JUDGMENT
K.S. Bhalla, J.
1. Deceased Saroj Bala daughter of Vijay Singh (PW 7) was married to appellant Ranvir Singh about four years before the present occurrence when he was sepoy in the Army. By the time of occurrence, he rose to the rank of a Lieut, a Commissioned Officer of the Army. On 8-9-1987 at about 3 P.M. deceased Saroj Bala came to village Dighal and stayed at the house of her parents for the night. She left Dighal on 9-9-1987 after 11 A.M. for Rohtak. While leaving, she told her father that her husband was coming to his house at Model Town, Rohtak, on 9-9-1987 where she would join him as he was to get her medicine. She further informed that in case they were free in time, they would leave for their village Majra otherwise she would stay at Rohtak with Bimla, sister of her father at Shivaji Colony.
2. Saroj Bala also met Bimla (PW 8) on 9-9-1987 and took tea at her place. She left Bimla at about 5 P.M. making it clear to her that she was to go to village Majra with her husband and in case she was delayed at Rohtak, she would be joining her for night stay before 7 P.M. On 10-9-1987, Bimla (PW 8) on her way to village Lakaria, where she was posted as teacher in Government School, met her brother Vijay Singh (PW 7) at about 9 A.M. at New Bus Stand Dighal and informed him about visit of Saroj Bala and her aforesaid talk with the deceased. After she left for Lakaria, Vijay Singh (PW 7) learnt that dead body of a woman was lying near the old Bus Stand of Dighal. He accompanied by Hukam Singh Lambardar went to the place where the dead body was lying and found that it was the dead body of his daughter Saroj Bala. He noticed two sharp edged weapon injuries on the front of her neck and two on abdomen besides one injury on finger. Leaving Hukam Singh Lambardar near the dead body, Vijay Singh (PW-7) proceeded to Police Station, Beri. A.S. I. Gurbachan Singh (PW 13) met him at Dighal Chowk and Vijay Singh (PW 7) made statement Exhibit PX before him. Said statement of PW Vijay Singh was sent to Police Station Beri by the ASI for registration of the case with his endorsement Exhibit PX/1 and on the basis of the same present case was registered. Exhibit PX/2 is the formal first information report.
3. After despatch of statement Exhibit PX of PW Vijay Singh, ASI Gurbachan Singh accompanied him to the place where the dead body was lying. He conducted inquest Exhibit PJ and the dead body was thereafter despatched for post mortem examination.
4. Autopsy on the dead body of Saroj Bala was performed by Dr. S.C. Sharma (PW 5) on 11-9-1987 at 9-30 A.M. and as many as five injuries were found on the dead body. Death in the opinion of the doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within one hour and between death and post mortem examination within 48 hours. Exhibit PH is correct carbon copy of the post mortem report.
5. A paper bag containing 11 bananas, 13 bangles and a lady purse containing Rs. 75 in cash and two keys, three bus-tickets and a chit from Jugal Kishore Hospital, Rohtak were recovered by ASI Gurbachan Singh from near the dead body. The investigation subsequently was handed over to S.I. Balbir Singh (PW 14) at 3.30 P.M. Appellant Ranvir Singh was produced before S.I. Balbir Singh by Manphul Singh and PW Bhoop Singh on 18-9-1987 and was formally arrested. After usual investigations including recoveries of certain articles at the instance of the appellant he was challaned along with Sukhbir, Bhagwani and Santra.
6. On trial; vide its impugned judgment dated 23-5-1989, Ranvir Singh was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. His co-accused, however, were acquitted. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, appellant Ranvir Singh has preferred present appeal-Criminal Appeal No. 247-DB of 1989.
7. As is obvious from the facts narrated above, it is a case of blind murder without any direct evidence whatsoever. When a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the Court is bound to be extra cautious because circumstantial evidence has its own limitations. Before acting on that evidence, the Court must first see whether the circumstances put forward are satisfactorily proved and whether the proved circumstances are sufficient to bring home satisfactorily the guilt of the accused. The established circumstances must not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but at the same time they must be inconsistent with his innocence. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court should not view in isolation the various circumstances. On the other hand, it is necessary to take an overall view of the matter but without substituting conjectures for legal inferences. Incompatibility with innocence besides compatibility with guilt is called for in such cases because incriminating circumstances can also be introduced during investigation and it is a matter of common knowledge that at times they are falsely introduced by way of padding by the investigating agency. The instant case appears to be of that nature.
