A WATIAO Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted under S.120-B of the Penal Code read with S.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by Special Judge, Manipur. He was sentenced to a fine of Rs.10,000/- and to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. On appeal being preferred, the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court dismissed the same. The learned Judge deciding the appeal, however, granted, on oral prayer being made, leave, under Art. 134(c) of the Constitution to prefer an appeal to this Court, albeit without specifying the question of law involved.

(2.) While issuing notice in the appeal, the appellant was also asked to show cause as to why the punishment should not be enhanced.

(3.) Dr. Dhavan, appearing for the appellant, has first contended that the conviction of the appellant itself is not tenable inasmuch as the onus of proof, which lies in a case where guilt is based on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, has not been fully discharged by prosecution. To sustain this submission, we have been referred to S.P. Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCR 875 . As Dr. Dhavan strenuously contended that the test regarding proof laid down in Bhatnagar's case has not been satisfied, it would be apposite to find out what was held in that case. A reference to the judgment shows that this Court mentioned about the fundamental rule relating to the proof of guilt based on circumstantial evidence, which is that there is always danger that conjecture or suspicion might take the place of legal proof inasmuch as in cases based on circumstantial evidence mind is apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another and even in straining them a little, if need be to force them to form parts of one connected whole. It was then stated that in cases where the evidence is of circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established and then all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.