OM PAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "It is trite law that when the evidence against an accused person, particularly, when he is charged with a grave offence lika murder, consists only of circumstances and not direct oral evidence, it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis, the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty, not fantastic possibilities nor freak inferences but rational deductions which reasonable mind makes from the probative force of facts and circumstances." (Mohan Lal Pangasa vs. State of U.P. AIR 1974 S.C. 1144).

(2.) . In the present case, it is a common ground that there is no direct evidence implicating the appellant. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. Ordinarily, circumstantial evidence means a combination of facts creating a net without there being any tear through which the accused can escape. Whether the circumsttantial evidence establishes the guilt of accused is the question that requires going into.

(3.) In order to dispose of the appeal, few facts need mentioning. PW-25 Rajinder Singh is working as a sepoy in the 6th Jat Battalion, Udhampur. In the month of July, 1978, he was on leave and was present in village Munirka. On 20th of July, 1978 at about 10 A.M. when he was going to the field for grazing the cattle, he came to know from a milkman (Gwala) that a deadi body was lying in the nallah near the hostle of Jawaharlal Nehru University. 6n receipt of this information, he went there and found a dead body of a male person with face downward lying there. He immediately came to Priya cinema and gave an information to the Police on telephone.