Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
Before analyzing the factual aspect, it may be stated that for a crime to be proved, it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must in all circumstances to be proved by direct, ocular evidence, by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.
7. A reference may be made to a decision in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1 Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by a false defense or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
8. The prosecution has relied on the following circumstances:—
(i) Homicidal death of deceased Zuber.
(ii) Extra-judicial confession of appellant/accused.
(iii) The appellant/accused was in possession of factory premises of place of incident.
(iv) The appellant/accused had called deceased Zuber to his factory premises.
(v) Dead-body was pointed out by the appellant/accused.
(vi) Subsequent conduct of the appellant.
On going through the evidence on record, it can be said that the prosecution has established homicidal death of the deceased Zuber. The appellant/accused made voluntary extra judicial confession before his father in law, informant Makbul Malang Shah and PW-3/Mohd. Ismail Madar Shah. The said extra judicial confession is corroborated by other circumstances namely taking police and witnesses to his factory premises. It is established that the appellant/accused had a key in possession. He opened the shutter of factory. He pointed out dead body which was on mezzanine foor. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to the homicidal death of the deceased Zuber. The said circumstances unerringly point out the guilt of the appellant/accused and none else. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the case of Sharad Birad Chand Sarda (supra) the prosecution has proved all circumstances leading to the death of deceased Zuber, wherein the appellant/accused was involved. The said circumstances point out the guilt of the appellant/accused.
In the High Court of Bombay
(Before Ranjit More and Surendra P. Tavade, JJ.)
Mohammad Ismail Noormohammad Madana Vs State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2012
Decided on February 12, 2020,
Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 238
