 . and Koka P3
:wero held by Shri Ranapartap Tehsildar (PW 10) on
February· 4,
: 1972.
Dhol and Kolm were mixed with one other Koka and two
-Ohols. . Dhol P2 and Koka P3 wero correctly identified by Birhmi,
:wife of Maha Singh, as these belonging to the deceased.
The said
:{)h9l and Koka were also identified by Than Singh goldsmith (PW
· H) •a~ those having been prepared by the witness for Surja Mal,
father-m-law of the deceased.
.
. At the trial the plea of the accused was denial simpliciter.
As
'regards injuries on his person, the accused stated that b_e was called
by the police from bis field at 10 a.m. on January 14, 1972 and was
thereafter kept at the police station. The accused added that the injuries on his person had been c~used by the police. . The allegations
about his having made an extm judicial confession to Ram Singh and
·about his having got recovered Dbol and Koka from the pocket of a
shirt were denied by the accused.
. . Learned Sessions Jm,lge Rohtak, before whom the accused was
·tried, accepted the prosecution evidence about the extra judicial contession of the accused us well as about the recovery of Dhol and
Koka from the pocket of a shirt at the instance of the accused. The
recovery ot shirt PS was held to be not. an incriminating circumstance
as no cme had deposed that the accused was wearing that shirt on the
day of occurrence. Reliance was also placed by the learned Sessions
Judge upon the evidence. of Kishna (PW 5) and Chattar Singh (PW
6), According to Kishna, be had seen the accused at about 1 p.m.
:on. the day• of occurrence present in his fields.
The witness also saw
Phu! Pati going at that time to her father's field along the drain.
·Chattar Singh PW deposed that at about sunset time on that day, he
'Saw the accused walking on a pucca road at fast speed. The accused
·was at that time going towards bis village. On being accosted by the
1v1tness, the accused did not stop and stated that he had some work.
In the result the accused was convicted and sentencec;\ as mentioned
earlier.
.
On appeal and reference the High Court substantially
agreed
·.with the view taken by the trial court. In view of the presence of
smegma on the. organ of the accused, the High Court was of the
_opinion that the actual commission of the offence of rape was doubtful.
It was held that the accused had attempted to commit rape on
Phu! Pati ..
We have heard Mr. Garg on behalf of the appellant and Mr.
Marwah on behalf of the State and are of the opinion that the con-
, v1ction of the· accused-appellant cannot be suseained.
There can be no manner of doubt that Phu! Pati was the victim
·of a beastly assault.
The assailant not only committed or attempted
· to commit rape upon her but also strangulated her to death. Accord·
iflg to .Dr. K. K._ Sen, who performed post mortem examination on
0 the: dead body, the neck of the deceased was found tied tightly all
round with her choti.
Ligature mark was horizontal, continuous· and
A
B
c
D
...
E •
v
F
G
•
H
/ , ••
'
•
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
JAGTA v. HARYANA (Khanna, l.)
co_mplete. On dissection of the. ligature mark, blood was found jn
the subcutaneous tissues..
The face of Pbul Pati was swollen artd.
cyanosised." The mouth was open and the tongue was protrudirrg
out.
Her face and nose were besmeared with blood-stained mud .
Blood was also coming out from the right ear. There was a laceration on the right side of .the vaginal wall. A lacerated wound was
also found on the left middle finger.
There were also a number of
abrasions all over the body. The. stomach contained three ounces
of digested food.
Death, in the opinion of the doctor, was due to
asphyxia as a result of strangulation. The doctor took three slides
of vaginal smear and sent the same to the chemical examiner, whose
report shows the presence of semen on the same.
The case of the prosecution is that it was the accused who· murdered Phu! Pali deceased by strangulating her.
The High Court has
further found that the murder ·of the deceased was committed by the
accused when he attempted to commit rape upon her. There is no'
eye witness of the occurrence, but the prosecution has relied upon
the recovery of Dhol P2 and Koka P3 belonging to the deceased
from the accused as well as upon his extra judicial confession made
to Ram Singh PW. Reliance has further been placed by the prosecution upon the fact that the accused was present nearabout the place
of occurrence on the day of occurrence and that he had mjuries on
his person.
