# Hanumant v. The State of

- **Citation:** [1955] 2 S.C.R. 570
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1954-05-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1955
- **Bench:** VIVIAN BosE, Jagannadhadas, B. P. Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hanumant-v-the-state-of-1511
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Circumstantial evidence-Conviction based thereon-Standard of
proof-Various links completing the chain of evidence-Failure to
offer an explanation by the accused-Whether an additional link in
the chain.
The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evi<lence is
well-established by a· series of decisions of the
Supreme Court.
According to that standard the circumstances relied
upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the
chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
The appellant was convicted under s. 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to transportation for life.
There were no eye~
witnesses to the murder and the conviction of the appellant rested
solely on the circumstantial evidence which was relied on by the
courts below.
The various facts which formed the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in the present case taken together advanced the
case against the appellant very much beyond suspicion and reasonably and definitely pointed to the appellant as
the person
who
committed the murder.
In a case like the present when the various links in the chain
had beez:i satisfactorily made out and the circumstances pointed to
the appellant as the probable assailant with reasqnable definiteness
and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and
he offered no explanation, which if accepted, though not proved,
would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case
consistent with his innoceqce, such absence of explanation or false
explanation would itself be an additional link which completed the
chain.
Hanumant v.
The State of
Madhya Pradesh ([1952] S.C.R.
1091 ), referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION :
Criminal
Appeal No. 19 of 1955.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order dated the 11th May 1954 of the Patna High
Court in Death Reference No. 8 of 1954 with Criminal
Appeal No. 142 of 1954 arising out of the Judgment
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
571
and Order dated the 12th March 1954 in Sessions
1955
Trial No. 2 of 1954.
Deonant1an Mishra
v,
B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
Thi Stall of Bihar
M. M. Sinha, for the respondent.
1955. September 28. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
JAGANNADHADAS
J.-This
is an appeal by special
leave. The appellant
Deonandan Mishra (Deonandan
Missir) who was a stenographer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
of Income-tax, Patna,
has been
convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
for having committed the murder of his second wife,
Mst. Parbati Devi, on the night of the 3rd/4th September,
1953
and
sentenced to transportation for life.
The deceased was married to the appellant in or about
the year 1941 and was his second · wife. As appears
from the subsequent events, she was considered to be
a woman of loose morals.
She· appears to have been
forsaken by her husband as also by her father in or
about the year 1945 and to have sought shelter in the
Anath Ashram at Gaya.
Through the intervention
of the Secretary of the Ashram and with the consent
of both the husband and the father, she got remarried to one Nand Lall of Punjab in December, 1945.
After a stay of about an year and a half with Nand
Lall in Punjab, she appears to have left him on
account of alleged ill-treatment.
She
came back to
the Anath Ashram at Gaya in June, 1947, but left it
again in October, 1947. What happened thereafter is
not
clear from the evidence and her whereabouts
between October,
1947 and August, 1953, are not
known and do not seem to have been traced. All that
appears is that for some time prior to the date of the
murder, she was found going up and down in places
near about
Gaya and that particularly on the 2nd and
3rd September, 1953, i.e., two days prior to her murder
she was
found going between Gay:l and Patna and a
place Chakand in between these two places.
Early

## Text

1955
S1pllmb-r 28
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
DEONANDAN MISHRA
fl.
THE STATE OF BIHAR.
[1955]
(VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS and B. P. SINHA JJ.]
Circumstantial evidence-Conviction based thereon-Standard of
proof-Various links completing the chain of evidence-Failure to
offer an explanation by the accused-Whether an additional link in
the chain.
The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evi<lence is
well-established by a· series of decisions of the
Supreme Court.
According to that standard the circumstances relied
upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the
chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
The appellant was convicted under s. 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to transportation for life.
There were no eye~
witnesses to the murder and the conviction of the appellant rested
solely on the circumstantial evidence which was relied on by the
courts below.
The various facts which formed the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in the present case taken together advanced the
case against the appellant very much beyond suspicion and reasonably and definitely pointed to the appellant as
the person
who
committed the murder.
In a case like the present when the various links in the chain
had beez:i satisfactorily made out and the circumstances pointed to
the appellant as the probable assailant with reasqnable definiteness
and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and
he offered no explanation, which if accepted, though not proved,
would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case
consistent with his innoceqce, such absence of explanation or false
explanation would itself be an additional link which completed the
chain.
Hanumant v.
