Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1347 (ALL)

Baddan Singh v. State of U. P.

2022-08-26

SUNEET KUMAR, VIKRAM D.CHAUHAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : Suneet Kumar, J. 1. Heard Ms. Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose), learned counsel assisted by Mohd. Kalim, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Om Prakash Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the lower court record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.04.2015 and conviction order dated 24.04.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banda in Session Trial No. 84 of 2011, whereby, appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In case of the default of payment, the appellant will have to undergo further 2 years simple imprisonment; appellant has been further convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3000/-. In case of the default of payment, the appellant will have to undergo further 1 month simple imprisonment. 3. As per the prosecution version, around 12.00 noon on 15.06.2011, appellant came to the house of complainant, Shatrughan Singh (PW-2), and took his son Hiran Singh (deceased), to the house of his sister on a motorcycle. On 17.06.2011, at about 6.00 morning, appellant went to the house of the complainant with his bahnoi (brother-in-law). Complainant asked about his son Hiran, he stated that he does not know where has he gone. He suspected that appellant had abducted his son. On 16.06.2011, Braj Mohan Singh, Gram Pradhan, Mau, Police Station Marka (Banda), (PW-1), saw a beheaded corpse in the field of Ram Pratap Kushwaha, thereafter, he gave a written information to the police station. On the information, Thana Incharge reached the spot, collected blood-stained earth and plain-earth, thereafter, sealed and stamped it. One amulet (tabeez) and black thread was found near the dead body. The police official prepared the recovery memo in presence of the witnesses. The inquest report of the unknown beheaded corpse was prepared and sent for postmortem. Again on 18.06.2011, Braj Mohan Singh, (PW-1), was informed of a human head lying in the field of Buchh Raj Yadav, he gave a written information to the police station. Thana Incharge reached the spot, prepared the inquest report of the human head and sent it for postmortem. Again on 18.06.2011, Braj Mohan Singh, (PW-1), was informed of a human head lying in the field of Buchh Raj Yadav, he gave a written information to the police station. Thana Incharge reached the spot, prepared the inquest report of the human head and sent it for postmortem. At the time of preparing the inquest report, on the basis of the structure of teeth, underwear and amulet recovered near the beheaded corpse, complainant, father of the deceased, identified the dead body that it was of his son Hiran. During investigation, name of co-accused, Karan Singh, surfaced. 4. After arrest, appellant confessed commission of the crime and on his pointing out, assault weapon (gandasa) for cutting grass was recovered from his house. The appellant and co-accused Karan Singh together slit the throat of the deceased and murdered him. The recovery memo of the assault weapon was prepared. Co-accused Karan Singh and appellant in their confession/disclosure statement stated that while hunting pigeons, deceased Hiran Singh fell down in the well. On being pulled out, he was slightly breathing and the bone of his thigh had fractured. On apprehension of being caught for the death of Hiran, appellant in collaboration with co-accused Karan Singh slit the throat of deceased with a gandasa (battle-axe). He wrapped the head of the deceased in the shirt of the deceased and threw it at some place and the torso of the deceased was disposed of at a separate place so that evidence could be destroyed. On the basis of oral evidence and the evidences on record, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the appellant, Baddan Singh, and co-accused Karan Singh under Sections 302, 201 IPC. 5. The Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions court on 15.9.2011. The appellant and co-accused Karan Singh were charged and examined for offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Braj Mohan Singh (PW-1), complainant Shatrughan (PW-2), Mrs. Mamta (PW-3), Dr. Ramesh Chandra Arun (PW-4), Dr. Rakesh Babu (PW5), constable muharrir Prem Chandra (PW-6) and Rakesh Kumar Mishra (PW-7) were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution. 7. The following documents were exhibited: 1. F.I.R. 16.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 6 2. Written Report 16.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 1 3. Application 18.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 2 4. Application 19.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 3 5. Ramesh Chandra Arun (PW-4), Dr. Rakesh Babu (PW5), constable muharrir Prem Chandra (PW-6) and Rakesh Kumar Mishra (PW-7) were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution. 7. The following documents were exhibited: 1. F.I.R. 16.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 6 2. Written Report 16.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 1 3. Application 18.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 2 4. Application 19.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 3 5. Recovery Memo of Blood Stained & Plain Earth 16.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 7 6. Recovery memo of tabeej, nearby dead body 16.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 17 7. Arrest memo of accused & Recovery of assault weapon ‘gandasa’ 23.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 24 8. P.M. Report 17.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 5 9. P.M. Report 19.