8. One of the circumstances put forward in this case is last seen with the deceased. Irrespective of the fact that last seen with the deceased and abscondance are not sufficient circumstances to hold accused guilty, the evidence led by the prosecution in this respect does not inspire confidence. Raj Bala (PW 11) is the only witness with regard to the said circumstance. According to her, Saroj Bala was her niece and she met her in the company of her husband on 9-9-1987 at about 5-30 p.m. She is an Assistant in the Treasury Office, Rohtak, and according to her Ranvir kept standing outside the compound of the treasury office with cycle at a distance of few feet whereas Saroj Bala came inside, when Raj Bala (PW 11) had just come out of her office. Office hours being upto 5-00 p.m. there was no occasion for Saroj Bala to enter the compound of that office to look for PW Raj Bala. Moreso, when she had no purpose whatsoever to see her and also as per the case of the prosecution she was in a hurry to be free soon after getting medicine from the hospital so that they could move for village Majra. It is not the case of the prosecution that there was a chance meeting on the road side and it was a meeting without any purpose, because according to her Saroj Bala told her that she was going with her husband to hospital for check up and as per her cross-examination she did not have arty other talk with Saroj Bala. Deceased was under no obligation to report to Raj Bala before proceeding to the hospital and it has also been stated by Raj Bala (PW 11) that she had no talk whatsoever with the husband of her niece which does not appear to be natural. The explanation advanced by her is that Ranvir did not come near and was standing outside the boundary wall of the office. She further stated that she wanted to meet him and that when she moved towards him, he moved faster. The witness added that he did hot want to meet her. If the husband did not want to meet Raj Bala, Saroj Bala could not have entered the compound of the treasury office to meet Raj Bala and that too simply to report her that she was proceeding to hospital for check-up with her husband. From the said statement of PW Raj Bala, it appears that she has simply been introduced to provide a circumstance of last seen together. It was possible to do so, Raj Bala (PW 11) being a close relation of the deceased.
9. Further according to Raj Bala (PW 11) on the following day, she learnt that dead body of Saroj Bala had been found near Johar in village Dighal and she went near the dead body. She could not give the identity of the person who provided her that information. Again, ASI Gurbachan Singh (PW 13) who prepared the inquest and made initial investigation admittedly did not record statement of PW Raj Bala. According to him, he recorded statements of Hukam Singh, Kitab Singh, Umed Singh and Bimla Devi and as per S.I. Balbir Singh (PW 14) statement of PW Raj Bala was recorded by him. Investigation was taken up from ASI Gurbachan Singh by him at 3-30 p.m. on 10-9-1987 and in case her statement was recorded by S.I. Balbir Singh as deposed by him, she came into the picture subsequently. Had she visited the dead body as stated by her, the information with regard to the circumstance of last seen together was bound to have been communicated by her and ASI Gurbachan Singh (PW 13) would not have omitted to record her statement.
10. The second circumstance relates to recovery of watch Exhibit P. 16 and silver chain with pendant Exhibit P. 17 from canal at the instance of the appellant which articles according to the prosecution belonged to the deceased. Those articles do not find any mention in the first information report Exhibit PX. Admittedly, deceased left village Dighal on 9-9-1987 at about noon time and before leaving she informed her father Vijay Singh about her programme with her husband at Rohtak. Her dead body was also recovered by PW Vijay Singh on 10 9-1987 soon after. 9 A.M. as per his statement. In such situation, if Saroj Bala was wearing a watch and chain with pendant her father PW Vijay Singh would not have missed to mention the same in his statement Exhibit PX. Absence of their mention from the said earliest statement clearly indicates that there was a scope for their subsequent introduction. Bimla (PW 8) with whom Saroj Bala took tea on 9-9-1987 in the evening and whose house she left at 5 P.M. also does not make any mention with regard to watch and silver chain. Neither Vijay Singh father of the deceased nor Bimla, father’s sister of the deceased could notice the watch and the chain and the’ same were introduced for the first time through the statement of Raj Bala (PW 11) with whom meeting of Saroj Bala was most brief. There was no occasion for her to observe those articles and as discussed above, her statement does not inspire confidence. She was introduced after S.I. Balbir Singh (PW 14) took up the. investigation and if she was capable of introducing a false circumstance of last seen together at the instance of the police, she could also introduce wearing of wrist watch and silver chain with pendant by Saroj Bala deceased. She perhaps was introduced for both the circumstances.
