# KHASHABA MARUTI SHELKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

- **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 266
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-07-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 1972
- **Bench:** Jaganmo!Ian Reddy, H. R. Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/khashaba-maruti-shelke-v-state-of-maharashtra-5966
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Indian Penal Code-S. 302 read with ss. 307, 333 a1.d 332 and ss. 3, 4(b),
S oj the Explosive Substances Act, and ss. 25, 27 of the Arm.J Act-Conviction
on circatnstantial evidence-When conclusive.
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge for offences under s. 302
l.P.C. on two counts for causing the death of a Head Constable and another
and sentenced to death on each count. The appellant was further convicted
under s. 307 I.P.C. for attempt to murder a P. S. I. and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years. He was also convicted
under ss. 333, 332 J.P.C. and ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and ss. 3, 4(b)
and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and separate sentences were passed.
On
appeal and reference to the High Court. the judgment of the learned Sessions
Judge was affirmed. The High Court maintained the conviction of the appe}lant
relying upon circumstantial evidence.
The appellant came before this Court by special leave.
The prosecution case was that a: hand-grenade was exploded in the house
of one A when the police party headed by a Sub-Inspector arrived there with
a view to apprehend the appellant and as a result of the explosion two persons,
including a Head Constahle, received fatal injuries and other police officials
receiv.ed serious injuries-.
The question was whether the appellaD.t possessed
the hand-grenade in question and exploded the same, as a result of Which,
injuries were caused to the two deceased persons and the different police
()tficials.
A1lowing the appeal,
HELD: (i) The case against the appellant had not been proved by the
prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and the conviction of the accused,
therefore, must be set aside.
A
B
c
D
E
(ii) There is no direct evidence as to the fact that the appellant was• seen
F
carrying a hand-grenade or that he exploded the hand-grenade. The circumstances relied upon by the High Court in convicting the appellant do not
singly or cumulatively show that it was the appelJant who exploded the handgrenade.
From the evidence, there is nothing to rule out the possibility of the
hand-grenade having been exploded not by the
appellant but by one of his
companions. There is no direct evidence as to who exploded the Jland-grenade.
(iii) Further, in the F.I.R. there was no mention of a hand-grenade.
All
that was mentioned in the said report was that there was firing from inside·
G
but the medical evidence revealed that there was no bullet injury on any of
the injured persons.
(iv) In order to base the conviction of an
accused
on
circumstantial
evidence, the Court must be certain that the circumstanlial evidence is of such
a character as is consistent only with the
guilt of the
accused. The circumstances must show that within all reasonable probability, the impugned act
mu!lt . have bee~ do~e by the accu;;e~. If two inferences are possible from
H
the ctrcumstant1al evidence-one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
other, also plausible, that the commission of the crime was the act of someone
else-the circumstantial evidence would not warrant the conviction
of
the
μccused. [273D]
A
K. M. SHELKE v. MAHARASHTRA (Khanna, J.)
267

## Text

1·~
266
KHASHABA MARUTI SHELKE
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
July 23, 1973
(P, JAGANMO!IAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.J
Indian Penal Code-S. 302 read with ss. 307, 333 a1.d 332 and ss. 3, 4(b),
S oj the Explosive Substances Act, and ss. 25, 27 of the Arm.J Act-Conviction
on circatnstantial evidence-When conclusive.
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge for offences under s. 302
l.P.C. on two counts for causing the death of a Head Constable and another
and sentenced to death on each count. The appellant was further convicted
under s. 307 I.P.C. for attempt to murder a P. S. I. and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years. He was also convicted
under ss. 333, 332 J.P.C. and ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and ss. 3, 4(b)
and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and separate sentences were passed.
On
appeal and reference to the High Court. the judgment of the learned Sessions
Judge was affirmed. The High Court maintained the conviction of the appe}lant
relying upon circumstantial evidence.
The appellant came before this Court by special leave.
The prosecution case was that a: hand-grenade was exploded in the house
of one A when the police party headed by a Sub-Inspector arrived there with
a view to apprehend the appellant and as a result of the explosion two persons,
including a Head Constahle, received fatal injuries and other police officials
receiv.ed serious injuries-.
