HARDWARI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Every evidentiary circumstance is a probative link, strong or weak, and must be made out with certainty. Link after link forged firmly by credible testimony may form a strong chain of sure guilt binding the accused. Each link taken separately may just suggest but when hooked on to the next and on again may menacle the accused inescapably. Only then can.a concatenation of incriminating facts suffice to convict a man Short of that is insufficient" This passage from the well known decision in the case of Dharam Das Wadhwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 241, succintly describes the principle pertaining to the circumstantial evidence and its appreciation in criminal trials. The same view prevailed in the subsequent decision the case State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, AIR 1981 SC 1675 that circumstantial evidence must be of a conclusive nature. The Court not bound to any exaggerated, capricious or ridiculous explanation which may suggest to be highly imaginative. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in the of Ram Avtar v. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1985 SC 1692, e discussing the nature of circumstantial evidence required in a murder held : "At the very outset we might mention that circumstantial evidence must be complete and conclusive before accused can be convicted thereon. This, however, does not mean that there is any particular or special method of proof of circumstantial evidence. We must, however, guard against the danger of not considering circumstantial evidence in its proper perspective, e.g. where there is a chain of circumstances linked up with one another, it is not possible for the court to truncate and break the chain of circumstances. In other words where a series of circumstances are dependent on one another they should be read as one integrated whole and not considered separately." Once again in the case State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840, the Apex Court held that while appreciating the circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a very cautious approach. It should only record conviction if all the links in the chain are proved pointing to the guilt of the accused. In somewhat similar terms was the decision in the case State of U.P v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045. The Supreme Court had provided the necessary ingredients to prove the guilt in the case of circumstantial evidence to be :

(2.) HARDWARI Lal and Devender Kumar are the two appellants. Devender Kumar is the son of Hardwari Lal. Both were held guilty by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Rewari for the offence punishable under Sections 302 -34 Indian Penal Code and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. For the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one more month. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) ON 9.11.1993 Niranjan Lal made a complaint to the police mentioning that Devender son of Hardwari Lal was adopted by Ram Kumar. A document was executed in which it was provided that if the deceased and his wife were not looked after by Devinder Kumar, the said adoption deed would be deemed to have been cancelled. The complainant mentioned that Ram Kumar deceased was missing for the past 6 -7 days and that he had come to know about four days earlier before making the complaint that the appellants had abducted the deceased with a purpose to murder him. On basis of this complaint a formal first information report with respect to the offence punishable under Section 364 I.P.C. was registered is above was also produced and taken into possession.