11. Again, it is the case of the prosecution that articles Exhibits P. 16/A and P. 17/A were recovered from a Canal. If the accused was to throw those articles into the canal, he need not have removed the same from the dead body of his wife Saroj Bala. Under the circumstances, the idea was not to misappropriate those articles. The same, if at all, could be to put the police on the wrong track suggesting that death of Saroj Bala was committed for the sake of robbery or removal of those articles. In that case, lady purse Exhibit P. 23 recovered by ASI Gurbachan Singh (PW 13) from near the dead body could not have been left behind particularly when it was found to contain Rs. 75/- in cash. Further, if the accused had caused the death of Saroj Bala, he could not have left keys Exhibits P. 33 and P. 34 in her purse. Non-removal of lady purse containing cash to our mind directly hits at the theory of removal of Exhibts P. 16 and P. 17 from the person of the deceased for throwing the same into the canal and said recoveries appear to be result of police padding.
12. It is also suggested that death of Saroj Bala was caused at a different place quite distantly situated from where blood-stained earth and pieces of bangles Exhibit P. 35 were recovered by the police. If so, the dead body was bound to have been removed from the actual place of occurrence and thrown near the pond from where it was ultimately recovered. That again does not appear to be correct and stands falsified by strong circumstances. If Saroj Bala had not been killed at the place from where her dead body was recovered, there was no occasion whatsoever for recovery of paper bag Exhibit P. 21 containing 11 bananas. Recovery of bananas from near the dead body rather indicates that she was coming to the house of her parents when she was waylaid and killed. If her dead body was removed from another place, there was no occasion or purpose whatsoever for the lifting of bananas. Same argument applies with regard to bangles Exhibits P. 22/1 to P. 22/13 which were also recovered from near the dead body. Availability of 13 bangles which were intact, also falsifies the circumstance of recovery of broken pieces of bangles from the alleged place of occurrence. Recovery of bus-tickets Exhibits P. 24 to P. 26 also indicates that perhaps she travelled by bus.
13. The only other circumstance is provided by alleged extra judicial confession. It is proved on. the record through statement of Bhup Singh (PW 12). He is the person who belongs to village Dighal and was already associated with the investigation of the case. According to ‘ him he . saw the dead body on the date of its recovery first of all, i.e., at about 5 A.M. No link of the accused has been shown on the record with this prosecution witness and in the absence thereof he could not possibly repose confidence in him. Question of making extra judicial confession before a co-villager of his in-laws who was already associated with the investigation of the case, did not arise. Bhup Singh (PW 12) has also stated that accused was very nervous when he made extra judicial confession on 18-9-1987. Question of the accused feeling nervous after 9 days of the occurrence did not. arise and that statement of PW Bhup Singh too does not inspire confidence. One can be expected to feel nervous soon-after commission of the crime and nervousness cannot continue and still-less with a commissioned officer of the Army for 9 days. Statement of PW Bhup Singh indicates that the accused went to Ex-Sarpanch Manphul for making extra judicial confession and he was simply sitting at his house. If so, accused cannot be expected to have made confession in his presence when his purpose was to make confession before Manphul and did not want to repose confidence in any other person, still-less Bhup Singh. Manphul Singh has not come into the witness-box to support the alleged extra judicial confession. He was given up on 15-9-1988 although he was present outside the Court. Withholding of said material witness gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution that if produced he would not have supported its case. He was given up by the Public Prosecutor as having been won over by the accused as intimated by ASI Gurbachan Singh of Police Station Beri. May be, that he was not supporting the case of the prosecution and so was with-held. Under the circumstances, no reliance can either be placed on the alleged extra judicial confession.
14. No other circumstance has been advanced by the prosecution.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution does not creat reasonable hypothesis in favour of the guilt on the part of the appellant and prosecution cannot be said to have brought home such guilt satisfactorily. The result, is, that we accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of accused-appellant Ranvir Singh and instead acquit him of the charge against him.