State Of Rajasthan vs Iqbal And Anr ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5573 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (1 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 202/1992

State Of Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

1. Iqbal S/o Shri Abdul Rahman, B/c Musalman Chipa, R/o Falna Station, Falna, Bali.

2. Smt. Bhagwanti W/o Babu Lal, B/c Jain, R/o Khardio Ka Bas, Bali.

                                                                             ----Respondents


         For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP
         For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Sunil Mehta
                                            Ms. Shivani Mutha for
                                            Mr. S.D. Purohit.


                       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

                                             Judgment

Reportable

         04/08/2023 (Per Hon'ble R.P. Soni, J.)

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

09.08.1990 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, (District

Pali), in Sessions Case No.13/1986 (63/1983) acquitting the

respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302

in alternate 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused

were charged and tried for allegedly committing murder of Pyari

Bai on 13.05.1983 between 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. suffocating

her by stuffing a cloth into her mouth.

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (2 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

2. The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of present

appeal against acquittal, briefly stated, are that on 13.05.1983 at

about 2.15 p.m., constable Jeeva Ram (PW-12) of Police Station

Bali (District Pali) gave an oral information (ExP-11) to the effect

that when he reached Gandhi Chowk at about 2.00 p.m. while

patrolling in the town, he saw a crowd there. People in the crowd

were saying that an aged woman had been murdered by stuffing a

cloth into her mouth. He went to Khardia Bas, where, a large

crowd was gathering outside the house of Babulal Jain which was

situated adjacent to municipality building. Wife of Babulal Jain

Bhagyawanti was present in the house. Some people were also

standing inside the house. In the Pole (पोल) of the house, there

was a little bit of blood on the floor and a small bucket was also

kept in the chowk (चौक) of the house, which was half full of water

and the colour of which was like red. It led him to guess that the

culprit had washed his blood stained hands in that bucket. In a

room, Pyari Bai, the mother-in-law of Bhagyawanti had a cloth

stuffed into her mouth and was lying dead on a cot. The cloth was

full of blood. There was blood on both the shoulders of her blouse

as well and blood was also oozing out of her nose and mouth.

Two small carpets, lying there, were also found blood stained. 2-3

boxes were lying open in the room.

3. F.I.R. further stated that it appeared that someone has

murdered Pyari Bai suffocating her by stuffing a cloth into her

mouth. Bhagyawanti, the daughter-in-law (बहू) of the deceased

who was present there, told on being asked that the incident took

place during the day between 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. when she

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (3 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

alongwith her children was sleeping on the upper floor of the

house. Her husband lives in Bombay. Only Pyari Bai and

Bhagyawanti alongwith her children live in the house where the

incident took place.

4. In pursuance of the said complaint lodged by constable Jeeva

Ram, the investigation was set in motion and the charge-sheet

was filed against both the respondents. After the case was

committed to the court of Sessions, the charges for the offences

punishable under Section 302 in alternate 302/34 of the Indian

Penal Code were framed against the respondents to which they did

not plead guilty and claimed trial.

5. To bring home guilt of the respondents, prosecution

examined as many as 26 witnesses and also got exhibited 28

different documents. Upon being confronted with the allegations

set out in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, both the

respondents denied all incriminating circumstances put to them

and claimed that they had been falsely implicated and are

innocent. The defence propounded by the respondents in the

course of trial was of total denial. There were 13 defence

witnesses examined by the respondents in support of their

defence.

6. We have mulled upon the arguments advanced by both the

parties, gone through the impugned order and thoroughly

re-appreciated the evidence available on record and also given

respectful and thoughtful consideration to the law.

7. It is admitted case of the prosecution that nobody had seen

the actual incident, which happened with the deceased. However,

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (4 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

according to the prosecution, husband of Bhagyawanti lived in

Bombay and she lived with her children and aged mother-in-law

Pyari Bai at Bali town. About one and a quarter years before the

incident, respondent Iqbal started a video parlour in the name and

style "Rubi Coffee House" adjacent to the house of Bhagyawanti.

