Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 159 (BOM)

Surendra Sribali Sahu v. State of Maharashtra

2010-02-01

P.B.MAJMUDAR, R.G.KETKAR

body2010
Judgment :- P.B.Majmudar, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2006, by which the learned Judge has convicted the appellant-original accused No.1 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “IPC”). By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Judge acquitted the original accused No.2-Indubai, wife of the present appellant for the alleged offence. The appellant was awarded life imprisonment and was directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge, the appellant-original accused No.1 has preferred this appeal through jail. 2. The charge was framed against the appellant as well as the original accused No.2 that on 23rd December, 2005, accused Nos. 1 and 2 at about 10.10 hrs., within the jurisdiction of Narpoli Police Station, Bhiwandi, committed murder of one Pramod Amrit Ram, aged 27 years, in furtherance of their common intention and accordingly committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It is also alleged against the accused Nos.1 and 2 that after committing murder of Pramod Ram on the aforesaid date, they tried to cause evidence of commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge. 3. The prosecution, in all, examined 11 witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased Pramod died of a homicidal death. The learned Judge, however, found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the aforesaid act was committed in furtherance of common intention by both the accused. Accordingly, accused No.2 was acquitted and accused No.1 was convicted for the alleged act. 4. The prosecution case is that the parties involved in the matter hail from Bihar and that they had come in search of job at Bhiwandi and were working as powerloom workers. Initially accused Surendra had not brought his wife viz. Indu to Bhiwandi. Accordingly, accused No.2 was acquitted and accused No.1 was convicted for the alleged act. 4. The prosecution case is that the parties involved in the matter hail from Bihar and that they had come in search of job at Bhiwandi and were working as powerloom workers. Initially accused Surendra had not brought his wife viz. Indu to Bhiwandi. As per the case of prosecution, the victim Pramod was residing with his brother Vinod and his cousin brothers Uday and Mukesh Ravi @ Rakesh in one room and the accused was residing in the adjoining room in the same locality. Accused Surendra later on brought his wife, original accused No.2-Indu, to Bhiwandi and since then accused Nos. 1 and 2 were residing together. The deceased Pramod and his cousin brothers were residing in another room. It is alleged that the victim had an illicit relationship with the said Indubai which resulted into quarrel between the accused and victim Pramod about one year prior to the incident in question. The accused Surendra had sent back his wife Indubai to his village in Bihar State but subsequently about one month prior to the incident he brought her back to Bhiwandi and shifted to another room in the same area belonging to one Ravindra Adep. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 22nd December, 2005, victim Pramod had gone to attend to his work. Vinod and cousin brother Rakesh had night shifts on that day. Their cousin Uday and Mukesh were at the room. Accused Surendra at that time came to make enquiry about the victim Pramod. He was informed that Pramod would return back at about 10.00 p.m. Pramod thereafter returned back and was taking his dinner. At the relevant time accused Surendra again came to the room of deceased and gave him call from the window of the room. At that time Pramod was wearing a towel around his waist. In response to the call, he came out and accompanied the accused. His roommates waited till 1.00 a.m. but he did not return. In the morning, while Vinod was returning back on his way, he was informed by his cousin Mukesh that Pramod who had accompanied accused Surendra did not return back and in the meantime they came to know that somebody was killed and his dead body was thrown on garbage at the fish market in Ramnagar area. In the morning, while Vinod was returning back on his way, he was informed by his cousin Mukesh that Pramod who had accompanied accused Surendra did not return back and in the meantime they came to know that somebody was killed and his dead body was thrown on garbage at the fish market in Ramnagar area. Before they could reach there, PW 5, Vijay Lambture, along with Senior PIPW 11 – Tawade, and panch witnesses had arrived a the place, in response to one anonymous phone call. They found one dead body wrapped in one plastic white coloured gunny bag. On opening the said bag, they found a pair of chappal, one railway ticket from Kalyan to Patna dated 5th October, 2005 and one receipt dated 21st December, 2005 on which the name of Pramod was mentioned and the name of one photo studio was also mentioned. In the presence of panch witnesses, Police Officer Tawade completed the procedure of preparing the inquest panchanama and spot panchanama. The dead body was thereafter taken to Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Bhiwandi for postmortem examination. In the meantime, Vinod, Uday and others reached the said hospital and they identified the dead body of Pramod. The Investigating Officer thereafter recorded the statement of witnesses and subsequently arrested both the accused in connection with the crime in question. Since injuries were noticed on the person of both the accused, the Investigating Officer referred them for their medical examination. The Medical Officer reserved opinion as regards thumb injury found on the person of accused Surendra, lower jaw injuries in respect of accused Indubai. In respect of other injuries, he opined that the same were simple in nature and were possible by hard and blunt object. The Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure and asyphyxia due to throttling. It is also the case of prosecution that the accused Surendra was interrogated in the presence