PETITIONER:
PREM THAKUR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/11/1982
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
CITATION:
1983 AIR 61 1983 SCR (1) 822
1982 SCC (3) 462 1982 SCALE (2)1057
CITATOR INFO :
R 1989 SC1890 (31)
R 1990 SC 79 (10)
R 1991 SC 917 (8)
ACT:
Evidence-Circumstantial evidcnce-How evaluated-
Circumstances relied upon as establishing involvement of
accused must clinch the issue of guilt.
HEADNOTE:
The prosecution case against the appellant was that he,
along with five workers migrated from Nepal and that at the
time of occurrence all of them were working in Punjab as
agricultural labourers. Out of a large sum of money earned
by them as wages they spent a part and the balance was left
with one of the five deceased. On the evening prior to the
day of occurrence the appellant was found by the employer
cooking food for himself and his companions but when he went
to his field the following morning he noticed the five dead
bodies of the co-workers were smouldering in the pit of his
tube well. Post-mortem examination of the dead bodies
revealed several ante-mortem injuries, most of which were
lacerated wounds. Prom that day onwards the apellant was
found missing.
The trial Court, accepting the circumstantial evidence,
convicted and A sentenced the appellant to death. The High
Court affirmed the conviction on three grounds: (i) since
the money was not found on the person of the deceased with
whom it was kept, the motive was theft; (ii) the appellant
was last seen in the company of all the deceased and (iii)
the appellant absconded thereafter to conceal his presence.
Allowing the appeal,
^
HELD: It is impossible to believe that the crime was
committed in the manner alleged by the prosecution or that
the appellant could possibly have committed it in the
circumstances alleged. [826 C-D]
In a case which depends wholly upon circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances must be of such a nature as to
be capable of supporting the exclusive hypothesis that the
accused is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. That
is to say, the circumstances relied upon as establishing the
involvement of the accused in the crime must clinch the
issue of Built. Very often, circumstances which establish
the commission of an offence in the abstract are identified
as circumstances which prove that the prisoner before the
Court is guilty of a crime imputed to him. An a priori
suspicion that the accused has committed
823
the crime transforms itself into a facile belief that it is
he who has committed the crime. Human mind plays that trick
on proof of the commission of a crime by resisting the
frustrating feeling that no one can be identified as the
author of that crime. [826 G-H]
In the instant case the circumstances attendant upon
the incident militate entirely against the conclusion that
the five murders were committed R by the appellant. Tho fact
that the assailant robbed the victims of the mopey cannot
necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was the appellant
who robbed them of their money. That the appellant and his
co-workers were paid a fairly large sum of money was known
to others apart from the appellant and his Companions. No
part of the money was traced to the appellant and therefore
be could not be connected with the crime. [825 C-E]
Assuming that the deceased were administered liquor,
medical evidence did not know that tho liquor consumed would
have induced such stupor verging upon hypnosis It is also
incredible that the five persons done to death by a single
individual were under such a heavy spell of sleep that none
of them woke up when the other or others were attacked. [826
D-F]
The fact that the appellant was last seen in the
company of the deceased and that he was not present at the
place from which the dead bodies were recovered the next
morning are equivocal circumstances on which it is hazardous
to base the conviction. [827 D]
The circumstance that the appellant absconded from the
place of occurrence does not lead to the conclusion that he
had made himself scarce in order to conceal his presence. If
he was found by the team of investigating officers in Nepal
going about openly, it is difficult to hold that he had
absconded to Nepal. [825 G-H]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
187 of 1982.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated 7.10.81 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Criminal No.466-DB/81 .
N.R. Agarwala Amicus Curiae for the Appellant.
Ashwani Kumar and D.D. Sharma for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. The appellant, Prem Thakur, was
convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, under
sections
824
302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to
death for the former offence. The conviction and sentence
having been upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
The charge against the appellant is that he committed
the murder of five co-labourers on the night between the 8th
and 9th November, 1980 in the village of Rolu Majra. The
case of the prosecution is that the appellant came to India
from Nepal in search of work along with his companion
workers and a few others. They worked with one Mohinder
Singh for about 14 days for which they were paid a sum of
Rs. 2,900. The appellant and his co-workers spent a sum of
Rs. 800 therefrom and the balance of Rs. 2100 was kept with
Rama Nand who was one of the five coworkers of the
appellant. The appellant and his companions thereafter went
to the village of Rolu Majra where they worked in the field
of Ujjagar Singh. On the evening of the day following
Diwali, Ujjagar Singh saw the accused cooking meals for
himself and his five companions. When Ujjagar Singh went to
the field next morning at 8 00 a.m, he noticed that smoke
was coming out of the pit of his tubewell. When he peeped
into the well he saw five dead bodies smouldering. Ujjagar
Singh lodged information of the offence with A.S.I. Jarnail
Singh. The post-mortem examination on the five dead bodies
revealed several ante-mortem injuries, most of which were in
the nature of lacerated wounds.
Since Ujagar Singh had seen the appellant in the
company of five deceased persons and the appellant was not
to be seen anywhere, the suspicion of the police naturally
fell upon him. The case of the prosecution is that on
December 1, 1980, the appellant was arrested while he was
working near the tubewell of Sohan Singh.