The question was whether the appellaD.t possessed
the hand-grenade in question and exploded the same, as a result of Which,
injuries were caused to the two deceased persons and the different police
()tficials.
A1lowing the appeal,
HELD: (i) The case against the appellant had not been proved by the
prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and the conviction of the accused,
therefore, must be set aside.
A
B
c
D
E
(ii) There is no direct evidence as to the fact that the appellant was• seen
F
carrying a hand-grenade or that he exploded the hand-grenade. The circumstances relied upon by the High Court in convicting the appellant do not
singly or cumulatively show that it was the appelJant who exploded the handgrenade.
From the evidence, there is nothing to rule out the possibility of the
hand-grenade having been exploded not by the
appellant but by one of his
companions. There is no direct evidence as to who exploded the Jland-grenade.
(iii) Further, in the F.I.R. there was no mention of a hand-grenade.
All
that was mentioned in the said report was that there was firing from inside·
G
but the medical evidence revealed that there was no bullet injury on any of
the injured persons.
(iv) In order to base the conviction of an
accused
on
circumstantial
evidence, the Court must be certain that the circumstanlial evidence is of such
a character as is consistent only with the
guilt of the
accused. The circumstances must show that within all reasonable probability, the impugned act
mu!lt . have bee~ do~e by the accu;;e~. If two inferences are possible from
H
the ctrcumstant1al evidence-one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
other, also plausible, that the commission of the crime was the act of someone
else-the circumstantial evidence would not warrant the conviction
of
the
μccused. [273D]
A
K. M. SHELKE v. MAHARASHTRA (Khanna, J.)
267
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Criminal Appeal No. 223
of 1972.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 10 & 11, 1972 of the Bombay High Court at Bombay in Cr. A.
No. 1416 of 1971.
B
M. L. Srivastava, for the appellant.
c
D
E
F
G
H
H. R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J.-Khashaba Maruti Shelke (33)
along with eight
others was tried in the court of Sessions Judge Sangli for offences
under section 302/34, 307 /34, 324/34 and 333/34 Indian
Penal
Code section 25 of Arms Act read with section 34 Indian Penal Code,
secti~n 27 Arms Act read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, section
3 Explosive Substances Act read with section 34 Indian Penal Code,
section 4 Explosive Substances Act read with section 34 Indian Penal
Code. section 5 Explosive Substances Act read with section 34 Indian
Penal Code and section 6 Explosive Substances Act read with section
34 Indian Penal Code.
In the alternative, there were charges against
the accused for the above offences read with section 149 Indian Penal
Code. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the other eight accused and
convicted the appellant for offences under section 302 Indian Penal
Code on two counts for causing the death of Head Constable Yesade
( 45) and Smt. Balkabai ( 70) and sentenced him to death on each
count. The appellant was further convicted under section 307 Indian
Penal Code for attempt to murder PSI Mardur and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
The ap·
pellant was also convicted under section 333 Indian Penal Code for
causing injuries to police constable Madane and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. Conviction
was also recorded against the appellant under se,:tion 332 Indian
Penal Code for causing injuries to police constable Huza.-e, Havaldar.
Savant and Mor~ and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years on that count.
The appellant was
convicted under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rig<;irous imprisonment for a period of one year
on each count.
Conviction was also recorded against the appellant
under sect\ons 3 and 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act and he
was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on each count. In
addition to that, the appellant was convicted under section 5 of the
~xpl?sive Substances ~ct and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
1mpns~nment for a penod of three years.
The sentences of imprison-
~ent, 1f necessary, were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence
imposed upon the appellant in another case under section 307 Indian
Penal Code. On appeal and reference to the High Court the
judgment of the learned Sessions Judge was affirmed. The app'ellant thereafter has come up in appeal to this Court by special leave.
The prosecution case is that the appellant was wanted in two
murder cases of 1962 and 1966 but he could not be apprehended as
he was absconding frolJl 1962.
From March 1967 to May 1971 Sub
268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 1 s.c.R.