of panch witnesses while he was in police custody when he confessed the guilt and made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of clothes, saree, blouse and towel from the residential premises of the accused. The Investigating Officer also noticed bloodstained tiles at the said place and he seized two pieces of tiles having bloodstains. During investigation he also seized one lungi from the accused. The Investigating Officer also noticed bloodstained tiles at the said place and he seized two pieces of tiles having bloodstains. During investigation he also seized one lungi from the accused. According to the prosecution, in view of the alleged strained relationship between the victim and accused Indubai, both the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of the victim and threw away the dead body on the garbage of fish market in Ramnagar area, after wrapping the dead body on plastic gunny bag. The Investigating Officer, on the aforesaid basis, completed the investigation and submitted charge6 sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, one Madhukar Jagtap was examined as PW 1 at exhibit8. The said witness was called as a panch on 23rd December, 2005. The plastic bag containing the dead body was opened in his presence. According to the said prosecution witness, police had prepared inquest panchanama in his presence which bears his signature. The same is marked at Exh. 10. 6. The prosecution has also examined Dr. Jaywant Dhule as PW 2 at Exhibit12. The said doctor conducted postmortem examination on deceased Pramod on 23rd December, 2005. The following injuries were noticed by the said doctor. “1. Contused abrasion on either side of thyroid cartilage region of neck. It is reddish in colour, size about 2 cm. X ½ cm. 2 cm. X ½ cm. On cut section haemorrhage under cutaneous tissue and muscles over thyroid cartilage. 2. C.L.W. over vertex of the scalp, size about 3 cm. X 1 cm. Skin deep.” 7. The prosecution has also examined one Mohammad Shaikh as prosecution witness No.3 at Exh. 15 who was called as a panch witness. 8. Another panch witness Shabu Solse was examined as prosecution witness No.4 in connection with the arrest of the accused. 9. Vijaykumar Lambture, PSI of the Narpoli Police Station was examined as PW 5. The said Police Officer received an anonymous phone call on 23rd December, 2005. Thereafter he went to the scene of offence along with Senior PI Tawade and two panch witnesses. A dead body in the plastic gunny bag was found at the relevant place and thereafter panchanama was prepared. 10. The said Police Officer received an anonymous phone call on 23rd December, 2005. Thereafter he went to the scene of offence along with Senior PI Tawade and two panch witnesses. A dead body in the plastic gunny bag was found at the relevant place and thereafter panchanama was prepared. 10. Another panch witness, Pundalik Sambharan was examined as Prosecution Witness No.6 in whose presence the accused made a disclosure statement regarding production of the clothes which were on his person. 11. One Udaykumar Ram was examined as prosecution witness No.7 at Exh. 29. The said witness has stated that he knew both the accused persons as both are husband and wife. He stated that he was staying along with his brother Mukesh as well as cousin brother Vinod and all of them were residing together and working at different places. According to the said witness, the incident took place on 22nd in the year 2005 and he stated that he did not recollect the month. As per the evidence of the said witness, on the aforesaid date at about 9.00 a.m. when he and his brother Mukesh were at the room, accused Surendra came and enquired about his cousin Pramod. He informed him that he would return at about 10 p.m. The victim returned back home at about 10.15 p.m. and after taking wash, he has changed his clothes. He was wearing towel and sat for dinner. While he was taking dinner, accused Surendra again came there and gave a call to Pramod from window. Thereafter Pramod accompanied him and at that time he was wearing towel. The said witness has further stated that Pramod did not return back to room and they waited for him till about 1.00 a.m. On the next day, at about 9 a.m. One person by name Ramvilas Yadav informed him that one dead body was found tied in one gunny bag in garbage near fish market and the said dead body was having resemblance with deceased Pramod. Thereafter they reached at the said place but they did not see the dead body and they were told that the dead body is taken to Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Bhiwandi. Thereafter he went to the said hospital and the dead body of deceased Pramod was found there. Thereafter they reached at the said place but they did not see the dead body and they were told that the dead body is taken to Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Bhiwandi. Thereafter he went to the said hospital and the dead body of deceased Pramod was found there. In the cross-examination, the said witness has stated that his relationship with the accused prior to the incident were cordial but the relations between deceased Pramod and accused were not cordial. The said witness has denied the suggestion that deceased Pramod used to harass ladies residing in the said locality. 12. The prosecution has also examined one Vinod Ram as prosecution witness No.8 at Exh. 30. The said witness has stated that he and his deceased brother Pramod as well as both the accused used to reside together for about five years prior to the incident. According to the said witness, about one year prior to the murder of his brother, quarrel had taken place between his brother Pramod and accused Surendra on account of the alleged relationship of his brother Pramod with the wife of the accused Surendra. Thereafter accused No.1 had sent his wife back to the village but after about one year the accused No.1 again brought back her to Bhiwandi. The said witness has stated that he and his brother Pramod as well as his first cousin brothers were all residing together and accused were residing just near their room at a distance of hardly one minute’s walk. In the cross-examination, the said witness has stated that initially his relationship with the accused were cordial but subsequently the said relationship was strained because of Indubai. 