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 4 10. Panchayatnama 16.06.2011 Ex. Ka.10 11. Panchayatnama 18.06.2011 Ex. Ka.19 12. Chargesheet 31.07.2011 Ex. Ka. 25 13. Site Plan with Index 23.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 26 14. Site Plan with Index 16.06.2011 Ex. Ka. 18 8. In the statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, appellant claimed that the prosecution version to be false and stated that the deceased has falsely been identified, forged recovery of the assault weapon was shown and they have been implicated falsely out of enmity. As per accused Baddan Singh he did not take Hiran on his motorcycle from the house of Shatrughan. On 17.06.2011, he and his brother-in-law did not visit the house of Shatrughan, nor, did any communication had taken place. He alleged that the police conspired to show recovery of the battle-axe and appellant did not confess the commission of the crime. He further stated that police under the influence of his opponents implicated him falsely. 9. The trial court found sufficient evidence against appellant and convicted him, whereas, co-accused Karan Singh was held not guilty, accordingly, acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. The State has not filed appeal against co-accused Karan Singh. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence; the chain of events is grossly incomplete; prosecution failed to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt; conviction of the appellant rests on the confessional statement of the appellant; co-accused Karan Singh on the same evidence was acquitted; the impugned judgment and order of the trial court is per se perverse and liable to be set aside. 11. 11. As per prosecution case PW-1, Braj Mohan, Gaon Pradhan, of the village, on 16.06.2011, submitted a written report to the police station that beheaded corpse of a person aged about 25 years was found wearing an underwear; there is injury on the left thigh; body cannot be identified. On the report, F.I.R. came to be lodged at 12:45 pm. 12. On the information of PW-1, Station Officer visited the place of occurrence and collected blood smeared soil and plain soil which was sealed in presence of an independent witnesses, including, PW-1. From the spot, a black amulet (tabeez) and black thread was found which was duly sealed. Recovery memo (Ex.-ka 16 & 17) was drawn in presence of independent witnesses. PW-1 again on 18.06.2011, submitted another report with the police station that at about 2:00 pm he received information from the grazers that a human head (human skull) is lying in the field of Bachhraj Yadav. While preparing the inquest of the head, complainant (PW-2), father of the deceased, identified the skull by looking at the structure of the teeth; claiming that the skull recovered is of his missing son, Hiran. 13. PW-2, complainant, submitted a written report (tehrir) on 19.06.2011, at police station–Marka, District-Banda, wherein, it is alleged that on 15.06.2011, at about 12:00 noon, appellant who is resident of his village had visited his house and in presence of his wife (PW-3), appellant had taken his son, Hiran, on a motorcycle to the house of his sister at village Atarhat; on 17.06.2011, appellant along with his brother-in-law had again come to his house, but on inquiry by PW-2, about his son, appellant replied that he is not aware; PW-2 further alleged that he identified the beheaded corpse being that of his son and the amulet (tabeez) found near the corpse was that of his son. 14. Appellant came to be arrested on 23.06.2011, and on confessional/disclosure statement co-accused Karan Singh was arrested on 26.06.2011. After arrest, on the disclosure statement of the appellant, assault weapon (gandasa) was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant from his house. 14. Appellant came to be arrested on 23.06.2011, and on confessional/disclosure statement co-accused Karan Singh was arrested on 26.06.2011. After arrest, on the disclosure statement of the appellant, assault weapon (gandasa) was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant from his house. Appellant confessed commission of the offence; in the confessional statement, appellant stated that on 15.06.2011, at about 12:00 noon he had taken the deceased along with him on the consent and approval of the parents of the deceased to visit a relative, thereafter, on the way they decided to hunt pigeons from the well. Appellant along with the deceased and co-accused Karan Singh reached the well at about 7:30 pm. The deceased, however, fell down inside the well while hunting in torch light for the pigeons sitting in the wall holes. Co-accused Karan Singh went to the village to fetch a rope, appellant with the assistance of the rope climbed down the well and saw that deceased has suffered injury on the left thigh. Consequently, deceased was lifted out from the well with the help of a rope; deceased, thereafter, was carried on a cot to the house of co-accused Karan Singh; apprehending that the deceased was unconscious and might have died; out of fear of the aftermath of the incident, accused agreed to dispose off the body of the deceased. The body was wrapped in bundle of hay and carried by the appellant on a motor cycle alongwith co-accused, Karan Singh, and on the way laying the deceased on the ground; appellant removed the head of the deceased by gandasa blow; head and torso of the deceased was thrown at different places; assault weapon was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant from his house on the day of arrest. 15. PW-5, Dr. Rakesh Babu, Deputy Chief Medical Officer (Dy. CMO), Jhansi, deposed that on 17.6.2011 at 3.15 p.m. conducted postmortem of the body (torso) of an unknown person aged 25 years. Head and neck of the body was not present. 