Inspector Ra!J1chandra Mardnr (PW 58) was posted. in Sangli District
and his main duty was to trace the absconding accused and to detect
the offenders involved in property offences.
On July 24; 1970, it is stated, an informant informed Sub .Inspector Kumbhar of police station Radhanagari in Kolhapur District that
the appellant, who is a resident
of village Kam~ri, was present. in
village Kavathe-Piran in District Sangli. Kavathe-P1ran is seven IJ?lles
from Sangli.
Sub Inspector Kumbhar thereupon left for Sangh to
inform the Superintendent of Police.
On July 25 Head _Constable
Naik (PW 18) of Police station Radhanagari along with three. others
went to village Kavathe-Piran and met the informant there.
They
concealed themselves inside a house and through the chinks of a door
saw the appellant going on the road. The appellant was then carrying a gun and a bandolier containing. cartridges.
Head <;onstable
Naik·and others thereafter went to·Sangh and informed Supermtendent
,of Police Krishnan abont the whereabouts of the appellant.
On July 26, 1970 Sub Inspector Mardur was directed by Superin·
tendent of Police Krishnan to arrange a raid party for the apprehension of the appellant.
A party of 30 armed constables along with a
tear gas squad of three constables then went to the outskirts of village
Kavathe-Piran and reached there at 9 p.m,
At about 10 p.m. the
members of the police party were informed that the appellant had
fired at Jaising Patil (PW 21) of village Kavathe-Piran at the latter's
house and thereafter bad run away.
Superintendent of Police Krishnan
then split the police party into three groups .. Two groups were sent
in other directions, while the third group headed by Sub Inspector
Mardur proceeded towards . the house of Ananda in village. KavathePiran.
Ananda too was arraigned as an accused at the trial along
with the appellant but was acquitted.
The group headed by Sub
Inspector Mardur contained Head Constables Yesade deceased, Naik
(PW 18) and Lavate (PW 55) and 10 police constables, including
Madane (PW 30), Huzare (PW 29), Savant (PW 47), Havaldar
(PW 44) and Pimpri (PW 45). Head Constable Lavate was directed
to keep a watch on the back door of Ananda's house.
Sub Inspector·
Mardur went to the cattle shed of the house of Ananda and called out
Ananda.
Ananda came out and soon thereafter the door of the house
was closed from inside.
On Snb Inspector Mardur's enquiry, Anancja
replied that his mother only was inside the house.
Sub Inspector
Mardur, however, heard some foot-s~ps and a whisperin11: sound from
inside.
This aroused the suspicion of Sub Inspector Mardur. He
accordingly after alerting the other members of the police party kicked
open the door.
As soon as the door was ·opened Sub Inspector
Man!ur heard the sound of firing from inside the house.
It was dark
inside.
The Sub Inspector had a torch in his left hand and he flashed
it while holding a revolver in the right hand.
Head Constable Yesade
!hen entered a room of the house.
Sub Inspector Mardur was followmg Head Constable Yesade when there was an explosion and the Sub
Inspector saw huge flames.
The Sub Inspector felt that he had been
injured.
He accordingly returned to the cattle shed and asked the
police party to fire.
The members of the police party then fired two
A
B
c
D
E
p
G
H
K. M. SHELKE v. MAHARASHTRA (Khanna, J.)
269
A
rounds into the house.
The Sub Inspector also heard reports of firing
from inside.
Blood then started coming out of the injuries of Sub
Inspector Mardur and he also felt giddy. The Sub Inspector then
came out of the house and took shelter behind a wall.
As the Sub
Inspector was seriously injured, he directed the members of the party
to stop firing and to watch if some one came out of the house of
B · Ananda.
During the course of. this occurrence, Head Constable
Lavate, who had been posted on the backside of the house, saw one
man emerging out of the house from the back door.
Head Constable
Lavate directed a police constable to fire at that man, but that man
escaped without being hit.
Another man thereafter emerged from
the back door of Ananda's house and escaped.
Snperintendent of
c
D
E
F
G
H
Police Krishnan then arrived at the house of Ananda and took; steps
to send Sub Inspector Mardur to the hospital for medical treatment.