13. The prosecution has also examined Dr. Tawade as prosecution witness No.9 who examined accused Surendra. The doctor examined the said Surendra regarding the injuries which he had sustained. According to the doctor, the injuries were simple and in his opinion the age of injuries was within 24 hours and injury No.2 was possible by hard and blunt object and injury Nos. 3 and 4 were possible by hard and rough object. Regarding thumb injury he suggested examination through Orthopaedic surgeon. According to the said report, the said injuries were all possible during scuffle. The accused No.2 Indubai was also examined by the doctor and he found that there was bruising over forehead 1 cm. X 1 cm. and bruising above right eyebrow. Regarding thumb injury he suggested examination through Orthopaedic surgeon. According to the said report, the said injuries were all possible during scuffle. The accused No.2 Indubai was also examined by the doctor and he found that there was bruising over forehead 1 cm. X 1 cm. and bruising above right eyebrow. According to him, the colour of the injuries were bluish black and he had noticed discolouration and central (lower) incisor was broken of the lower jaw. Regarding injury No.2, he had referred the patient to Dental Surgeon. According to him, the injury noticed on the person of original accused No.2-Indubai is possible during scuffle. 14. The prosecution also examined one Ravindra Adep as prosecution witness No.10. He is the landlord of the premises occupied by the accused. According to the said witness, both the accused had come to him on 20th November, 2005 as they were in need of room on rent. He provided them room owned by him on rent. According to the said witness, the incident took place after about one month of providing the room to the accused. On the relevant day at about 10.00 p.m. he had returned back from duty and after taking dinner he was standing in front of his house and at about 10.30 p.m. one person had accompanied accused. He was having towel on his person. Both of them had entered the room which was let out to the accused-Surendra and thereafter he heard a loud talking inside the room. On the next day he came to know that somebody was killed near fish market. He saw the dead body at I.G.M. Hospital, Bhiwandi. The said dead body was of the person who had come along with the accused on the previous night. 15. The prosecution also examined Police Officer Tawade as prosecution witness No.11 who had carried out the investigation of the case. In the cross-examination, the said police officer has stated that he had recorded the statement of PW 10 Ravindra. He had not stated in his statement that he came to know that somebody was murdered near the fish market and he had not specifically stated that he had been the I.G.M. Hospital at Bhiwandi where he saw the dead body and that it was of the same person who had accompanied Surendra in the previous night. He had not stated in his statement that he came to know that somebody was murdered near the fish market and he had not specifically stated that he had been the I.G.M. Hospital at Bhiwandi where he saw the dead body and that it was of the same person who had accompanied Surendra in the previous night. The said witness has stated in the cross-examination that it is true to suggest hat he did not produce any document along with the chargesheet that the said room is owned by witness Ravindra Ade, though he denied the suggestion that the accused persons were never residing there. 16. Mr. Murtaza, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that since appellant and original accused No.2 were charged under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and when accused No.2 is acquitted, no conviction could have been recorded against the appellant. According to the learned advocate, if co-accused is acquitted then naturally the said benefit should also go to the appellant when it is proved that there was no common intention for committing the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submitted that the case is merely on circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence is available on record. According to the learned advocate, it is highly doubtful that the victim would accompany the accused in spite of the fact that they were having strained relationship. It is required to be noted that even though the house of the victim and his brother and cousins was just adjacent to the house of the accused, it is not possible to believe that till morning they could not ascertain the whereabouts of the deceased. It is submitted that the motive attributed is also stale one as so-called incident of illicit relationship of the wife of accused No.1 with deceased is alleged to have been one year old and thereafter for one year the wife of the appellant was residing in her native place in Bihar. In that view of the matter, there is hardly any evidence about motive which is necessary in the case of circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that prosecution has also failed to explain the injury on accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that in any case, the prosecution has not led any evidence to suggest that the alleged act was done by the appellant-accused. It is submitted that prosecution has also failed to explain the injury on accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that in any case, the prosecution has not led any evidence to suggest that the alleged act was done by the appellant-accused. As both the accused were charged under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC, no specific role of the present appellant is brought on record and the appellant could not have been convicted for the alleged offence. It is submitted that since no independent charge under Section 302 of the IPC has been framed, the appellant could not have been convicted. No specific question was asked to the accused in this behalf under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code pointing out to the accused that as per the evidence on record, he had committed the murder of the deceased. It is submitted that even the blood group of the deceased and the appellant was the same and the blood group of the wife of the appellant was different. Therefore, it cannot be said that the blood group of deceased was found on the clothes of the accused. 