Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 204 (ALL)

GAUTAM PASI v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-01-24

RAGHVENDRA KUMAR, SHABIHUL HASNAIN

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : Raghvendra Kumar, J. Heard Sri Amar Singh, Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as Sri Chandra Shakher Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Under assail in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 31.8.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 948 of 2010 (State v. Gautam Pasi) under Section 364, 376 (cha), 302, 201 IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 832 of 2010, P.S. Lonar, District-Hardoi whereby accused-appellant Gautam Pasi has been convicted for the offences u/s 364, 376 (cha), 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence u/s 302 IPC, imprisonment for 10 years each for offences u/s 364 and 376 (Cha) IPC and imprisonment for 7 years for the offence u/s 201 IPC and fine for each offences along with default stipulation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the instant appeal is before this Court. 3. The prosecution case as discernible from the FIR is as follows : On 13.8.2010 at about 8 pm, Gautam Pasi (accused-appellant) came to the house of informant/complainant and asked his daughter-victim (name not being disclosed) aged about 8 years, to take her to the house of Mahesh Pasi for watching C.D. When his daughter did not come back, the informant inquired about her in the vicinity and also to his relations, but could not find any clue. Accused-appellant, Gautam Pasi was also absconding from his house. The informant/complainant expressed suspicion on the accused-appellant about murder of his daughter. The FIR of the incident dated 13.8.2010 at about 8 pm was lodged with the police on 15.8.2010 at 23.10 hours. 4. After lodging of the FIR, the investigation proceeded in accordance with law and the accused was apprehended, who made a confessional statement before the police and the recovery of dead body was made at his instance. The I.O. prepared the site plan and the recovery memo. The inquest proceedings were drawn and corpus of the deceased was sent for autopsy examination along with the documents executed for the purpose. The investigation of the case culminated into filing of police report u/s 173 (2) Cr.P.C. in the shape of chargesheet. 5. The I.O. prepared the site plan and the recovery memo. The inquest proceedings were drawn and corpus of the deceased was sent for autopsy examination along with the documents executed for the purpose. The investigation of the case culminated into filing of police report u/s 173 (2) Cr.P.C. in the shape of chargesheet. 5. After taking cognizance and ensuring necessary statutory compliance, the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Hardoi and after hearing both sides and perusing the material available before it, the Court of Sessions framed charge against the accused-applicant. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial on merits. 6. The accused has taken a general defence of false implication claiming himself to be innocent. 7. To substantiate the charge/guilt against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW 1 Atmaram (informant/complainant), PW 2 Smt. Vimla, PW 3 Babu Ram. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are the witnesses of fact. PW 4 HCP, Virendra Kumar Pandey is a formal witness and he has proved execution of the Chik FIR and the relevant entries of general diary (G.D.). PW 5 Dr.R.C. Gupta has conducted the autopsy and he has proved execution of the autopsy report. PW 6 S.I. Sailesh Singh is the Investigating Officer, who has proved the execution of documents executed by him. 8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence all the incriminating materials and the circumstances, appearing by way of evidence, were placed before the accused for purposes of rendering appropriate explanation. The accused has denied factual allegations and disclaimed knowledge with respect to certain queries and has stated that a false chargesheet has been submitted. He has denied to lead defence evidence. The cause of prosecution has been alleged to be enmity. By way of additional statement the accused has stated that the informant was involved in the business of illicit liquor, for which complaints were made on certain occasions by him, whereby he has been falsely implicated. 9. No evidence has been led on behalf of accused-appellant in defence. 10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the FIR is delayed one. Further submission is that he has been falsely implicated. Further submission is that the recovery of dead body of the victim was not made at the instance of the accused-appellant. 9. No evidence has been led on behalf of accused-appellant in defence. 10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the FIR is delayed one. Further submission is that he has been falsely implicated. Further submission is that the recovery of dead body of the victim was not made at the instance of the accused-appellant. Further submission is that considering the time of arrest there is inconsistency in the timings made in the inquest report about initiation of inquest proceedings. Further submission is that there is discrepancy about the time of recovery of corpus of the deceased at the instance of the accused-appellant. Further submission is that PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are interested witnesses, as such, their testimonies are not of much avail for the prosecution. 11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has submitted that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The accused has made a confessional statement and recovery of corpus of the deceased was made at the pointing/instance of the accused-appellant. The written report reveals that the deceased was taken by the accused for viewing C.D. Further submission is that the allegation of rape was substantiated from condition of the body shown in the inquest, which is fortified by the post mortem examination report as well as by the testimony of the doctor. 