The roof of the house of Bhagyawanti can be easily accessed from

the roof of the coffee house. The municipality building is also near

the house of Bhagyawanti. It is further case of the prosecution

that after starting the video parlour, respondent Iqbal started

impressing Bhagyawanti and used to visit her house often. People

of the neighborhood had seen many times both Iqbal and

Bhagyawanti talking and laughing outside the house and on the

terrace. When Bhagyawanti used to come to watch the film in the

video parlour of Iqbal, she was not even charged for the ticket.

When the servant of the video parlour used to leave the parlour

after night show, Iqbal used to sleep in the coffee house at night.

Gradually Iqbal, allegedly had developed illicit relation with

co-accused Bhagyawanti and that is why both Iqbal and

Bhagyawanti together murdered Pyari Bai. On the date of death of

her mother-in-law, people did not see Bhagyawanti even crying or

grieving.

8. The complaint was lodged against unknown person since the

name of the accused had not been revealed as assailant at that

stage. Both the respondents Iqbal and Bhagyawanti, however,

came to be arrested on 20.05.1983. Admittedly, there was no

direct evidence against the accused. To bring home the guilt of the

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (5 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

accused, the witnesses examined and documents exhibited by the

prosecution in relation to the various circumstances are as under:-

1. Illicit relationship and intimacy between both the

respondents which formed motive:- Cheeman Lal

(PW-8), Jeeva Ram (PW-9), Mohd. Ilias (PW-11), Hakka

Ram (PW-16) and Kalu Ram (PW-24) have been

examined in relation to this circumstance.

2. Iqbal being entered into the house of Bhagyawanti

prior to the incident:- Narotam Das (PW-10), Rustam

Khan (PW-15) have been examined in relation to this

circumstance.

3. Iqbal being seen leaving the house of Bhagyawanti

after the incident:- Suresh Kumar (PW-5) has been

examined in this aspect.

4. Immediate conduct and behavior of Bhagyawanti

after death of her mother-in-law:- Hakka Ram (PW-16)

and Prakash (PW-19) have been produced in relation to

this circumstance.

5. Recovery of blood stained cloth (napkin) at the

instance of Iqbal:- Kheema Baba (PW-6), Bhopal Ram

(PW-7) and Sardar Khan (PW-20) have been examined.

Recovery memo of blood stained cloth (ExP-7) and

article 2 & 11 have been produced in relation to this

circumstance.

6. Recovery of blood stained shirt of Iqbal:- Inda Ram

(PW-3), Teja Ram (PW-4) have been examined. Recovery

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (6 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

memo of blood stained shirt (ExP-5) and article 1 have

been produced in relation to this circumstance.

7. Recovery of blood stained clothes of Bhagyawanti:-

Jodha (PW-6), Bhopalram (PW-7) have been examined.

Recovery memo of blood stained clothes of Bhagyawanti

(ExP-9) and article 3 & 4 have produced in relation to

this circumstance.

8. Recovery of blood mixed water in which hands of

culprit were said to be washed:- Badri Narayan Sharma

(PW-1), Nirbhay Ram (PW-2) have been examined.

Recovery memo (ExP-3) and article 10 have produced in

relation to this circumstance.

9. Recovery of blood stained clothes of deceased

wearing at the time of death:- Badri Narayan Sharma

(PW-1) and Nirbhay Ram (PW-2) have been examined.

Recovery memo of blood stained clothes of deceased

(ExP-4) and article 5 to 7 have produced in relation to

this circumstance.

9. The trial court after consideration of the entire evidence on

record has acquitted both the accused holding that the

circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution does not

inspire confidence and is not sufficient to prove the charge against

the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. Even the evidence of

other witnesses, who had seen the Iqbal prior to and after the

alleged incident has also been discarded holding that merely the

accused was seen by these witnesses does not mean that he

committed murder of Pyari Bai. The trial court further held that

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (7 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the cause of death in

as much none of the members of the medical board was

examined.