The police constables, who too were injured, were also sent along
with Sub Inspector Mardur.
Under the directions of Superintendent of Police Krishnan teargas shells were burst out inside the house of Ananda for flushing out
inmates. Ananda and one other person then came out of the house.
Superintendent of Police then entered Ananda's house and saw Head
Constable. Yesade lying_ injured in a small room adjoining the cattle
shed of the house.
Yesade was brought out for medical treatment
but he breathed his last in a short while. Balkabai, mother of Ananda
accused, was ·also found lying dead in a room of the house.
On the
following morning at about 9 a.m. Head Constable Naik made report
Ex. 52 at the police station regarding the present occurrence.
On the night of occurrence Appa Kesre (PW 23) was present
in his house.
Appa Kesre's house is at a distance of two houses from
that of Ananda in village Kavathe-Piran.
At about 11 or 11.30 p.m.
Appa Kesre heard some tumult and got up.
After the tumult had
subsided, Appa Kesre saw the appellant and Ramchandra who too
was an accused in the case, come inside the house of Appa Kesre.
The appellant on arrival disclosed his identity and told Appa Kem>
not to make noise.
The appellant and Ramchandra thereafter cl)ncealed themselves inside the house of Appa Kesre. On the following
morning Appa Kesre went out to ease himself. His wife also went
out from the house. Enquiries were made by the police from Appa
Kesre regarding the whereabouts of the appellant but when Appa
Kesre pleaded ignorance, he was detained. The appellant and Ramchandra were later apprehended from the house of Appa Kesre at about
1.30 p.m.
The appellant was found to have abrasions on his person
and his underwear had stains of blood.
The underwear was taken
into possession. Sub Inspector Sadashiv (PW 64), who investigated
this case, found that some tiles of the roof of the central room of
Ananda's house had been removed in the south-east corner.
A 303
rifle Ex. article 9 was found dangling in the roof. Its butt was broken.
Three empty cartridges were also found in the room.
An iron pin
too was seen lying in one of the rooms.
'.fhe h?nse of Ananda was examined by Senior Inspector of Explosives Btrendranath De (PW 53) on July 30.
The Senior Inspector
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 1 S.C.R.
of Explosives took into possession the various articles lying there and
came to the conclusion that a handgrenade had been explode.d there.
The handgrenade was of service origin and was of frag~entation type
used by service people only. It had been manufactured m 1964.
Post mortem examination of the dead bodies of Head Constable
Yesade and Balkabai was performed bv Dr. Govind Jathar (PW 48)
on July 27, 1970. Balkabai wa~ found to hav~ 12 lacerated wounds
besides a large number of abrasions on the various parts of her body.
There was blackening at the site of the different injuries.
The injuri~s,
in the opinion of the doctor, could have been caused by material
flying as a result of the explosion of a hand-grenade. Yesade
had three lacerated wounds besides a large number of abrasions.
The doctor extracted one metal piece from the cavity of the chest of
Yesade.
Aorta of Yesade was found to have been punctured.
The
injuries of Yesade could be caused by hard and blunt substance flying
with velocity.
There was no bullet injury on the bodies of Balkabai
and Yesade.
Dr. Chokakakar (PW 52) examined the injuries of Sub Inspector
Mardur as well as those of police constables Madane, Huzare, Savant,
Havaldar and More.
Those injuries, in the opinion of the doctor,
were the result of an explosion.
Five of the injuries of Sub Inspector
Mardur were found to be dangerous to life.
The appellant and Ananda
accused were also examined by Dr. Chokakakar.
The appellant had
seven abrasions on the different parts of his body.
The above injuries
could be caused by a hard and blunt substance.
Ananda had four
punctured wounds which could be caused by splinters in an explosion.
At the trial the plea of the appellant was denial simpliciter.
According to the appellant, he had left his village because he was afraid
of one Shankar Bhima Patil. Shankar Bhima Patil was stated to be
a relation of an accused in a murder case and the father of the appellant had appeared as a prosecution witness against that accused. As
regards the injuries on his person, the appellant stated that he was
apprehended by the police in a field at about noon time on July 27
1970. It was stated that the injuries on the person of the appellant
had been received by him during the course of grappling with the
police officials.