The State of
Madhya Pradesh ([1952] S.C.R.
1091 ), referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION :
Criminal
Appeal No. 19 of 1955.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order dated the 11th May 1954 of the Patna High
Court in Death Reference No. 8 of 1954 with Criminal
Appeal No. 142 of 1954 arising out of the Judgment
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
571
and Order dated the 12th March 1954 in Sessions
1955
Trial No. 2 of 1954.
Deonant1an Mishra
v,
B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
Thi Stall of Bihar
M. M. Sinha, for the respondent.
1955. September 28. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
JAGANNADHADAS
J.-This
is an appeal by special
leave. The appellant
Deonandan Mishra (Deonandan
Missir) who was a stenographer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
of Income-tax, Patna,
has been
convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
for having committed the murder of his second wife,
Mst. Parbati Devi, on the night of the 3rd/4th September,
1953
and
sentenced to transportation for life.
The deceased was married to the appellant in or about
the year 1941 and was his second · wife. As appears
from the subsequent events, she was considered to be
a woman of loose morals.
She· appears to have been
forsaken by her husband as also by her father in or
about the year 1945 and to have sought shelter in the
Anath Ashram at Gaya.
Through the intervention
of the Secretary of the Ashram and with the consent
of both the husband and the father, she got remarried to one Nand Lall of Punjab in December, 1945.
After a stay of about an year and a half with Nand
Lall in Punjab, she appears to have left him on
account of alleged ill-treatment.
She
came back to
the Anath Ashram at Gaya in June, 1947, but left it
again in October, 1947. What happened thereafter is
not
clear from the evidence and her whereabouts
between October,
1947 and August, 1953, are not
known and do not seem to have been traced. All that
appears is that for some time prior to the date of the
murder, she was found going up and down in places
near about
Gaya and that particularly on the 2nd and
3rd September, 1953, i.e., two days prior to her murder
she was
found going between Gay:l and Patna and a
place Chakand in between these two places.
Early
morning at about 7 A.M. on the 4L.1 September, 1953,
P. W. 10, Havildar, found a naked dead body of a
1955
IMnandan Mishra
v.
T/,. Stali of BU.or
japrnadhatlas ].
sn
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
female lying
in the Kabristhan at the outskirts of
Gaya about a mile and a half from the police thana.
It was lying on the western verandah of the bungalow of the Kabristhan with a number of cut injuries
on the neck and on other parts of the body. Report
of this was carried to the police
and
the body was
subsequently identified to be that of Parbati Devi, the
second wife of the appellant. Investigation followed
and the appellant was arrested on the 6th September,
1953, and put up for trial in due course.
There is no eye-witness to the· murder and the case
against the appellant depends entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The standard of proof required to convict a person on such evidence is well-established by a
series. of decisions of this Court, of which it is sufficient to mention Hanumant v. The. State of Madhya
Pradesh(').
This standard requires that the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and that
the chain of evidence furnished by these circumstances
should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
The learned counsel for the
appellant
ha~, therefore, strenuously contended before
us that the circumstances relied on have not been fully
established and that in any case they are not enough
to bring the offence home to the accused. The various
circumstances relied upon have, therefore, to be briefly
noticed.
The appellant
belongs to a place called Chakanddih about a mile and a half from a railway station
called Chakand, which is in between Patna and Gaya
and which is about five miles from Gaya. It is in
evidence that the deceased woman was seen alighting
at the
Chakand railway station on the night of
the 2nd September, 1953, at about 10-15
P. M. from a
train. proceeding from Gaya to Patna and that after
so alighting she was found
proceeding to the village
Chakand-dih. It is also in evidence that she took the
train again early next morning at Chakand for Patna.
The evidence further shows that on the 3rd morning
at about 10 o'clock, she
presented herself
at the
(I) [1952] S.C.R.!091.
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
573
Income-tax
office
at Patna, and made
enqumes
about the appellant from
a peon of the office, P.W.
12, and that the appellant was informed about this
by him.
On receiving this information the appellant
came out and on seeing the woman told the peon that
she was his wife and asked him to make some arrangement to keep her for the day so that he might meet
her in the evening after he was free from the office
work.
The peon accordingly made arrangements for
her stay
till the evening in the quarters of the
Chowkidar, P. W. 22, who lived in the compound of
the office.
In the evening of that day, i.e., 3rd
September, at about 7
P.M. the appellant came to his
quarters and took away this woman in a rickshaw.