12. While exercising the appellate jurisdiction the High Court is expected to critically appraise the evidence afresh on its merit and draw the inference independently without being influenced by the findings of conviction bearing in mind the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent, unless it is established otherwise by direct and cogent evidence. [Ref : Padam Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 1 SCC 621 , Rama & Others v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 571 , Majjal v. State of Haryana, (2013) 6 SCC 798 & Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna and Anr v. State of Gujrat, (2014) CriLJ 443] 13. Bearing in mind the aforesaid proposition of law the evidence available on record is being critically appraised afresh. 14. The FIR has been assailed by the Amicus Curiae on the ground that it has been lodged after consultation with much delay impleading the accused-appellant. 15. The importance of the FIR has time and again been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and guidelines have been issued from time to time. 14. The FIR has been assailed by the Amicus Curiae on the ground that it has been lodged after consultation with much delay impleading the accused-appellant. 15. The importance of the FIR has time and again been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and guidelines have been issued from time to time. Hon'ble the Apex Court has laid down the following proposition recently in the case of Jai Prakash Singh vs State of Bihar & Another, (2012) 4 SCC 379 . The relevant paragraph 12 is being reproduced herein below : "The FIR in criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it looses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant's version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question. " 16. It is settled law that even if delay in lodging the FIR cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is by itself not fatal to the case of prosecution. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs Gyan Chandra,2001 5 JT 1691 has been pleased to observe that : "Delay has the effect of putting the Court on its card to search that if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not? If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay, the delay would be fatal to prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the delay cannot itself be the ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case. " 18. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay, the delay would be fatal to prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the delay cannot itself be the ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case. " 18. In Ram Dass & Others vs State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170 the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that mere delay in lodging the first information report is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution. However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly, is a relevant fact of which the Court must take notice. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case. 19. From the above propositions of law, it can safely be discerned that the FIR is a basic document by its registration the State machinery, vested with the power of investigation, is put to action. The details regarding date, time, place and manner of occurrence and by whom the offence has been committed and the weapon used in commission of crime is mentioned in the FIR. It simply facilitates the investigating agencies to investigate the crime expeditiously, so as to reach to correct conclusion after investigation. Even if, there is delay in the FIR it is not fatal, if the delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained and if it is found satisfactory by the Court, it will have not adverse bearing on the prosecution version. It is also settled that the FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia. Mere omission would not totally destroy the FIR. 20. In the instant case, the perusal of FIR indicates towards the reason for delay in lodging FIR. The FIR reveals that the informant/complainant firstly tried to trace his daughter (deceased) in the vicinity and his relatives and when she could not be traced, the FIR was lodged as a last resort. The delay as disclosed in the FIR appears to be reasonable and probable and is in coherence with normal conduct of a human being. 21. The FIR reveals that the informant/complainant firstly tried to trace his daughter (deceased) in the vicinity and his relatives and when she could not be traced, the FIR was lodged as a last resort. The delay as disclosed in the FIR appears to be reasonable and probable and is in coherence with normal conduct of a human being. 21. Even for argument sake, if it is considered that the FIR has been lodged with delay, the legal proposition has been crystallized on this aspect through catena of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which has already been discussed above and according to which mere on the ground of delay the prosecution version, as disclosed in the FIR, cannot be discarded. The FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is a document which brings the State machinery into action. The purpose of the FIR is to bring to notice of the police about commission of the offence. As such, we are of the considered opinion that mere on the score of delay, the FIR cannot be discarded. But, in the circumstances a heavy duty is cast upon the Court to bring the contents of FIR in the light of evidence available on record and inference is to be drawn on the totality of evidence. 22. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The allegations are with respect to carrying away the deceased and thereafter commission of rape and murder and the suppression of evidence of the crime. 23. It has been submitted that there is no evidence with respect to the last seen of the deceased in the company of accused-appellant, since only the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 is available on record, who are respectively father and mother of deceased. 24. Time and again the matter of appreciation of evidence of a related/interested witness has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it has been pleased to issue guidelines in this regard. 25. Hon'ble the Apex Court has opined in the case of Shiv Ram and Anr v State of U.P., (1998) 1 SCC 149 that nowadays it is common tendency that no outsider would like to get involved in a criminal case much less in the crime of present magnitude. Therefore, it is quite natural that no independent witness will come forward to assist the prosecution. Therefore, it is quite natural that no independent witness will come forward to assist the prosecution. It is well settled that the evidence of witnesses cannot be discredited only on the ground that they are close relatives of the deceased person. But, what is required is that the Court must scrutinize the evidence with utmost care and caution. Time and again, it has also been stated by Hon'ble the Apex Court that civilized people are in general insensitive when the crime is committed even in their presence, they withdraw themselves from both victim and the assailants. They keep themselves away from the Court. Evidence has to be appreciated keeping in view such ground realities. The Court instead of doubting prosecution case when no independent witness has been examined must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for nugget of truth with doubt of probability, if any suggested by the accused. 26. Hon'ble the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Kuria and Another vs State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433 has held in paragraph 34 as under:- "The testimony of an eyewitness, if found truthful, cannot be discarded merely because the eyewitness was a relative of the deceased. Where the witness is wholly unreliable, the court may discard the statement of such witness, but where the witness is wholly reliable or neither wholly reliable nor wholly reliable (if his statement is fully corroborated and supported by other ocular and documentary evidence), the court may base its judgment on the statement of such witness. Of course, in the latter category of witnesses, the court has to be more cautious and see if the statement of the witness is corroborated. Reference in this regard can be made to Brathi vs State of Punjab, (1991) 1 SCC 519 and Alaguapndi vs State of T.N., (2012) 10 SCC 451 ." 27. In a recent judgment in the case of Gurjit Singh v State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 380 Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed that statement of a relative cannot be discarded on the ground that he is a relative. Apart from it, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Veer Singh v State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 455 has observed that court can and may act on the single testimony. Apart from it, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Veer Singh v State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 455 has observed that court can and may act on the single testimony. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than the quantity. 28. Mere a witness being related or interested, his/her testimony cannot be discarded on this score, but in such circumstances an onerous duty is cast upon the Court to critically appraise and scrutinize the evidence of such witness with utmost care and caution and cull out the truth from the same. The law has been settled through catena of decisions that if the testimony of an interested or related witness is found to be credible, trustworthy and inspiring confidence after critical appraisal, then there is no impediment to place reliance upon such evidence. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles settled through various proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 is to be appreciated hereinbelow. 29. PW 1 has corroborated the FIR version which for the first time makes mention, the deceased being taken away from the house of informant/complainant on 13.8.2010 at about 8 pm on the pretext of viewing C.D. PW 1 and PW 2 have corroborated the version of the FIR about deceased having last being seen in the company of accused-appellant Gautam Pasi. 30. On this point nothing could be extracted from PW 1 and PW 2 by way of cross-examination so as to doubt the statement of PW 1 and PW 2 on the aspect of deceased having been seen lastly in the company of accused-appellant. On this aspect only the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 is available on record. It is admitted that the accused-appellant is the son of informant's uncle. In the absence of any contradiction it can safely be deciphered on the basis of FIR and the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of accused-appellant while he was taking away her on the pretext of viewing movie/C.D. 31. It has been submitted on behalf of A.G.A. that the confessional statement of the accused-appellant was recorded by the police while he was in the custody wherein he conceded about commission of rape with the deceased. It has been submitted on behalf of A.G.A. that the confessional statement of the accused-appellant was recorded by the police while he was in the custody wherein he conceded about commission of rape with the deceased. The legal position in this regard is explicit. Any confessional statement of accused in the custody is of no value and is not admissible. 