No evidence was produced in defence.
The trial court convicted !_he appellant as mentioned above because it was of the view that the appellant had exploded the handgrenade and had caused the different injuries.
The High Court on
appeal and reference substantially agreed with the trial court.
We have heard in appeal Mr. Srivastava on behalf of the appellant
and Mr. Khanna on behalf of the State, and are of the view that the
case has not been proved agaipst the appellant beyond all reasonable
doubt.
The fact that a hand-grenade was exploded in the house of
An~nda when t)ie poli.ce party headed
by Sub Inspector Mardur
arnved th.ere ~·1th ~ view to apprehend the appellant cannot be dispute~.
Likew1~e'. 1.t cannot be disputed that Yesade and Balkabai
rece~ved fat~! miun:s an.d. S1;1b Inspector Mardur and other police
officials received senous m1unes as a result of that explosion.
The
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
K. M. SHELKE v. MAHARASHTRA (Khanna,/.)
271
crucial question which arises for determination in t~e presen.t case is
whether the appellant possessed the hand-grenade m question and
exploded the same, as a result of which injuries were caus~d to the. two
deoeased persons and the different police officials. There 1s no · dire~t
evidence on this point as none of the witnesses has deposed ab?ut bis
having seen the appellant carrying a hand-grenade .or ab?ut . h~s hav-
. i'lg exploded the hand-grenade. The High Court m m~nta11!111g the
conviction of the appellant has relied upon the followmg pieces of
circumstantial evidence :
( 1) The fact that the appellant was absconding before the occurrence in two mui:der cases.
(2) The fact that the appellant was seen carrying a gun and cartridges in village Kavathe-Piran by Head Constable Naik on July· 25,
1970.
(3) The fact thaL.the appellant fired at Jaising at 9 p.m. on July
26, 1970 in village Kavathe-Piran.
( 4) The fact that the appellant sought shelter in lhe hOuse or
Appa Kesre at about mid-night hour after the explosion of the handgrenade.
(5) The fact that the appellant had abrasions on his ·rerson at
the time of his arrest and his underwear was found to be stained with
blood.
In our opinion, the circumstances enumerated above taken sing! y or
cumulatively do not go to show that it was the appellant who exploded
the hand-grenade. It is in the evidence of Jaising (PW 21) that the
appellant on the night of occurrence was accompanied by four other
persons, namely, Ramchandra, Mane Shankar al!d Sadashiv.
Out of
them, Shankar and Sadashiv were strangers.
Ramchandra and Mane
were also charged for the various offences for which the appellant
was charged, but they were acquitted.
There is nothing to rule out
the possibility of the hand-grenade having been exploded not by the
appellant but by one of his companions. The fact that the appellant
was an absconder in two earlier cases would not necessarily show
that it was the appellant who exploded the hand-grenade and not
one of his companions. For even if the appellant was interested in
preventing his apprehension and might have for that object exploded
the hand-grenade, it is equally possible that the explosion of the handgrenade might have been the work of one of the companions of the
G
ap~e~ant ~th a view to prevent the apprehension of the appellant and
fac1btate his escape.
The presence of abrasions on the person of the
appellant or of the blood-stains on his underwear would not also show
that it was the appellant and not one of his companions who had exploded the hand-grenade.
The further fact that the appellant and
Ramchandra accused later sought shelter in the house of Appa Kesre
would not also lead to the inference that it was the appellant and
not one of his companions who had exploded the hand-grenade LikeH
wise, no inference can be drawn from the fact that the appell~nt had
fired at Jaising earlier on that nigh.I, that the hand-grenade too was
exploded by him.
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 1 S.C.R.
Reference has been made by Mr. Khanna to the fact that J allandar,
brother of the appellant, was previously employed in the army and
that Jallandar is untraceable since July 26, 1970 when the present
oci:urrence took place. It is. pointed out that the hand-grenade was
of service origin.