These facts are spoken to by the peon, P. W. 12, and
the Chowkidar, P. W. 22.
It is further in evidence
that after midday on the 3rd September, 1953, the
appellant filed
an application for
casual leave, for
one
day,
i.e., 4th September and that leave was
granted. That the appellant did apply for leave and
·got it is not disputed.
The next evidence against the
appellant
is that he was seen that night, travelling
with the deceased Parbati Devi in a compartment of
the train which left Patna at about 8 P.M. that night
for Gaya.
This evidence
is that of three witnesses,
P. W. 1, a daffadar and P.Ws. 3 and 4, two chowkidars,
all of whom were on duty at Chakand railway station
that night.
All of them speak to their having seen
the appellant along with the deceased woman in a
third class compartment at about
11 or 11-30 P.M.
that night in the train from Patna to Gaya when it
stopped at Chakand railway station for a few minutes.
It is their evidence that they knew both these persons well and that
these persons did not get down at
that station but proceeded in the train towards Gaya.
This· evidence, if accepted as it has
been by both the
courts
below-undoubtedly is
a strong circumstance
against the appellant inasmuch as it makes out that
the appellant was last seen with the murdered woman
a few hours before the tinu: when the murder must
have taken place.
This evidence has been strongly
clialle.tiged. The appellant admitted that the murdered
1955
Deonandan Misltta
v.
T"4 State of Bihar
JagannadhaJas J
1955
.0-onandan Mishra
.v.
Tiu SI°" of Bihar
1az-•dloata1 J.
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
woman met him at his office at Patna in the first week
of September, but his case before the Sessions Judge
was that this was not on the 3rd but on the 2nd. In
answer to questions
under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Sessions Judge, he admitted
that the deceased came to the Income-tax Office at
Patna, to see him and that he met her there and that
he made her stay in the house of the Chowkidar and
that he took her from the lodging of the chowkidar
in the evening on a rickshaw. But he
maintained
that all this happened on the 2nd and not on the 3rd
and said that after taking her from the lodgings of
the chowkidar, at Patna on a rickshaw, he got down
at the crossing and gave her money and sent her
away.
He also added that once formerly
she had
come to his office to demand money. His case that he
met the deceased woman at Patna on the 2nd and
not on the 3rd was not accepted by both the courts
below. Not only ·was there the evidence of the peon,
P.W.
12, and the chowkidar, P.W. 22, in support of
the prosecution case as to the date being the 3rd but
a responsible and educated person like the Inspector
of
Income-tax,
against
whom nothing
has been
alleged, has also spoken to the same from his personal
knowledge.
It is also significant that the appellant
when he was questioned under section 342, Criminal
Procedure
Code in the court of the Committing
Magistrate did not specifically put forward his case
that it was on the 2nd and not on the 3rd, that he
met the woman at his office in Patna.
His answers
in that court were bare denials when he was asked
whether he saw Parbati Devi at the Patna Incometax Office on the 3rd and whether he asked the chowkidar to allow her to remain i.n his house
for the
whole of the day.
His present case that he met the
deceased at Patna on the 2nd and not on the' 3rd
appears
to be afterthought. In the circumstances,
the following facts, viz., that the appellant met the
deceased at Patna Income-tax Office on the 3rd, that
.he took charge of her
th~t evening from the quarters
of the chowkidar of the office by taking her in a
rickshaw, that he was found travelling with her by
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
575
the night train at about 11
or 11-30
P.M. at the
Chakand
railway station
and proceeding towards
Gaya, must be taken to have been fully and clearly
established as found by both the courts below.
The next important circumstance alleged against
him is the existence of a strong motive.
That the
relations between both
of them were
completely
strained, and that
the
marital
tie was virtually
(though not legally)
snapped, is admitted and is
clearly borne out on the record by the Thyagpatra
which he gave to the Secretary, Anath Ashram, in
1945
authorising
him to get her married to another person.
It is also admitted that the appellant
had married a third wife some time before this murder.
The suggestion for the prosecution is that in
all these circumstances and having regard to the bad
reputation which this woman had gathered round her,
as the evidence clearly shows, and in view of the fact
that she started troubling him by visits at his office,
the appellant
had a strong motive to commit the
murder.
It is urged for the defence that this woman
must have had a p.umber of persons with whom she
must have been carrying on love intrigues and that
she must have provoked strong jealousies of various
persons in and around the place where she was admittedly moving for at least some time prior to her
murder and that any one of such persons might have
had much
s~ronger motives to commit the crime.