32. So far as the offence of rape is alleged, no reliance can be placed legally on the basis of confessional statement of the accused-appellant. The inference is to be drawn independently on the basis of evidence available on record. 33. The scope of Section 174 of The Code of Criminal Procedure is limited and the inquest report prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C. has limited scope. Within the ambit of Section 174 Cr.P.C. the inquest proceedings are drawn and the observations, prima facie, indicate towards the reasons of death. The observations mentioned by the I.O. and the Panchang about condition of corpus of the deceased is indicative of her physical condition, which were noticed by the I.O. and the Panchang at the time of inquest proceedings. The condition of body of the deceased finds mention that private parts were found to be badly injured/damaged. 34. Now the question arises where the injuries mentioned in the inquest proceedings on person of the deceased and condition of person of the deceased is conclusively indicative of commission of rape or not? There is no direct evidence about commission of rape. The inference is to be drawn on the basis of the other cogent and reliable evidence. 35. The testimony of the Dr. R.C. Gupta (PW 5), who has conducted autopsy on person of deceased, is relevant in this regard. He has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that labia minora, hymen and vagina were found torn and in later part of his examination-in-chief, he has also mentioned that after commission of rape the deceased was strangulated. The post mortem examination report (Ext Ka 4) reveals about blood clot present around libia minora- lacerated, hymen-ruptured and vaginal tears present. The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. R. C. Gupta (PW 5) in presence of Dr. V. K. Gupta, who has made an endorsement that the post mortem examination was done in his presence and he agrees with the opinion of the doctor i.e. PW 5. The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. R. C. Gupta (PW 5) in presence of Dr. V. K. Gupta, who has made an endorsement that the post mortem examination was done in his presence and he agrees with the opinion of the doctor i.e. PW 5. The findings recorded by the doctor (PW 5) finds full corroboration from his oral testimony wherein he has categorically stated that after commission of rape, the deceased was strangulated. The witness (PW 5) was put to cross-examination and a specific question was put to him and in reply thereof, the doctor (PW 5) has categorically stated that after rape the deceased was strangulated. The doctor very fairly in his cross-examination has conceded that death was not the outcome of rape, but it was caused due to strangulation. The second fact about commission of offence of rape is established in view of the observations recorded in the inquest proceedings, which are fortified by post mortem examination report (Ext Ka 4) and the testimony of the doctor (PW 5). This goes to prove about commission of offence of rape with the deceased by the accused-appellant. 36. The third aspect is about recovery of dead body of the deceased at the pointing of the accused-appellant. The confessional statement is alleged to have been made by the accused-appellant before the I.O. in which he has stated that he could recover the body of the deceased. The statement of accused leading to the fact of recovery is admissible within the ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 37. It has been submitted by defence on the basis of evidence of PW 3 that Atmaram (PW 1) had brought out the body. There is a categorical statement about recovery of corpus of the deceased at the instance of the accused-appellant by PW 1 and PW 3. PW 1 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that the dead body was recovered by the police at the instance of the accused-appellant. In examination-in-chief PW 3 has also categorically stated that the accused-appellant got recovered the body of the deceased after displacing nasturtium (jalkumbhi) from the pond. 38. It has now been settled that the Courts are expected to draw an inference on the totality of evidence of a particular witness and not on the basis of isolated admission made by that witness. 39. 38. It has now been settled that the Courts are expected to draw an inference on the totality of evidence of a particular witness and not on the basis of isolated admission made by that witness. 39. The testimony of PW 6 also goes to establish that the dead body was got recovered by the accused-appellant after displacing nasturtium (jalkumbhi). The body was brought out by the accused-appellant from the pond. The statement was made by the accused-appellant in police custody and pursuant to the same, recovery was made at his instance and he brought out the body from the pond after displacing nasturtium (jalkumbhi). From the testimonies of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 6, it is established that the body was recovered at the instance of accused-appellant, who brought out dead body after displacing nasturtium (jalkumbhi) from the pond. As such, we are of the considered opinion that even isolated statement in one sentence by PW 3 would have no material bearing in view of the totality of evidence of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 6. 40. As such, the argument made by defence in this regard on the basis of isolated statement of PW 3, is not of much avail. The recovery of dead body of the deceased at the instance of the accused-appellant is the third instance, which is established from the evidence available on record. 41. So far as the offence of murder is concerned, there is no direct evidence. It is to be inferred from the evidence available on record. The cause of death has been attributed to be strangulation, which finds corroboration from the testimony of PW 5, Dr. R.C. Gupta. 