10. In so far as recovery of blood stained cloth (Napkin) is

concerned, the learned trial Judge seems to have discarded that

piece of evidence holding that recovery of cloth used for stuffing

the mouth of the deceased by itself is not sufficient to connect the

accused with the alleged murder if the substantive evidence is not

reliable and truthful.

11. Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor took us through

the entire evidence and submitted that all the circumstances relied

upon by the prosecution are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The

trial court did not consider the evidence led by the prosecution in

proper perspective and has, consequence thereof, arrived at

perverse finding since it was wrongly discarded by the trial court.

He submitted that the prosecution has proved the common object

and motive beyond reasonable doubt as well as all the recoveries

and therefore the learned trial Judge ought not to have brushed

aside the entire evidence.

12. He further submitted that other circumstance such as

recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused, recovery of cloth

(napkin) at the instance of accused, evidence of Narotam Das

(PW-10) and Suresh Kumar (PW-5), who had seen Iqbal entering

into home of Bhagyawanti prior to incident and coming out of her

home after the occurrence, the evidence of witnesses who

deposed about the illicit relationship and intimacy between both

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (8 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

the accused which forms the motive, clearly lend assurance to the

occurrence and that clearly point to the guilt of the accused.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

vehemently submitted that the prosecution has not proved basic

links such as last seen, motive and recoveries beyond reasonable

doubt and since these links are missing from the chain of

circumstances, the respondents cannot be said to have committed

alleged offence. He further submitted that the findings recorded

by the learned trial Judge and the conclusion arrived at by him in

instant case cannot be termed as perverse and no manifest

illegality whatsoever has been committed by him in acquitting the

accused. It is further argued that it cannot be said that

appreciation of the evidence by the trial court is perverse or the

conclusion drawn by it could not have been drawn on any view of

the evidence; that there is no error, in application of law by the

learned trial Judge nor there is any substantive omission on his

part to consider the evidence existing on record. He, therefore,

submitted that the view taken by the acquitting court is

permissible on the evidence on record and, therefore, this Court

cannot interfere with the impugned judgment in as much as the

order of acquittal has not resulted in miscarriage of justice.

14. Before we consider the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties and the evidence on record it

would be relevant to notice the settled position of law to be

applied in dealing with the appeal against acquittal.

15. It is well settled that though the appellate court has same

powers as the trial Court of appreciating evidence and coming to

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (9 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

its own conclusion on questions of fact, it should not interfere with

an acquittal. If the view taken by the trial Court is a reasonably

possible view, the appellate court should not disturb an acquittal

merely because it thinks that another view is better or more

preferable.

16. The consistent and well settled law on the point is that the

High Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only when:-

(1) The appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is perverse or the conclusion drawn by it cannot be drawn on any view of the evidence.

(2) Where the application of law is improperly done. (3) Where there is substantial omission to consider the evidence existing on record.

(4) The view taken by the acquitting Court is impermissible on the evidence on record.

(5) If the order of acquittal is allowed to stand it will result in the miscarriage of justice".

17. We will have, therefore, to apply this test of strong and

compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal in the

present appeal. In other words we will be applying these principles

in the present case to determine whether interference with the

order of acquittal impugned in this case is must.

18. In the instant case, we have already narrated the facts and

evidence relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of

the accused. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment

and re-appreciated the evidence of all the witnesses. We agree

with the learned trial Judge that the evidence led by the

prosecution is not sufficient to prove all the circumstances beyond

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (10 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

reasonable doubt. We now proceed to record our reasons for

arriving at this conclusion.

19. At the outset, we would like to deal with the first two

circumstance namely, illicit relationship between respondents Iqbal

and Bhagyawanti plus the motive which according to the

prosecution, were the main links in the chain of circumstances.

