Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 rw s. 34 – Murder – Prosecution case that the appellant along with the lady with whom he had illicit relations, administered poison to the appellant’s wife, with the motive to eliminate her and caused her death – Conviction u/s.302/34 and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant while acquitted the lady – Correctness:

Held: There was no eye-witness to the incident – Prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence – Presence of the appellant and the lady in the appellant’s house in the intervening night not firmly and cogently established – Several omissions and improvements in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses – There was a strong hypothesis that the deceased had committed suicide, which explanation was led by the appellant in his statement u/s.313 CrPC and is sufficient to create doubt – Furthermore, evidence of prosecution witnesses not sufficient to prove presence of the lady at the appellant’s house, as a natural corollary, such evidence cannot be relied on to conclude that the appellant was present in the house – Also the manner in which the High Court sought to distinguish the case of the appellant from the lady is perverse – When the conviction is to be based on circumstantial evidence solely, then there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances – Failure to prove a single circumstance cogently can cause a snap in the chain of circumstances and make the accused entitled to benefit of doubt – In view thereof, the concurrent findings of conviction set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Evidence.[Paras 25, 30, 33, 36-38]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 161 – Examination of witnesses by the police – Failure of the prosecution witnesses to mention in their statements u/s 161 about the involvement of an accused – However, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused – Reliance upon:

Held: It cannot be relied upon – Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation – Evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance. [Para 26]

Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Evidentiary value: 

Held: Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established – Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused – Circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion, that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. [Para 9]

Evidence – Rustic/illiterate witness – Evidentiary value: 

Held: Appreciation of evidence led by such a witness has to be treated differently from other kinds of witnesses – It cannot be subjected to a hyper-technical inquiry – Evidence of a rustic/ illiterate witness must not be disregarded if there were to be certain minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the deposition – Witness. [Para 27]