Now, while it is perfectly true that there is no clear
evidence about the life and movements of this woman
from about October, 1947 to August, 1953, there can
be no doubt that on the material before the Court,
the existence of a strong motive on
the part of the
appellant
is
clearly indicated.
As has been already
stated this woman left the appellant in the year 1945
and took shelter jn the Anath Ashram, Gaya. Ex. 2
(a), a Thyagpatra executed by the appellant on the
12th October,
1945, shows that he purported to give
up all rights , over this woman as a husband and
authorised the Ashram to arrange to get her married
according
to her choice.
Simultaneously with this
Thyagpatra, he als0 sent a letter to the
Secretary~
1955
Dlonandan Mishra
v.
Thi State of Bihar
Jagannadhadas J.
1955
Dlonandan Mi1hta
...
Till Stall of Bihm
l•1annadhadas ].
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
Anath Ashram, Ex-2-A(l), which is as follows:
"It is submitted that I have duly filled the tyagpatra (divorce form) in connection with my wife Parbati Devi and
submitted
the same to the Ashram.
Besides this, I pray to the Ashram Samiti and the
Bibah Samiti, with my folded hands that they should
keep in mind to get Parbati Devi married at a very
distant
place in any other State, because she
is
woman of such a loose character that if she is married
to a place
near about it will bring ill fame to the
A&hram and to me.
As I am an employee in the
Police department, it shall adversely affect my service.
I pray you not to refuse my prayer".
The state of mind of the appellant as disclosed in this
letter furnishes a clue as to how his mind would have
reacted when in spite of
her having been married away
at a distant place, she came. back and was virtually
knocking about from place
to place between Patna
and Gaya and went so far as to meet him in the very
office where he was working to demand money. It is
strongly urged that tills letter only shows the state
of his mind about eight years
prior to the murder.
But in view of his own admission that she started
troubling rum again by visiting rum at his office, and
demanding money at least on two occasions including
that on the 3rd September, the courts below were perfectly justified in considering that a strong present
motive on the part of the appellant has been made
out.
Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the
existence of the motive and the evidence as to the
appellant having been last seen travelling in the train
with tills woman on the night of the 3rd September a
few hours prior to the time of the murder, even if believed are, at best circumstances whlch may create a
~trong suspicion but that they are not enough by
themselves to make out the guilt of the accused. It
is pointed out that there is no evidence that the appellant and the deceased woman were found getting
down at the Gaya station or that they were both
found proceeding towards Kabristhan after so getting
down. Undoubtedly there is some gap in the evidence
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
577
at this point.
But their getting down at Gaya or
proceeding towards Kabristhan must have taken place
at or after midnight.
It is in evidence that Kabristhan was on the out-skirts of Gaya about a mile and
a half from the Gaya police station, on the bank of
the river Phalgu and that there was no human habitation within
about 100 yards of the place.
The absence
of any specific evidence, therefore, as to the
appellant
having been seen with the murdered woman
going towards Kabristhan or near about Kabristhan
is intelligible.
It
cannot be denied, however, that if
the circumstances against the appellant stopped short
at this poin::, there may be room for hesitation. There
are however further circumstances relied upon by the
courts below and they require to be noticed and considered.
These further circumstances are ( 1) the finding of
a blood-stained knife (pen-knife) near the dead body,
and (2) the existence of certain injuries upon the person of the appellant when he was arrested on the 6th.
The evidence of P.W. 23, the officer-in-charge of Kotwali police station, Gaya, who proceeded to investigate this offence on getting information thereof at 7
A.M. on the 4th September shows that he then found
the dead body of the woman, in a pool of blood underneath and near the neck, and that there was found
at the time a blood-stained knife near the head. This
knife was
seized and marked as Ex. 1.
The prosecution has given evidence of three witnesses, P.Ws. 11,
13 and 18, who
are respectively the Daftari, the
Chaprasi and the Inspector
attach to the Income-tax
Office, Patna, in which the appellant was working, that
they had seen with the appellant a knife similar to
the one which was shown to them in Court, as having
been found by the side of the dead body.
Out
of
these P.W. 18, the Income-tax Inspector says in crossexamination that he had never seen such a knife "before".
The appellant, while in his examination under
section 342,
Criminal Procedure Code admitted that
he used to keep a knife for mending pencil, denied
that the knife, produced in court as being the one
which was found by the side of the dead body, was
1955
D1onand1Jt1 MlshrtJ
T.