20. As regard the fact that Iqbal and Bhagyawanti shared an

illicit relationship, the first witness examined by the prosecution

on the said circumstance is Cheemanlal (PW-8). He deposed that

Bhagyawanti has 2-3 children; About 20-25 days prior to the

death of deceased, he had seen Iqbal blooming with children of

Bhagyawanti; about 7-8 days prior to the incident, Hakkaram a

class IV employee in the Municipality, told him that the person,

who is operating the video parlour was roaming on the terrace of

his building. The roof of house of Bhagyawanti and the roof of

house of Iqbal are clearly visible from the roof of Municipality

building. The name of person, who was roaming on the roof was

not told by Hakkaram. Jeevaram (PW-9) has deposed that he did

not see Iqbal and Bhagyawanti talking to each other any time,

anywhere.

21. Mohd. Iliyas (PW-11), an employee at the video parlour, has

stated that Bhagyawanti came to watch the film 1-2 times in the

video parlour of Iqbal; being a neighbour, he did not charge

money for ticket from her; Iqbal did not ask Bhagyawanti to

watch the film in his parlour for free; Iqbal never visited the

house of Bhagyawanti. Hakkaram (PW-16) has deposed that once

he saw Iqbal sitting at the house of Bhagyawanti, an old woman

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (11 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

was also sitting with him; children of Bhagyawanti were also

sitting near Iqbal. Bhagyawanti was cleaning the dishes at that

time; Besides it, he also saw Iqbal roaming on the roof of house

of Bhagyawanti. Prakash (PW-14) has not supported the case of

the prosecution on this circumstance and deposed that he gave

the statement to the police under the pressure of the police.

Kaluram (PW-24) has also been declared hostile. He has deposed

that he never knew Bhagyawanti and Iqbal and has also stated the

fact that he never seen them together somewhere.

22. The evidence produced by the prosecution also reveals that

the clothes of the accused Iqbal (Art.-1) and Bhagyawanti

(Art.3 and 4) were also recovered by the police under Recovery

Memo (ExP-5) and (ExP-9) which were blood stained.

23. An illicit relationship is generally concealed from public gaze

and only a few are aware of such a fact. The people generally tend

to suppress this fact to protect family honour for fear of societal

disapproval. It is nearly impossible for the prosecution to collect

direct evidence of an illicit relationship and therefore, it has to be

rely upon statements of the witnesses. Illicit relationship is a very

advanced stage of intimate relation as against the amity, socialism

and talking with each other as a neighbour.

24. On analysis of the evidence, it is proved that the entire

evidence available on the record on the said circumstances has

only made out a sketchy outline of relationship between Mohd.

Iqbal and Bhagyawanti. Nothing is established in respect of the

fact of immoral relationship and it can safely be concluded that the

evidence so produced is not sufficiently credible to raise inference

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (12 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

of an illicit relationship and we cannot hold that Bhagyawanti was

leading an adulterous life with Iqbal.

25. There is no reference of grudge between deceased and

Bhagyawanti or Iaqbal on account of their alleged relationship.

The prosecution has taken no efforts to find and bring on record

the nature of any dispute. The contents of deposition of above

witnesses do not make any reference whatsoever to the alleged

motive and statements of witnesses completely destroys the

motive as alleged by the prosecution. It is against this backdrop,

which creates doubt about trustworthy of witnesses. Even

otherwise on the basis of contradiction, testimony of said

witnesses do not inspire confidence. In our opinion, evidence

produced by the prosecution in respect of illicit relationship

undoubtedly creates doubt and in any case it cannot be relied

upon to accept that both the respondents were having illicit

relationship which is said to constitute motive of the alleged

occurrence. This being so, in our opinion, the two circumstances

namely, illicit relationship and motive cannot be said to have

proved beyond reasonable doubt.

26. So far as next circumstances namely, Iqbal being entering

into the house of Bhagyawanti prior to the incident and he being

seen leaving the house of Bhagyawanti after the incident is

concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the statements of

Narottamdas (PW-10), Rustam Khan (PW-15) and Suresh Kumar

(PW-5).

27. Narrotamdas (PW-10) has deposed in his statement that he

went to watch a movie in the video parlour of Iqbal in the noon

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (13 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

show of the day of occurrence. On that day, he visited the video

parlour for the first time. During the show, when he came out to

urinate and went into a street, he saw Iqbal going to the house of

Babulal.