This circumstance, in our opinion, is far from
showing that the appellant alone could be in possession of the handgrenade and that it was he whu exploded the same. If one was out
to procure a service hand-grenade by illegal means, it was not necessary for one to have a brother in the army to secure such a handgrenade.
One might as well have
obtained such a hand-grenade
through other sources.
Referende has also been made by Mr. Khanna to police entry
Ex. 139 and entry in crime handbook Ex. 162, according to which
intelligence had been collected that the appellant carried a handgrenade. The contents of these documents cannot be of much value
as there is nothing to show that the person who made these entries
had any direct knowledge of the possession of hand-grenades by the
appellant.
On the contrary, the entries show that the above information had been derived from some other persons.
Those persons
have not been examined as witnesses in the case.
There is no substantive evidence of any one on the record that he had seen the appellant carrying a hand-grenade.
The two documents referred
to
above, in our opinion, can be no substitute for the substantive evidence
of witnesses on the point that the appellant had in his possession a
hand-grenade.
The appellant was convicted on August 23, 1971 by Additional
Sessions Judge Sangli for an offence under section 307 Indian Penal
Code in connection with the incident relating to the firing at Jaising on
the night of July 26, 1970. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for
a period of seven years was awarded to the appellant on that count.
The appellant was also convioted for offences under sections 25 and
27 of the Arms Act in that connection and was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and three years for
those offences.
As the appellant has already been convicted for the
offences under the Arms Act for being in possession of the rifle and
the cartridges, he cannot be convicted again for being in possession
of the same rifle and cartridges on that day.
It also cannot be said
that the appellant caused any injnrv with the rifle to the two deceased
persons or the other police officials because no bullet injury was
found on any one of th.em.
It may be mentioned that though the prosecution seeks the conviction of the appellant on the all(!gation that he exploded a handgrenade, in the first information report relating to the present occurrence which was lodged by Head Constable Naik there is no reference
to a hand-grenade much less to the explosion of a hand-grenade by
the appellant, although there is a reference in it to the bursting of
tear gas shells by the police party. It appears that the police party
was taken by surprise when the hand-grenade exploded and no one realised as to what had happened and how the different persons had been
injured. This apparently accounts for the fact that there is no mention
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
K. M. SHELKE v. MAHARASHTRA (Khanna, 1.)
i73
of the explosion of a hand-grenade or a bomb in the first information
report lodged by Head Constable Naik. All that was mentioned in the
said report was that there was firing from inside even though medical
evidence reveals that there was no bullet injury on any of the injured
persons.
It is rather unfortunate that in a case like the present wherein
two persons were killed and a number of others were injured,
no
direct evidence could be produced as to who had exploded the handgrenade which caused the injuries to the deceased persons and other
members of the police party.
The difficulty in procuring tl\e direct
evidence can be traced to the fact that the police chose to arraign as
accused the different inmates of Ananda's house.
None of them
could consequently be examined as a witness although those inmates
could be in a position to depose as to who had exploded the handgrenade.
In order to base the conviction of an accused on circumstantial
evidence the court must be certain that the circlUmstantial evidence is
of such a character as is consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
If, however, the circumstantial evidence admits of any other rational
explanations, in such an event an element of doubt would creep in
and the accused must necessarily have the benefit thereof.
The circumstances relied upon should be of a conclusive character and should
exclude every hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused.
In other words, there must be a chain of e.vidence so far complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused.
The circumstances must show that
within all reasonable probability the impugned act must have been
done by the accused. If two inferences are possible from the circumstantial evidence, one point,ing to the guilt of the accused, and the
other, also plausible, that the commission of the crime was the act
of someone else, the circumstantial evidence would not warrant the
conviction of the accused. In case the circumstantial evidence relied
upon by the High Court for maintaining the conviction of the accused
for an offence entailing capital punishment does not satisfy the above
requirement, an int~rference would be called for by this Couri,
It would be apparent from what has been discussed above that
the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution in this
case is not of such a character as can be held to be aonsistent only
with the guilt of the appellant.
We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the conviction of the
appellant and acquit him.
s.c.
Appqaf allowed.