42. Now the Court has to consider the evidence whether there was any probability of coming of the deceased in company of someone else after she was lastly seen in company of the accused-appellant at 8 pm on 13.8.2010. The deceased was lastly seen in company of the accused-appellant on 13.8.2010 at 8 pm. The post mortem examination of deceased was conducted on 16.8.2010 at 4.30 pm wherein the doctor (PW 5) has categorically disclosed the probable time since death about 3 days. Thus, the period of the deceased having been seen lastly in company of deceased approximately corresponds to the duration of her death as disclosed in the post mortem examination report (Ext ka 4). Thus, the period of the deceased having been seen lastly in company of deceased approximately corresponds to the duration of her death as disclosed in the post mortem examination report (Ext ka 4). No evidence has been brought on record either by the prosecution or by the defence so as to establish that there was any probability of the deceased being in company of anyone else after having been seen lastly in company of the accused-appellant. More so, the doctor (PW 5) has categorically stated on oath that death of the deceased was possible on 13.8.2010 at 8 pm. No cross-examination of the doctor (PW 5) has been made on behalf of the accused-appellant so as to challenge the time of death as stated by him on oath. This further goes to indicate that offence of murder was committed by the accused-appellant by strangulating the deceased. 43. It has been submitted on behalf of the accused-appellant that he has been falsely implicated by PW 1 because PW 1 has levelled allegation of sexual assault of his son against him. The question of commission of sexual assault was put to PW 1 in his cross-examination for which he has categorically stated in affirmative and has also explained that no FIR was lodged by him about the incident. Nowhere in cross-examination of PW 1 it has been suggested by defence side that since no such sexual assault of his son was committed, therefore, the FIR was not lodged. Rather, this admission of PW 1 goes to indicate about the perversity of the accused-appellant. 44. It has been suggested by defence that PW 1 was involved in business of illicit liquor for which complaints were also lodged. No evidence has been lead in defence to substantiate the allegations made by way of suggestion to PW 1. Mere on this oral score it cannot be inferred that this is a cogent cause for falsely implicating the accused-appellant by PW 1 for the offence in hand. 45. It has come in evidence that the accused-appellant is the son of real uncle of PW 1. From perusal of testimony of PW 1 or from perusal of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., it is not revealed that there was any enmity between PW 1 and father of accused or the accused himself. 46. 45. It has come in evidence that the accused-appellant is the son of real uncle of PW 1. From perusal of testimony of PW 1 or from perusal of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., it is not revealed that there was any enmity between PW 1 and father of accused or the accused himself. 46. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. also the factum of business of illicit liquor of PW 1 finds mention, but no evidence has been filed. Since, the complaints were allegedly moved by the accused-appellant, hence, documentary evidence was feasible. Where the documentary evidence is possible, mere oral statement is of no avail. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the plea of false implication due to enmity, cannot be sustained. 47. It has been submitted on behalf of the accused-appellant that there is discrepancy about the time of arrest of the accused-appellant. It has been submitted that the accused was earlier called by police at police station and later he was released. But, he has failed to substantiate his argument by any G. D. entry about his admission in the police lock up. Nor any suggestion has been advanced at the stage of cross-examination of PW 6 about prior arrest of the accused as alleged by him. PW 6 is supposed to be the best witness whether the accused was arrested prior to the time initially shown for his arrest, but no suggestion or question in cross-examination has been put to him in this regard. As such, this plea also cannot be sustained by us. 48. We have already considered that isolated submission, if any, made by PW 1 about arrest of accused loses its significance in the light of documentary evidence of his time of arrest as revealed by the I.O. As such, we are of the considered opinion that deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused-appellant. We have also considered the allegations regarding rape. We have also considered recovery of dead body of the deceased at the instance of the accused-appellant. We have also considered the medical evidence corresponding to the accused lastly seen in the company of the deceased and the time of death as stated by the doctor (PW 5) in his statement on oath. 49. We have also considered recovery of dead body of the deceased at the instance of the accused-appellant. We have also considered the medical evidence corresponding to the accused lastly seen in the company of the deceased and the time of death as stated by the doctor (PW 5) in his statement on oath. 49. Much emphasis has been led by the defence with respect to the timings of arrest of the accused and drawing of the inquest proceedings. It has been submitted that the time for commencement of the inquest proceedings has been shown in Ext Ka 7 as 16.8.2010 at about 11 am whereas the arrest according to paper Ext Ka 6 appears to have been made at 10.30 am on the same day. In our assessment, prima facie, there appears no contradiction. Even presuming for argument sake any discrepancy in this regard, we are of the considered opinion that it is a minor discrepancy and has no bearing on the prosecution version. As such, we are not convinced with the argument of defence. 