Satpal vs Shaktiman and Others

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.—This revision questions an order of acquittal. The accused/respondent was charged with offences under Sections 460/302/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to the prosecution case, on 02.10.2000, the police in Narela Industrial Area received information from a PCR about the murder of an old lady, namely, Chatli Devi, aged 74 years. It was later discovered that she had been strangulated. The deceased was sleeping in the gher in the veranda. She had gone to bed on the previous night at about 9:30 p.m. and the rest of the family remained indoors. She was discovered in that condition at about 5:15-5:30 a.m. when the wife of her son Satpal went out in the morning for normal chores.

The police discovered, during investigation, that the deceased''s son, Satpal had parked a vehicle, namely, a Maruti car. Investigations further revealed that the front door was found twisted and the rear gate was opened and two speakers were missing.

The police investigation resulted in lifting of 13 chance prints besides several exhibits. On the basis of statement of witness, Dalel Singh who said that around 12:30 p.m. he noticed accused/respondents, namely, Shaktiman, Suresh @ Bhure and Sunil @ Monu near the gher, they were searched and Satpal was arrested. It was alleged that on the basis of his disclosure, two speakers were recovered from the roof of his residence as also his clothes, namely, a T-shirt and a pant. The prosecution alleged that Satpal helped them to arrest the other accused. Pursuant to the arrests, recoveries of their clothes and a Saria, said to have been used for commission of the crime were recovered on the statement of accused Suresh @ Bhure. Files pertaining to the trial had been split after amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act since Satpal, the accused was below the age of 18 years when the incident occurred. After recording the evidence and considering the arguments of the prosecution and the defence, the trial Court, by its impugned order dated 20.09.05 acquitted the accused.

It is contended by Mr. Himanshu Upadhyaya, learned Counsel that the trial Court fell into a manifest error in not properly appreciating the material circumstances, all of which pointed to guilt of the accused. He placed heavy reliance upon the recoveries of the speakers, the blood splattered T-shirt and the Saria all of which were found on the disclosure statement of the accused. Counsel contended that these, coupled with the statement of Dalel Singh showed that the accused were present at the site and were instrumental in commission of heinous offence.

Learned Counsel submitted that the approach of the trial Court as regards analysis of finger prints and the blood stains was erroneous. He contended that PW-22 had clearly deposed about knowledge from the expert that palm prints were of accused Satpal; however, it was overlooked by the trial Court. He submitted that the trial Court fell into error similarly in regard to analysis of the evidence regarding the Saria as well as the blood stains on it.

The trial Court considered the evidence presented to it. According to the discussion in the impugned judgment, PW-5, Dalel Singh who had initially implicated the accused, deposed to the contrary in the Court. According to him, though the accused were residents of same village, they were not seen by him standing, in any suspicious circumstances. The witness was also cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution and he denied suggestion that he had seen the accused at the relevant time as stated by him in the previous statement.

The above discussion would show that the case set up against the accused was entirely circumstantial in nature. Besides the testimony of PW-5, Dalel Singh, three important circumstances were relied upon. The first one was the recovery of 13 chance prints on the Maruti Van. These were sent for analysis of the Finger Print Bureau. PW-22, Inspector Sohanvir Singh had deposed that he was told about the matching of the finger prints of Satpal with the sample finger prints and that on the basis of this information he had interrogated and arrested the accused. He also deposed that on 6th October, 2000, that Satpal was called to the police station and his finger prints were taken. PW-13, namely, ASI Narendra Singh, the finger print expert, however, deposed and also placed on record his report. According to the report as well as the witnesses, the chance prints sent for analysis did not tally with the prints of the accused, since the clear prints did not match with the palm prints i.e. the latter were not clear for comparison. So far as the blood stained T-shirt and other clothes were concerned, the accused Sunil and his statement u/s 313, claimed that he had been wearing them when he was beaten up by the police. This T-shirt had been set for analysis and serological report stated that though human blood was found, there was no reaction for determination of the blood group. The blood group of the deceased was ''O'' group. Therefore, that piece of vital circumstantial evidence was inconclusive and did not point to the guilt or involvement of any of the accused. Likewise, the T-shirt and blood stained pant recovered from Suresh too was held not to be connected with the offence as blood stains could not be detected during laboratory examination.

So far as the recoveries of material objects i.e. iron rod/ Saria and speakers are concerned, the Court observed that the rod was a very small piece of iron. The Court further noted that it was extremely improbable that the accused would continue to keep the Saria and that it was highly unlikely that for the purpose of looting two speakers, the accused would have killed the deceased and that too in such a brutal manner, through strangulation.

The above analysis shows that charges were framed on the basis of circumstantial evidence and there was no direct evidence except the statement of PW-5. He, however, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. He stated in the Court during trial that the accused were not present at the site. The prosecution had to fall back on the circumstances. The most important circumstance which had impressed the Court into framing the charges in the earlier stages of proceedings were the chance prints, the blood stained T-shirt and other clothes of the accused and the Saria/ iron rod. The Court relied upon testimony of PW-13, the finger print expert who stated that the chance prints recovered were unclear and did not match with the clear prints of the accused, Satpal. This ruled out one substantial circumstance. As far as the blood stained clothes were concerned, the Court again went by the report of the FSL which stated that the blood stains would not be analyzed as they did not react. The last circumstance, namely, the use of iron rod was held improbable having regard to the totality of the circumstance.

I have considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and also carefully considered the impugned judgment. The Legislature consciously excluded provision for appeal against an acquittal to a third party, aggrieved by the decision. Dominus litus in such case, is the state, which is entitled and in many cases, duty bound to file leave to appeal applications. Apparently, in this case the application was not preferred. Therefore, the Court would have to examine the findings of the trial Court through a restricted and circumscribed revisional jurisdiction. The Court, if it is convinced that glaring infirmities or illegalities have resulted in manifest failure of justice can intervene and set aside the judgment acquitting an accused but it cannot convict the accused - it can remit the matter for reconsideration.

No doubt, conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. It has been said that men may lie, but circumstances do not. Yet, the law insists that to find an accused guilty, the Court should be satisfied that not only the circumstances have to be consistent with his having committed the act and further that the Court should also be satisfied that the facts are such as to be inconsistent with any other conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence. Ref. Hanumant Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, ; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra,

The sum total of all the circumstances in this case do not add up to a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty and that no conclusion other than his guilt can be arrived at. Having regard to the nature of revisional jurisdiction, the findings of the trial Court cannot be characterized as manifestly erroneous or unreasonable.

The revision petition, therefore, has to fail; it is accordingly dismissed.