We may first deal with the evidence about the recovery of Dhol
P2 and Koka P3 belonging to the deceased from the house of the
accused at his instance. The evidence in this respect consists of
the testimony of Sub Inspector Gugan Singh (PW 16), Dharam Singh
sarpanch (PW 12) and Rajmal lambardar (PW 13). We have
further the evidence about the identification of those two ornaments
by Birhmi and Than Singh PWs in the identification proceedings held
by Shri Ranapartap.
After having been taken through the eviclence
on .record, we are of the view that the prosecution allegation that the
deceased at the time of the occurrence . was wearing Dhol P2 and
Koka P3 and the same were removed by the accused is highly improbable. If Phu! Pali deceased was, in fact, wearing Dhol P2 and
Koka P3 on the day of occurrence and the same were found to be
missing when her dead body was recovered. it is most unlikely that
her father Roopa (PW 2) and brother Maha Singh (PW 8) would
not have noticed the fact that those two ornaments were missing
when they found the dead body lying in the fields.
Roopa in that
event would have made a mention of the fact that Dhol and Koka
were missing in the first information report.
There was, however, no
mention in the first information report of those two ornaments. or
about their having been removed from the body. Mr. Marwah on
behalf of the State has argued that it is possible that the father and
brother of the deceased might not have noticed the removal of tliose
two ornaments at night time when they found the dead body. Assuming it to be so, we find no reason as to why no mention of this fact
was made when the inquest report was prepared in broad daylight
on the following day by Sub Inspector Gugan Singh. · In the inquest
t7()
report the Sub !nspector reproduced the statement of Roopa as given
A
in thy fir~t informatio)l ,rnport. Column No. 7 of the inquest report
specifically relates to the condition of the clothes and ornaments of
'r
the deceased and t!J.e police officer preparing the inquest report has
•
to. make an entry in that .column about any marks on the dead body
caused by the removaL of ornaments as well as other matters conuected with those ornaments. It is natural to assume that the Sub-Inspector
would make an enquiry from Roopa and others regarding ornaments
B
worn l)y the deceased at the time he fiUed in the above commn. The
fact that, in spite of the above column, no mention was made of
the mis.sing Dhol and Koka would tend to show that the evidence in
this respect has been subsequently introduced. It would also seem
from the nature of the crime that the object of the culprit was satiation of carnal passion and not pecuniary gain. It seems most· un··
likely that the accused. who is a landowner would cany two petty
C
ornaillents belonging to the deceased to his house and keep them in
the pocket of his shirt even though those two ornaments would provide. evidence of his complicity in the crime relating to the murder
of the deceased.
We are, therefore, not prepared to place any reliance upon the .evidence that the dece~sed was wearing Dhol P2 and
Koka P3 on the day of occurrence and that those two ornaments were
removed from the person of the deceased by the accused.
D
So far as_ the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused is
concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of
Ram
Singh (PW 4). After having been taken through the evidence of
that witness, we find the same to be lacking in credence and devoid.
of any ring of truth.
The police was admittedly present in the office
of the co-operative society in village Farmana on the
mornmg of
E
January Vi, 1972. We find no reason as to why .the accused, instead
of surrendering himself before the police, should go to the house of
Ram Singh in village Farmana, blurt out a confession b0 'nr
0
him
and ask him to produce the accused. before the police.
Nothing has
been shown to us as to why the accused could not himself go and
appear before the police.
We have mentioned above that an attempt
has been made in this case to introduce the story of the recovery of
F
ornaments belonging to Phu! Pali deceased from the accused. The
attempt of the investigating agency to introduce a false story about
the removal of the ornaments of the deceased and their recovery from
the accused would, in our opinion. also affect the credibilitv. of the
evidence regarding the extra judicial confession alleged to have been
made to Ram Singh PW.
The evidence about an extra judicial con-
·fession is in the nature of things a weak piece of evidence. If the
G
same is Jacking in probability as it is in the present case, there would
be no difficulty in rejecting the same. We are, therefore, not prepared to place any reliance upon th.e evidence regarding the extra judicial
. cdnfession of the accused.
Mr. Marwah, has. a.rgued on the basis of .observat.ions in some
cases that the value of a confession should be judged by taking it
H
along· with other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
This question, . iμ 0ur opinion, would aris.e only if there be reliable evidence
about the making of the confession. If, however, the court finds the
..
•
A
ti
B
c
-·
D
..