28. Rustam Khan (PW-15) has deposed that he did not see Iqbal

on the day of the incident. He went to see the film on the day of

the incident but did not see Iqbal there. Later, when the police

came at the video parlour, he saw Iqbal there.

29. Suresh Kumar (PW-5) has deposed that he had gone for

some work in the Municipality building,. While returning back, he

started to watch a poster which was pasted outside the video

parlour. During that time, he saw Iqbal coming out of the house

of Babulal. He does not know who lived in the house of Babulal.

Thereafter, he went to his house and heard in the evening that an

old lady had been killed.

30. An another aspect of the prosecution case is that the shirt

worn by Iqbal also get stained with blood when he allegedly

committed murder of Pyari Bai and that blood stained shirt was

also recovered vide Memo (Ex-15) from the building of the parlour.

Interestingly, witness Suresh Kumar (PW-5) does not depose the

fact that when he saw Iqbal coming out of the house of Babulal,

his shirt was stained with blood. On such a situation, the

statement of Suresh Kumar (PW-5) proves to be completely

unreliable which wash out the said circumstance. It is, thus, clear

that prosecution cannot be said to have established last seen

circumstance.

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (14 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

31. On the basis of above evidence, even if it is accepted that

the respondent Iqbal was seen entering into and coming out of the

house of Bhagyawanti, it is well established law that mere such

act of Iqbal is a very weak circumstance and in itself, may not be

taken to be sufficient to record conviction of the accused unless

the entire chain of circumstance is established. This circumstance

has to be linked with some evidence to show that there being last

seen together, had any nexus with the homicidal death. Since, it

is a very weak type of circumstance therefore, last seen together

itself may not always be taken to be sufficient to record the

conviction. Therefore, the fact that the respondent Iqbal was last

seen entering into the house of Bhagyawanti does not lead to the

irresistible inference of the guilt.

32. The next set of circumstances that were relied upon by the

prosecution was various recoveries which includes recovery of

blood stained shirt of Iqbal, recovery of blood stained clothes of

Bhagyawanti, recovery of the blood stained cloth (Napkin) at the

instance of Iqbal, recovery of blood mixed water, recovery of blood

stained clothes of deceased which she were wearing at the time of

her death. The prosecution has produced various witnesses,

exhibited different documents and articles to prove the same.

33. The first witness of recovery is Sadar Khan (PW-20). It is

deposed by him that the key of the video parlour used to remain

with him which was taken by the SHO after the incident but the

Police did not recover anything in his presence; he did not know

when the parlour was opened by the police for the recovery

purpose and he did not see Iqbal there at the time of recovery.

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (15 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

Bhopal Ram (PW-7) has stated that the police had not recovered

any cloth (Napkin) from Iqbal in his presence; it is not known to

him that where from the police got that cloth; no recovery was

made even from Bhagyawanti and he had seen the cloth in the

police station only.

34. Inda Ram (PW-3) and Teja Ram (PW-4) are witnesses related

to recovery of shirt of accused Iqbal. The deposition of Inda Ram

is to the effect that he had seen the recovered shirt at the police

station; it is wrong to say that the shirt was taken out of a dry

drain of a house next to the scene of incident in his presence.

Witness Teja Ram (PW-4) was declared hostile and he stated that

it has wrongly been narrated in the recovery memo that Iqbal got

the shirt recovered from the open drain of the house next to the

place of occurrence.

35. Recovery of blood stained cloth at the instance of Iqbal is

(ExP-7) and recovery of blood mixed water in which culprits had

allegedly washed their hands is (ExP-3). Both the Motbir to the

said memo is Badri Narayan (PW-1) and Nirbhay Ram (PW-2) who

have deposed that the police visited the place of occurrence in

their presence; the old woman was lying dead; no water or cloth

was taken into custody by the police in their presence.

36. It sounds very unnatural and also improbable that a person

would leave the bucket of blood stained water lying openly in the

house and do not pour that water down the drain from the scene

of offence with a view to preserve it.