17. Mrs. Shinde, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that simply because separate charge under Section 302 is not framed, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. The learned APP submitted that in view of the evidence of P.W. Nos. 7, 8 and 10, the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased and the doctor has also explained the injury sustained by the appellant-accused. It is submitted that in view of the same, since the motive is proved, as the appellant was having doubt that his wife is having illicit relationship with the victim and when the appellant-accused was last seen in the company of the deceased, the learned Judge has rightly convicted the appellant-accused. 18. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in the matter at great length and have gone through the entire evidence. 19. It is required to be noted that as per the evidence of PW 7 Udaykumar, the accused came to the room of the victim at the relevant time and the victim left along with the accused and had not returned till about 1.00 a.m. and thereafter they went to bed. 19. It is required to be noted that as per the evidence of PW 7 Udaykumar, the accused came to the room of the victim at the relevant time and the victim left along with the accused and had not returned till about 1.00 a.m. and thereafter they went to bed. As per the evidence of the said witness, the victim had left home along with the accused on the relevant day at the relevant time. So far as witness No.8 Vinod Ram is concerned, the said witness has also left the room at about 9.30 p.m. but he was subsequently told by Mukesh that his brother had accompanied the accused and that he did not return back. So far as evidence of this witness is concerned, it is true that he had not seen the victim leaving the room along with the accused on the relevant day. 20. PW 10, Ravindra, who is the owner of the room in question which was occupied by the accused, in his evidence has stated that at the relevant time one person accompanied accused Surendra and he was wearing towel on his person. He has stated that he heard a loud talking inside the room. Considering the evidence of the aforesaid witness, it can be said that at the relevant time accused had gone to the house of the deceased and thereafter the deceased accompanied him and went to the house of the appellant-accused. However, the principal question which requires consideration is as to whether the aforesaid evidence is sufficient for coming to the conclusion that it is the accused who has committed the murder of deceased Pramod. 21. So far as non-framing of separate charge under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Vindu Lachmandas Sakhrani alias Deru AIR 1994 SC 772 . In the aforesaid case, a charge was framed under Sections 364, 302 /34 of the IPC against the accused for the kidnapping and murder of 6 year old child. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “3. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a further point for our consideration. According to him, there was no independent charge under Section 302, Indian penal Code either against the husband or against the wife. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “3. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a further point for our consideration. According to him, there was no independent charge under Section 302, Indian penal Code either against the husband or against the wife. Both were charged under S. 302 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code. He states that the element of sharing the common intention by husband and the wife was the core of the charge. The husband having been acquitted and there being no independent charge u/s 302, IPC against the wife, she cannot be convicted for the said offence. 4. We see force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel. Both husband and wife were charged with an offence u/s 302 read with S. 34, IPC. The charge which was based on the common intention of the two failed with the acquittal of the husband and there being no charge u/s 302 simpliciter against the wife she could not be convicted. In any case there is no evidence on the record to show that she independently committed the offence.” 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Subran @ Subramanian and others vs. State of Kerala 1993 AIR SCW 1014 wherein the Supreme Court has held that when accused is charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and when no specific charge is framed under Section 302 IPC, accused cannot be convicted for a substantive offence under Section 302 of the IPC. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Deori Bankira and others vs. The State of Bihar 2001 CRI. L.J. 3579. In the aforesaid case, the trial Court acquitted three accused persons giving benefit of doubt. In the said case, chargesheet was framed against all the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the IPC and they were acquitted. The court found that when there is no independent charge framed under Section 302 against the appellants of that case as well as when there is no evidence showing that the appellants independently committed the crime, the rest of the accused cannot be convicted for the same offence. 24. The court found that when there is no independent charge framed under Section 302 against the appellants of that case as well as when there is no evidence showing that the appellants independently committed the crime, the rest of the accused cannot be convicted for the same offence. 