50. The appreciation of evidence in circumstantial cases has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on many occasions and through catena of decisions it has been categorically observed that chain of circumstances for drawing an inference against the accused about his guilt should be complete and the onus of proving the chain lies on the prosecution. (Reference Vithal Eknath Adlinge v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) AIR SC 2067) 51. In view of the rival submissions, we have considered prosecution evidence. Before proceeding further in the matter, we would like to address ourselves regarding the standard of proof, which is required to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence. 52. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of S.K. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal, (2011) AIR SC 2283 in para 26 has held as under: "Undoubtedly, conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. However, the court must bear in mind while deciding the case involving the commission of serious offence based on circumstantial evidence that the prosecution case must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence case. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. " 53. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid case has followed its earlier pronouncements in the following cases: "Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) AIR SC 1622, Krishnan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2008) 15 SCC 430 and Wakkar and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 306 ." In the case of Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 12 SCC 56 , Hon'ble Apex Court following its earlier decision in the case of Krishnan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2008) 15 SCC 430 observed that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: "(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (iii) 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 (iv) 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. " Though a conviction may be based solely on circumstantial evidence, however, the Court must bear in mind the aforesaid tests while deciding a case involving the commission of a serious offence in a gruesome manner. " 54. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah Vs. State of A.P., (2011) 14 SCC 117 has held in paragraph no. 6 as under:- "6. " 54. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah Vs. State of A.P., (2011) 14 SCC 117 has held in paragraph no. 6 as under:- "6. It is by now well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a case of no evidence. " 55. Likewise in the case of Mustkeem Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 Hon'ble the Apex Court in paragraph no. 24 has held as under:- "24. In a most celebrated case of this Court, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 in para 153, some cardinal principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been postulated. Whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence the following features are required to be complied with. It would be beneficial to repeat the same salient features once again which are as under: (SCC p. 185) "The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely "may be" fully established; The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. " 56. The aforementioned judgments have been followed in a recent judgment in the case of Sangili alias Sanganathan Vs. State of Tamilnadu, (2014) 10 SCC 264 . 57. " 56. The aforementioned judgments have been followed in a recent judgment in the case of Sangili alias Sanganathan Vs. State of Tamilnadu, (2014) 10 SCC 264 . 57. From the aforesaid propositions of law, it is quite clear and apparent that while appreciating the evidence, the Court has to draw to the inference that each facts relating to the commission of offence as alleged be clearly established, should form a circumstance and all circumstances should form a complete chain and the chain should unerringly indicate only towards guilt of the accused and none else. 58. We are of the considered opinion that in this case the entire chain has been proved by the prosecution so as to establish guilt of the accused alone and none else. 59. No other argument has been placed or advanced on behalf of the accused-appellant and prosecution side for consideration before us. 60. We would like to appreciate that Sri Amar Singh, Amicus Curiae has very intelligently placed the arguments with complete sincerity. 61. After critical appraisal of the evidence as well as the impugned judgment and order, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court had not committed any error in appreciating the evidence and recording the findings of conviction against the accused-appellant. The findings recorded by the learned Court below are well substantiated from the evidence available on record. There appears no justification to interfere in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Court below. 62. The findings of conviction and sentence awarded by the Court below vide its judgment and order dated 31.8.2013 is hereby affirmed. 63. This appeal is bereft of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. 64. Accused-Appellant Gautam Pasi is informed to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the learned Court below. 65. Let the lower Court's record along with a copy of this judgment and order be transmitted back to the Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary compliance. 66. Let the payment be made to Sri Amar Singh, Amicus Curiae as admissible under Rules.