37. On the basis of above evidence produced by the prosecution,

it is proved that testimonies of recovery witnesses do not inspire

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (16 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

confidence. It is against this backdrop, all the recoveries

undoubtedly, create doubt about their genuineness and the

contents thereof. In any case it cannot be relied upon to accept

that all the recoveries were made in the presence of witnesses and

in the manner as stated by the prosecution.

38. We find absolutely no fault with the findings recorded by the

trial court in respect of all the recoveries and therefore hold that

the recoveries of the articles have not been proved by the

prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

39. The law is well settled that recovery of articles cannot take

place of substantive proof against the accused. If the evidence in

the nature of recovery does not appear wholly satisfactory, the

recoveries at the instance of the accused cannot carry prosecution

case any further. In other words the recovery of blood stained

shirt of Iqbal, recovery of blood stained cloth (Napkin) from Iqbal,

recovery of blood stained clothes of Bhagyawanti, recovery of

blood stained clothes of deceased and recovery of blood mixed

water in a bucket itself could not sufficient to connect the accused

with the murder of Pyari Bai by invoking Section 114 of the Indian

Evidence Act.

40. In our opinion, merely because some blood stains on the

clothes of the accused match with the blood group of the

deceased, could also not help the prosecution to connect the

accused with the murder of Pyari Bai in the absence of other

substantive proof against them. No inference of guilt can be drawn

against the respondents from the fact that the blood stains of the

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (17 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

blood group of the deceased were found on the clothes of the

respondents.

41. The main links in the chain of circumstances are missing

and, therefore, in our opinion, recoveries alone could not be

sufficient to connect the accused with the murder of Pyari Bai.

42. We would now like to consider the last circumstance relied

upon by the prosecution that is postmortem report. The

prosecution wanted to establish that Pyari Bai died on account of

homicidal violence but miserably failed to establish the said fact. It

is unfortunate that the prosecution failed in its duty by not

examining the doctor who prepared the P.M.R. and marking the

PMR as exhibit by the doctor. We are at a loss to find as to why

the prosecution did not examine the doctor, who conducted

autopsy and issued postmortem report. Though sub-Section (4) of

Section 293 of Criminal Procedure Code contemplates that the

documents issued by the Government Scientific Expert

enumerated under sub-Section (4) need not be examined and the

documents can be marked but it does not contemplate production

of postmortem reports without examining the doctor.

43. Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code though states

that where any document is filed before any court by the

prosecution it can be marked if the other side has no objection in

its marking but contents can be proved only by producing its

scribe. In the instant case, the PMR (ExP-22) has been exhibited

by Investigating Officer Amarudeen (PW-22) which is of no use for

the prosecution and contents of PMR as well as cause of death

cannot be considered proved.

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (18 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

44. In this view of the matter, there is no evidence on record to

show that Pyari Bai died on account of homicidal violence. In the

absence of any medical evidence, we are unable to hold that the

prosecution has proved its case under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code. We, therefore hold that prosecution has miserably

failed to establish the charge of murder against the respondents.

45. It is well settled that in the cases where the evidence is of

circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which conclusion of

the guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully

established and all the facts so established should be consistent

with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances

should be of a conclusive nature, they should be such as to

exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.

There must be chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave

any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the

innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that

within all human probability the act must have done by the

accused.

46. In the present case, it cannot be said that all the links in the

chain are complete. Every links in the chain of circumstance relied

upon by the prosecution has some or other infirmity and lacuna.

Therefore, such evidence cannot be relied upon to base conviction.

47. In our opinion, the findings recorded and conclusion arrived

at by the trial court are not found to be perverse. There is no

strong and compelling reason to interfere with the order of

acquittal made on proper appreciation of the evidence on record.

[2023:RJ-JD:24868-DB] (19 of 19) [CRLA-202/1992]

In such state of affairs, we hereby confirm the finding recorded by

the trial court.

48. Resultantly, we dismiss the appeal against acquittal. The bail

bonds, if any, executed under Section 390 of the Criminal

Procedure Code stands canceled.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

nitin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)