24. The learned APP, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 116 . In the said case in paras 60 and 62 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “60. Now when several persons join in the commission of a crime and share a common intention, it means that each has the requisite intention in himself; the fact that others share it does not absolve any one of them individually, and when he crime is actually committed in pursuance of the common intention and the accused is present at its commission, the crime becomes the offence actually committed because of Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 114 does not create the offence nor does section 34. These sections enunciate a principle of criminal liability. Therefore in such cases all that the charge need set out is the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code committed by the accused with another and the accused is left to gather the details of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution from other sources. The fact that he is told that he is charged with murder committed by himself with another imports that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence of murder committed in this way was fulfilled. Section 221 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 62. It is true that if it cannot be ascertained who struck the fatal blow, then the accused cannot be convicted unless the common intention is proved and in that type of case an acquittal of the co-accused may be fatal to the prosecution. But the converse does not hold good,and if the part that the accused played can be clearly brought home to him and if it is sufficient to convict him, of order simpliciter he cannot escape liability because of the charge unless he can show prejudice.” 25. But the converse does not hold good,and if the part that the accused played can be clearly brought home to him and if it is sufficient to convict him, of order simpliciter he cannot escape liability because of the charge unless he can show prejudice.” 25. Considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Willie (supra), in our view, it cannot be said that by not framing a separate charge under Section 302 IPC any prejudice is caused to the accused in any manner as even in the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, some questions have been put to him that he committed the murder of deceased in view of the fact that the deceased had illicit relations with his wife. In our view, therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the accused simply because a fresh charge under Section 302 was not framed. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Mr. Murtaza in this behalf. 26. In the case of Kammari Brahmaiah and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. AIR 1999 Sc 775 the Supreme Court has held that non-framing of charge would not vitiate the conviction if no prejudice is caused thereby to the accused. 26. So far as the question about circumstantial evidence is concerned, learned APP has also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court, Aurangabad Bench, in the case of Anil s/o Sopan Bhanuse vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1569 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that when the bloodstains are found on the clothes belonging to the accused as well as finding of stains of human blood on the weapon of assault, it is a strong circumstance appearing against the accused. 27. In case the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 27. In case the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The principle for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been indicated in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and the law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Where a case rests upon squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. In the case of Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of A.P. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, it is held by the Supreme Court as under. “10. In the case of Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of A.P. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, it is held by the Supreme Court as under. “10. (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (19920 2 scc 86 has reiterated the above principle of law by observing thus: “This Court has, time out of number, observed that while appreciating circumstantial evidence the Court must adopt a very cautious approach and should record a conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is capable of being negatived on evidence. Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. The circumstance relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.” 28. It is required to be noted that when the case of the prosecution is that the accused along with his wife had committed the offence and both the accused have shared the common intention, in our view, it is required to be established on record that the fatal injury was inflicted by a particular accused only and individual role of such accused is required to be established. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal (supra), if the prosecution fails to establish that the accused independently committed the said offence especially when there is no evidence that the deceased was subjected to strangulation by the accused, the accused cannot be convicted for the alleged offence. No questions have been put to the accused at the time of recording the statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. that he strangulated the deceased. Since it is a case of circumstantial evidence, naturally no witness has stated that the accused committed the act of inflicting fatal injury to the deceased. 28. When the prosecution has come up with a case of common intention, it is required to be established that at least for a particular individual act of the accused whether he is required to be convicted. In the instant case, since accused No. 2 is already acquitted and once it is found that there was no common intention and when no appeal against the acquittal of accused No.2 is filed, in our view, yet the appellant can be convicted for his individual act under Section 302 IPC but when there is no evidence that he and he alone who was instrumental in inflicting particular fatal injury which resulted into death of the deceased, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant, if such evidence is not available on record. 