Th6 Stale of Blhar
Jaganna4/uulu J.
1955
IJ.oMndan Misl1'a
v.
Tl# Stal1 of Bihar
Jagannadlia4as J.
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
his or was like the one he kept. It was strongly urged
on behalf of the defence that there was no
proof
that this was the very knife which the appellant used
to have.
The learned
Judges of the High Court met
this criticism as follows:-
"Of course no witness could have possibly deposed that this was the knife which was in possessioa
of the appellant.
They say that the knife which they
had seen with the appellant prior to the occurrence
was a knife similar to the one . which was found in a
blood-stained condition near the dead body. We have
examined that knife for ourselves and it has a peculiarity of its own.
The knife has an ivory handle. It
has a cork screw and a bottle opener-all combined.
A knife
of
this description, therefore, can be identified
and it is not one of the kind which can be said to be
an ordinary one".
In view of the above observation by the learned
Judges
and having regard
to the evidence of P.W. 18,
who, though he did not speak of these peculiar features, has categorically said that he had never seen
such a knife before, there is no reason to disagree with
the finding of the High Court that the
find of this
knife near the dead body is
a strong circumstance
against the appellant.
The next circumstance found against the appellant
is the presence of injuries on his. body at the time of
his arrest
on
the 6th.
P.W. 24, a Civil
Assistant
Surgeon of Gaya who examined him at 6 P.M. on t11e
6th of September, found the following four simple injuries on his person.
( 1) One wound on the left ring
finger, (2) one wound on the back of left hand near
thumb, (3) two abrasions in front of right knee, and
( 4) one small abrasion in front of left knee.
In his
opinion, the injuries were. all about three days old.
Numbers 1 and 2 might have been cawed by a sharpedged weapon such as a pen-knife and injuries 3 and
4 by some hard and rough substance such as friction
against the ground. According to him, the nature and
position of the injuries were . such
that "if the victim
is lying on the ground and if the assailant is over on
the chest of the victim and he is holding the victim
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
579
by his left hand and if he is inflicting injuries near
about his left hand the victim is struggling-making
the assailant unsteady, then injuries Nos. 1 and 2 may
be caused
by
his own weapon and injuries Nos. 3 and
4 may be caused due to friction against the ground".
This answer indicates the possibility
of the
injuries
having been received
by. a person while making a
murderous attack on the victim with a pen-knife. The
appellant
when asked
about these injuries in his
examination
under section 342,
Criminal Procedure
Code
stated in the Sessions Court (as well as in the
committal court) that he fell down at Jehanabad platform on the 3rd due to Dhoti getting entangled, and
sustained injuries.
In support of his explanation he
relied on an applicatiGn for
extension of leave sent
first by telegram on the morning of the 5th of September to the Commissioner of Income-tax,
Patna
asking for extension of leave followed by a letter of
that very date to the same effect.
The letter was
addressed to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
of Income-tax, Northern Range, Patna, and runs as
follows:
"I beg to state that I started from home from
Patna in the night train of 3rd September 1953. When
the train stopped at Jehanahad I wanted to come out
of the train for taking a stand on the platform due
to unbearable heat in the train.
At the gate of the
compartment
as soon as I wanted to come out my
one leg entangled with the lower part of my dhoti
resulting instantaneous fel~ down from the train. Due
to this accident I got injuries at both the knees and
the cut marks in the b~ck of my left palm. I therefore request you to kindly extend my leave up to 10th
September, '53".
When questioned under section 342,
Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Court about the extension
of
his leave, he said "I was a stenographer.
How can have I typed when
my left hand was injured.
Hence
I wanted to extend the leave".
It
appears to us, however, very doubtful, having regard
to the nature of the injuries, whether this can be the
real reason for his extending the leave.
He does not
1955
DI01lll1lllan Mislrr•
v.
T"6 StaU of Bihar
JaglJlltllllflzadl J.
1955
D10rumdan Mishra
v.
Thi State of Bihi:ir
Jagannadh.atla1 ].
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
say so specifically in his application for leave. Nor,
does it appear
so likely from the medical evidence
how injuries Nos. 1 and 2 could have been caused by
the alleged fall on the railway platform. In the crossexamination of the Doctor it was suggested that if
there is a broken glass piece lying on the ground and
if during the fall the hand · came in violent contact
with that piece of glass, then such injuries may be
caused.