There is no direct evidence to connect the appellant
with the five murders. In support of the charges levelled
against him, the prosecution relied upon circumstantial
evidence which consisted of: (i) motive for the offence;
(ii) the fact that the appellant was seen last in the
company of the deceased on the evening preceding the
discovery of the dead bodies; (iii) the fact that the
accused had absconded; (iv) the extra-judicial confession of
the appellant; (v) the recovery of a ‘Tangli’ in pursuance
of the statement made by the appellant; (vi) the recovery of
the dead bodies from the pit near the tubewell of Ujjagar
Singh; and (vii)
825
false statement made by the appellant to Ram Ishar, the son
of one of the deceased, Rama Nand, that the latter would
return to the village after Puran Mashi.
The learned Sessions Judge accepted some of these
circumstances as proved and convicted the appellant for the
five murders on the basis of those circumstances. The High
Court has relied upon three circumstances, namely, (i)
motive, (ii) the fact that the appellant was seen last in
the company of the deceased and (iii) the conduct of the
appellant after the occurrence.
As regards motive, the High Court observes in its
judgment that since no money was found on the dead bodies,
theft was obviously the motive for the crime. That may be
so, but we are unable to understand how the fact that theft
was the motive for the crime can connect the appellant with
the crime. It is quite likely that whosoever committed the
five murders robbed the victims of the money which they had
on their person, but that cannot necessarily lead to the
conclusion that it is the appellant who robbed the deceased
of their money. The fact that a fairly large sum was paid to
the appellant and his co-workers by way of their wages would
be known to others apart from the appellant and his
companions. No part of the money was traced to the appellant
and therefore, we are unable to accept that the accused can
be connected with the crime merely because the motive for
the crime was theft.
The circumstances that the appellant was last seen in
the company of the deceased can be accepted as proved but no
inference can arise therefrom that the appellant had
committed their murder. The appellant was working with the
deceased and others and there was nothing unnatural. in the
appellant being in the company of his companions on the
evening before the murders were committed.
In so far as the allegation that the accused had
absconded is concerned, it is not easy to rely upon that
circumstance as leading to the conclusion that he had made
himself scarce in order to conceal his presence. The story
of the prosecution that he was 3 arrested in Punjab itself
has been disbelieved by the High Court according to which,
the appellant was brought from Nepal by the team of
Investigating officers. The appellant belongs to Nepal and
if he was found in Nepal going about openly, it is difficult
to accept the charge that he had absconded to Nepal.
826
The circumstance that the appellant told Ram Ishar that
the latter’s father Rama Nand would return to the village
after Puran Mashi cannot clinch the issue unless one stars
with the presumption that the appellant had committed the
crime. But then one cannot put the cart before the horse. At
the highest, what the appellant said to Ram Ishar may raise
a cloud of suspicion but nothing more.
We have considered carefully the entire evidence in the
case and the various facts attendant upon the five murders.
It seems to us quite impossible to believe that the crime
was committed in the manner alleged by the prosecution or
that the appellant could possibly have committed it in the
circumstances alleged. It is said that the five deceased
persons were administered liquor, that after drinking liquor
they lapsed into a deep spell of sleep, that while they were
asleep they were killed, that they were carried one by one
to A the bottom of a 35 ft. tubewell and that thereafter,
they were set on fire. The post-mortem notes and the medical
evidence show that the liquor consumed by the deceased could
not have produced unconsciousness How it could induce such
stupor verging upon hypnosis is more than one can reasonably
imagine. The prosecution case requires for its success the
incredible assumption that the five persons done to death by
a single individual were under such a heavy spell of sleep
that none of them woke up when the others were attacked.
When the first of the five victims was attacked, he would
have shrieked or shouted and thereby the others would be
aroused from their sleep. They were young, able-bodied
labourers. It puts quite some strain on our credulity to
accept that a single person could have finished off his five
companions in the fiction-like manner alleged by the
prosecution.
The High Court could not but be aware of the principle
that in a case which depends wholly upon circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances must be of such a nature as to
be capable of supporting the exclusive hypothesis that the
accused is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. That
is to say, the circumstances relied upon as establishing the
envolvement of the accused in the crime must clinch the
issue of guilt. Very often, circumstances which establish
the commission of an offence in the abstract are identified
as circumstances which prove that the prisoner before the
court is guilty of the crime imputed to him. An a priori
suspicion that the accused has committed the crime
transforms itself into a facile belief
827
that it is he who has committed the crime. Human mind plays
that A trick on proof of the commission of a crime by
resisting the frustrating feeling that no one can be
identified as the author of that crime. In the case before
us, there is no doubt that five persons were murdered.
Unquestionably, every effort had to be made to find out who
committed those murders. But the duty is not done by holding
someone or the other guilty somehow or other. In the instant
case, the circumstances attendant upon the incident militate
entirely against the conclusion that the five murders were
committed by the appellant. The very pattern of the crime
belies that conclusion. We are unable to share the High
Court’s view that the evidence showing “that the appellant
was present with the deceased persons on the evening of
November 8, 1980 and he was then missing from there on the
next morning proves the offences alleged against the
appellant beyond any shadow of doubt”. In support of its
conclusion that the appellant had committed the murders, the
High Court has even pressed into service the circumstances
that the appellant was not present ‘at the place from-which
the dead bodies were recovered” the next morning. These are
equivocal circumstances on which it is hazardous to base the
conviction.
In the result we allow the appeal, set aside the
conviction of the appellant on all the counts and the
sentences imposed upon him including the sentence of death
and acquit him of all the charges. He shall be released
forthwith.
P.B.R. Appeal allowed.
828