29. In the instant case, none of the witnesses have seen as to who was instrumental in strangulating the deceased. The blood group of the accused and deceased is found to be the same. It is also required to be noted that the alleged motive attributed is too stale as it is not the case of the prosecution that even after the wife of the accused is returned back at Bhiwandi, the victim continued with his illicit relation with her. As a matter of fact, there is nothing to show that the victim and the accused have strained relationship otherwise there was no reason for the victim to accompany the accused on the fateful day and as per the evidence of the prosecution, the house of the victim and accused was just adjoining to each other, yet, the witnesses have not tried to find out the whereabouts of the victim all throughout the night. Considering the overwhelming evidence on record, in our view, it is not possible to believe that out of the two accused, the particular act of strangulation can be attributed only to the accused herein especially when the case of the prosecution is common intention and the learned Judge found that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any common intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. In view of the fact that there is no satisfactory evidence about the motive and in view of the fact that the houses of the witnesses and the accused is adjoining to each other, yet the witnesses have not tried to find out the whereabouts of the victim in the whole night. It is not possible for us to believe that the chain in connection with the circumstantial evidence is complete, except the fact that the deceased was seen lastly in the company of the accused. Even in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused has explained the injury received by him by pointing out that since he had scuffle with his wife, he received certain injuries. The wife of the accused i.e. Original accused No.2 has also stated that she received injury because of the scuffle with her husband. Even as per the evidence of the landlord, he heard loud noise inside the room meaning thereby that some hot exchange of words might have taken place inside the house of the accused. 30. It is also required to be noticed that the prosecution has failed to prove that after the accused had brought her wife back at Bhiwandi subsequently illicit relationship between his wife and the deceased continued. The so-called motive, therefore, is one year back. In fact, there is nothing to show that the accused had any strained relationship with the victim. In case of circumstantial evidence, complete chain is required to be established by clear evidence on record. 31. Recently, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 28th January, 2010 has considered the question about circumstantial evidence and held as under: “46. In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a complete sequence. 47. In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a complete sequence. 47. This Court finds that this case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious approach as circumstantial evidence is “inferential evidence” and proof in such a case is derivable by inference from circumstances. 48. Chief Justice Fletcher Moulton once observed that “proof does not mean rigid mathematical” formula since “that is impossible”. However, proof must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a definite conclusion. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, has been compared by Lord Coleridge “like a gossamer thread, light and as unsubstantial as the air itself and may vanish with the merest of touches”. The learned Judge also observed that such evidence may be strong in parts but it may also leave great gaps and rents through which the accused may escape. Therefore, certain rules have been judicially evolved for appreciation of circumstantial evidence. 49. To my mind, the first rule is that the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence, it must create a network from which there is no escape for the accused. The facts evolving out of such circumstantial evidence must be such as not to admit of any inference except that of guilt of the accused. (See Raghav Prapanna Tripathi and others vs. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 74 ). 50. The second principle is that all the links in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they must exclude the evidence of guilt of any other person than the accused ( See State of UP vs. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, 1992 Cri.L.J. 3693(SC) para 20). 51. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, we must remember the principle laid down in Ashraf Ali vs. Emperor (43 Indian Cases 241 at para 14) that when in a criminal case there is conflict between presumption of innocence and any other presumption, the former must prevail.” 30. 51. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, we must remember the principle laid down in Ashraf Ali vs. Emperor (43 Indian Cases 241 at para 14) that when in a criminal case there is conflict between presumption of innocence and any other presumption, the former must prevail.” 30. Even if common intention is not to be believed and if there is evidence that the particular accused was instrumental in giving fatal blow which resulted into the death of a person, such person can be convicted for his individual role. In the instant case since there is no clear evidence to suggest that the death is caused because of the act of the accused, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellant. Accordingly, on the aforesaid ground we set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant. 31. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the District Judge4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2006 against the appellant is set aside and the appellant-accused is set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case.