But the appellant in his explanation and in
the application for leave does not say anything which
indicates
that
he received
the injuries on the hand
from a .. Qiece of glass.
In this state
of the evidence,
it cannot be said that the courts below were not justified in coming to the conclusion which they did, viz.,
that the explanation of the appellant for the injuries
was false and that the injuries
may well have been
received on the occasion of the murder.
Summing up, the various facts which
formed
the
links in the chain of circumstantial evidence m this
case, may be stated to be as follows :
1. There
was a fairly strong motive for the appellant to cofnmit the murder in question.
2. He took charge of the murdered woman on
the evening of the 3rd September by taking her out
from the quarters of the chowkidar of the Incometax Office, Patna, and leaving the place with her in
a rickshaw.
3. He was found travelling with her by a train
which was proceeding to Ga ya that night, at Chakand
railway station and this was at about
11 or 11-30
P.M., i.e., a few hours prior- to the time when she
must have been murdered.
4. The knife, which looked like the one which he
was known to be using in his office and which was not
of a common pattern, was. found just by the side
of
the head of the murdered woman stained with blood.
5. V!hen he was arrested two and a half days after
the murder, he had simple injuries on his hand and
the knees which might well have been received, according to the medical evidence, in an assault on the murdered woman with the knife above mentioned.
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
581
These circumstances taken together, advance
the
case
against the appellant very much beyond suspicion and
reasonably and definitely point to the appellant as the
person who committed the murder.
In such a situation the fact that he has no explanation to offer as to
how, after having taken charge of this woman on the
evening of the 3rd at Patna and after having travelled
with her in the train that very night towards Gaya,
he left the woman, where and how he parted company
with her and what became of her so far as he knows,
goes a long way against him.
The fact that on the
other hand he tries to dissociate himself from her
company at the relevant time by putting fo1ward for
the first time in the Sessions Court, the story of having met her at Patna on the 2nd September and of his
having parted company with her that evening at some
crossing after giving her some money, which is patently false,
is very significant. The further fact that
the explanation for his injuries appears to be false is
also
significant.
These false explanations are telling
circumstances which, in a case depending on
circumstantial evidence
taken with the other facts such as
those in this case, are enough to bring the guilt home
to the accused.
To combat this conclusion, learned counsel for the
appellant drew our attention to the nature and position. of the injuries on the body of the deceased woman
as disclosed by the medical evidence of the Doctor,
P·W.
17,
who conducted the post-mortem examination, as also the various indications at the site of the
occurrence, as found and spoken to by the policeofficer,, P.W. 23, who was the first officer to go to the
scene by about 7 A.M. on the 4th on receiving information.
He also drew our attention to the fact that
according
to
the report of the Serologist and Chemical Examiner, no human blood appeared to have been
found on the saree and the bodice found lying near
about the place where the dead body was lying and
that neither the saree nor the bodice showed anv indication of having been torn or tampered with , and
that on the other hand the body was found lying
absolutley naked with face
upwards.
These features
1955
Deonandan Mishra
v.
The Stak of Bihar
Jagannadhadas J.
1955
DllJIUlnllan Mislita
v.
Tiu State of Bifuw
Jagamuzahadas J.
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
have all been pressed into service for a strong argu·
ment that the murder must have been the act of more
than one person and probably having its source in sex
jealousy.
We have very
closely and anxiously gone
into this aspect of the matter by carefully scrutinising
the entire evidence in this behalf. It is unnecessary
to recapitulate the same.
Whatever may have been
the actual situation
on the spot and the method by
which the murder was
in_ fact committed-a matter
for mere speculation-we are satisfied that the murder could have been committed by a single individual
in the .. position of the appellant. Sitting in an appeal
by way ·of special leave, we are not prepared to say
that the medical evidence and other concomitant circumstances were such as to compel a conclusion contrary to that
arrived at by the Courts below. It is
true that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only
should the various links in the chain of evidence be
clearly established, but the completed chain must be
such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood
of the innocence of the accused. But in a case like this where
the various
links
as stated above
have been satisfactody made out and the circumstances point to the
appellant as
the prqbable assailant, with reasonable
definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and he offers no explanation,
which if accepted,
though not proved, would afford a
reasonable basis for a conclusion on
the entire case
consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be
an additional link which completes the chain. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is a case which satisfies
the standards requisite for conviction on the basis of
circumstantial evidence.
We find, therefore, no sufficient reason to differ from
the view taken by the lower courts and this appeal
must accordingly be dismissed.
r