E
F
'
G
H
.TAGTA v. HARYANA (Khanna, 1;) _:
171
evidence on the point as to whether the accused at all made tile confession to be unreliable and lacking in probability, no question need
be considered as fo what value would have. been attached to the confession, if the evidence about the accused having made it had been
found to be reliable and trustworthy. It is plain that the value of
the confession can be gone into only if its existence is established by
leading reliable evidence about the accused having made it.
W_!! may now deal with the evidence ' about the accused having
been seen at or about the place of occurrence on the day of occurrence. The evidence in this respect consists of the statement of
Kishna (PW 5) and Chattar Singh (PW 6). According to Kishna,
he saw the accused working in his field at' 1 p.m. The witness als<>
saw Phu! Pati going to the fields alongside the drain. There is n<>
material on the record to indicate as to what was the time of the
commission of the offence. There is no evidence on the record alse>
to show that no other persons were present in the fields at that time.
In the circumstances the presen~e of the accused in his field at 1 p.m.
cannot take the prosecution case very far.
So far as the evidence of
Chattar Singh PW is concerned, we find that all that the witness ha&
deposed is that the accused was found walking towards bis village
on a pucca road at a fast speed at sunset time.
On being accosted
by the witness, the accused did not stop and stated that be had some
work. This circumstance would also not necessarily point to the guilt
of the accused .
Lastly, we have the evidence about the injuries which were found
on the person of the accused.
The explanation of the accused is that
those injuries were caused to him by the police. Assuming that the
explanation of the accused with regard to those injuries is not trustworthy, this circumstance as well as the circumstance about his being
present in his fields at 1 p.m. on the day of occurrence and about his
going at sunset time on a pucca road tow_ards his village are hardly
sufficient to warrant the conviction of the accused in a serious offence
entailing death penalty. It is well established that circumstantial
evidence in order to warrant conviction should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The same cannot
be said to be true of the circumstantial evidence adduced in this case.
We may also refer to one other circumstance. According
to
Dharam Singh sarpanch (P Wl2), the dead body of Phu\ Pati was
discovered in the field of
Ri~a1a at about 11 or 11.30 p.m.
As
against that, the evidence of Dharma (PW 7) is that be was told! by
Dharam Singh and Roopa at 8 p.m. on that day that Jagta accused
had murdered Roopa's d;mgbter. The evidence of Dbarma would
thus go to show iliat the dead body of Phu! Pati had been found before 8 p.m. and the evidence of Dharam Singh PW that it was at about
11 or 11.30 p.m. that the dead body was found is not correct. It
is also not clear as to bow Roopa and Dharam Singh could be positive
tha.t it was the accused who bad murdered the deceased because in
a matter like this, when there is no eye witness, one cannot be certain
about the actual culprit. The fact that the accused had cut an indecent joke with Birbmi about 20 days before the present occurrence
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1975] l S.C.R.
would. hardly be a va!ld basis for the suspitioil or in .any case for the
positive assertion that it was the accused who had murdered · Phu! ·
Pati deceased.
Although in the first information report Roopa PW
only. expressed his suspicion regarding the complicity of the accusedappellant, the evidence of Dharma PW shows,· as mentioned above,
·that .Roopa and Dharam Singh .PWs asserted positively at 8 p.m, that
the murder· of the deceased had been committed by the accused.
It is possible that there was some other cvidentiary. material with
Roopa · and Dharam Singh about the complicity of the accused .but
the same has not been produced at the triaL • The evidence actually
produced is either unreliable or' such as is not sufficient to warrant
the conviction.
A
B
It is· no ci'oubt true that this Court do'es not normally in an appeal
under article J36 reappraise the evidence,·. but that fact would not · .C
stand in the way of this Court examining the matter for itself, if it
finds that in a case involving death sentence the prosecution evidence
is' affiicted with some glaring infirmity.
The presence of injuries on
tlie. person of the accused does create a suspicion regarding his complicity but that suspicion by itself and in the· absence .of. other incriminating .evidence. would not warrant his conviction.
The matter in
any ca.se .is not free from reasonable doubt and the accused must · D
necessarily have the benefit thereof.
· ·
We therefore accept the appeal, set aside the conviction of the
a.ccused and acquit him.
V.P.S.
Appeal allowed
..