16. Following ante mortem injuries were found on his body. 1- Incised wound all around the neck, measuring around 18 x 12 cm. Veins of the neck oseohegus, trachea and hyde bone were completely slit. 2-A clearly visible insized wound was present on the left of the shoulder measuring around 8 cm x 3 cm, the margins were clearly slit. 16. Following ante mortem injuries were found on his body. 1- Incised wound all around the neck, measuring around 18 x 12 cm. Veins of the neck oseohegus, trachea and hyde bone were completely slit. 2-A clearly visible insized wound was present on the left of the shoulder measuring around 8 cm x 3 cm, the margins were clearly slit. 3-Abraded contusion 10 cm x 6 cm on the right joint was present. 4-Abraded contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on the left side of the chest 12 cm below the left nipple was present. 5-Abraded contusion 10 cm x 8 cm on the back side of the right elbow was present. 6-Abraded contusion 10 cm x 2 cm on the right side of the waist just above the bone of hip was present. 7-Abraded contusion 14 cm x 5 cm on the left side of waist 3 cm below the bone hip was present. 17. In the internal examination, it was found that the brain was not present. Base was not present, fifth bone of the neck was completely slit. Swelling in the lungs and trachea was present. Heart was empty. Esophagus was slit. 18. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of the death was hemorrhage and shock due to excessive bleeding. This witness has verified the postmortem report ExtKa5. 19. Trial Court noted in the impugned judgment that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and on scrutiny of the testimony of PW-2 (complainant/father of the deceased) and PW-3 (Mamta, mother of the deceased), it is proved that deceased was taken by the appellant before them from their house on 15.06.2011 at 12:00 noon on his motorcycle. PW-1 and PW-2 asked about the whereabouts of their son Hiran, when appellant along with his brother-in-law returned on 17.06.2011, but appellant expressed ignorance. The trail court, further, relied on the confessional statement of the appellant that the accused persons along with the deceased had gone for hunting pigeons form an old well, deceased incurred injury by falling into the well and left thigh bone got fractured. The accused fearing that in the event of deceased succumbing to the injuries, accused could be trapped; under such an apprehension, accused/appellant slit the throat and separated the head from the body in order to conceal the evidence, in furtherance thereof, disposed of the body (torso) and the head at different places. The accused fearing that in the event of deceased succumbing to the injuries, accused could be trapped; under such an apprehension, accused/appellant slit the throat and separated the head from the body in order to conceal the evidence, in furtherance thereof, disposed of the body (torso) and the head at different places. 20. The finding reached by the trial court is extracted: “In view of the contentions of both the parties, and in view of the perusal of the evidences on record, it appears that Baddan Singh on 15.06.2011 at 2.00 noon, took Hiran Singh with him on a motorcycle to his relative's house. It is evident from the statement of PW2 Shatrughan Singh and PW3 Mrs. Mamta, from the inquest report, the testimony of the witnesses, and the recovery of the weapon of murder, accused Baddan Singh taking Hiran Singh along with him and while hunting pigeons, Hiran falling down in the well, thereafter, Baddan Singh slit the throat of Hiran Singh with a battle-axe and killed him, and to destroy the evidence, he threw his head and the trunk at different places, so that nobody could doubt that the accused Baddan has murdered Hiran Singh. The weapon of murder i.e. the battle-axe was recovered from the accused Baddan Singh in presence of the witnesses, which is evident from the recovery memo Ext Ka24. In this way, from perusal of all the evidences, it transpires that the accused Baddan Singh took Hiran Singh to his relative's house and he murdered Hiran Singh and then he hid the weapon of murder with which he murdered Hiran, which was later recovered from Baddan Singh on being pointed out by him.” xxx xxx xxx “In the instant case, the prosecution, on the basis of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devendra Singh Vs State of UP, 2004(2) 257 SC and in Narendra Singh and others Vs State of M.P., 2004(2) 260 SC, has to necessarily prove all the circumstances beyond reasonable any doubt. In the instant case, from perusal of all the evidences, it transpires that the accused Baddan Singh took the deceased Hiran from his house and lastly, after killing him, tried to hide his dead body. In the instant case, from perusal of all the evidences, it transpires that the accused Baddan Singh took the deceased Hiran from his house and lastly, after killing him, tried to hide his dead body. Role of the co-accused appears to be of such extent that though at the time of committing the crime, he was present with Baddan Singh, however, he was neither seen going with accused Baddan Singh, nor, has any recovery been made from him. In such circumstances, in view of the evidences, it is justified to hold Baddan Singh guilty u/s 302, 201 IPC, however giving the benefit of doubt to accused Karan Singh, it will be justified to acquit him from the charge u/s 302, 201 IPC.” (English translation provided by the Court) 21. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution was able to prove the incriminating circumstances connecting the appellant in commission of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 22. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. PW-1 and PW-2, witnesses of fact, proved the circumstance that their deceased son was taken by the appellant on 15.06.2011 at 12:00 noon on his motorcycle, thereafter, the appellant again visited PW-1 and PW-2 on 17.06.2011. On enquiring the whereabouts of their son, appellant expressed his ignorance. The conduct of the appellant created suspicion in the mind of PW-1 and PW-2. 23. The other circumstance proved by the prosecution that the torso and the head was identified by PW-1 from the structure of the teeth; the amulet and underwear on the beheaded corpse. The prosecution case, thereafter, rests on disclosure statement of the appellant purportly made under Section 27 of Evidence Act. The trial court taking into consideration the confessional statement of the appellant and the consequent recovery of the assault weapon on the pointing out of the appellant from his house, has recorded guilt and conviction. 24. We are constrained to record that the trial court has miserably failed to correctly apply the conditions, laid down by the Supreme Court, that must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established. Supreme Court in an early decision rendered in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , indicated the primary principle that an accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a court can convict. Supreme Court in an early decision rendered in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , indicated the primary principle that an accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a court can convict. The relevant paragraphs reads thus: "153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ''may be' and ''must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) 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, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) 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. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 25. With regard to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused, but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. With regard to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused, but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material objects and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution. 26. The various requirements of Section 27, can be summed up as follows: “(1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible. (2) The fact must have been discovered. (3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by accused's own act. (4) The persons giving the information must be accused of any offence. (5) He must be in the custody of a police officer. (6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to. (7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.” (vide: Shahjaha @ Shahjahan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 Live Law (SC) 596) 27. As observed in Pulukuri Kotayya vs. Emperor, ( AIR 1947 PC 67 ), it can seldom happen that information leading to the discovery of a fact forms the foundation of the prosecution case. It is one link in the chain of proof and the other links must be forged in manner allowed by law. To similar effect was the view expressed in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy versus State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1962 SC 1788 . 28. In the given facts, the confessional statement of the appellant alone spells out the entire episode leading to the offence. To similar effect was the view expressed in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy versus State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1962 SC 1788 . 28. In the given facts, the confessional statement of the appellant alone spells out the entire episode leading to the offence. The appellant after picking up the deceased from his house on motorcycle, desired to hunt pigeons from an old well after sunset. While hunting pigeons, deceased accidentally fell into the well, rope and a cot was fetched by the accused persons from the village. The accused apprehending that the unconscious deceased might have died, the accused persons to escape the accusation of having murdered the deceased, decided to do away with the deceased, accordingly, in furtherance of their common intention, deceased was beheaded; torso and head was subsequently disposed off at different places. On the accused-appellant being arrested, he confessed of committing the crime and on his pointing out, the assault weapon was discovered. As noted earlier that taking of the deceased by the accused has been proved by the prosecution. The other incriminating circumstance proved by the prosecution is the discovery of alleged assault weapon. In between the two circumstance, the long gap remains a mystery, unexplained by the prosecution. The story setup in the confessional/disclosure statement of the appellant cannot be read against the accused as it precedes the commission of the offence. The statement of the accused that he employed the gandasa in committing the offence also cannot be read against him. The only incriminating circumstance that may be held against the accused is the discovery of gandasa and the place where it was hidden, but, that is not sufficient to record the guilt against the accused. The prosecution has to link the assault weapon with the commission of the offence. 29. The recovery of the crime weapon in the facts of the case in hand was made after eight days from the date of the incident (15.06.2011) and on the date of arrest (23.06.2011), but, the crime weapon has not been linked with the commission of the offence. The recovery of the weapon is one link in the chain of proof and other links must be forged in the manner allowed by law. Blood stains was not found on the gandasa. 30. The recovery of the weapon is one link in the chain of proof and other links must be forged in the manner allowed by law. Blood stains was not found on the gandasa. 30. Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, mere recovery of the assault weapon (gandasa) cannot be construed as providing acceptable proof for the murder without there being any substantive evidence. Supreme Court considered this aspect in the case of Mustkeem @ Sirajudin Versus State of Rajasthan, ( AIR 2011 SC 2769 ), as under: "23. The AB blood group which was found on the clothes of the deceased does not by itself establish the guilt of the Appellant unless the same was connected with the murder of deceased by the Appellants. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could establish that fact. The blood found on the sword recovered at the instance of the Mustkeem was not sufficient for test as the same had already disintegrated. At any rate, due to the reasons elaborated in the following paragraphs, the fact that the traces of blood found on the deceased matched those found on the recovered weapons cannot ipso facto enable us to arrive at the conclusion that the latter were used for the murder." (Refer: Jeeva Versus State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2019)” 31. The prosecution has failed to prove the incriminating circumstances after the deceased was taken by him. PW-1 and PW-2 have clearly stated that accused appellant was having cordial relation with the deceased i.e. there is no motive of committing the offence. Further, no evidence has been led to prove that accused continued in the company of the deceased until his murder. No person has seen them together near the well, or fetching the rope/cot, and/or, carrying the body of the deceased wrapped in hay on the motorcycle. It is also not proved by the prosecution as to whether the deceased was alive at the time he was beheaded by the accused or was dead and thereafter, beheaded. There are multiple contradictory probabilities in the prosecution case which has not been explained. In other words, there are several possible hypothesis which the prosecution has failed to exclude. The conviction rests solely on the confessional statement of the appellant recorded after arrest, which cannot be read against him. There are multiple contradictory probabilities in the prosecution case which has not been explained. In other words, there are several possible hypothesis which the prosecution has failed to exclude. The conviction rests solely on the confessional statement of the appellant recorded after arrest, which cannot be read against him. Further, the alleged assault weapon has also not been connected with the offence. No human blood was found on the gandasa. In the given proved incriminating circumstances i.e. appellant taking the deceased along with him, is a case of mere suspicion, however strong the suspicion may be it is not sufficient to prove the offence. The prosecution has failed to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of evidence connecting the appellant with the crime is incomplete. The trial court committed serious error in convicting the appellant. It is a case of no evidence. Suspicion alone is not sufficient to bring home the charge. 32. In Chandrakant Ganpat Sovitkar Vs. State Of Maharashtra, (1975) 3 SCC 16 helds as follows: “It is well settled that no one can be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion, however, strong it may be. It also cannot be disputed that when we take into account the conduct of an accused, his conduct must be looked at in its entirety………..” 33. Section 3 of the Evidence Act, while explaining the meaning of the words “proved”, “disproved” and “not proved” lays down the standard of proof, namely, about the existence or non-existence of the circumstances form the point of view of a prudent man. The Section is so worded as to provide for two conditions of mind, first, that in which a man feels absolutely certain of a fact, in other words, “believe it to exist” and secondly in which though he may not feel absolutely certain of a fact, he thinks it so extremely probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances act on the assumption of its existence. The Act while adopting the requirement of the prudent man as an appropriate concrete standard by which to measure proof at the same time contemplates of giving full effect to be given to circumstances or condition of probability or improbability. It is this degree of certainty to be arrived where the circumstances before a fact can be said to be proved. It is this degree of certainty to be arrived where the circumstances before a fact can be said to be proved. A fact is said to be disproved when the Court believes that it does not exist or consider its non-existence so probable in the view of a prudent man, and now coming to third stage where in the view of a prudent man the fact is not proved i.e. neither proved nor disproved. It is this doubt which occurs to a reasonable man, has legal recognition in the field of criminal disputes. It is something different from moral conviction and it is also different from a suspicion. It is the result of a process of keen examination of the entire material on record by ‘a prudent man’. 34. Lord Denning, J. in Miller V. Minister of Pensions, (1947) 2 AII ER 373, while examining the degree of proof required in criminal cases stated: “that degree is well settled. It need not reach certainty but it must reach a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful probabilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence “of course, it is possible but not in the least probable”, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt……….” 35. Regarding the concept of benefit of reasonable doubt Lord Du Paraq, in another context observed thus: “All that the principle enjoins is a reasonable scepticism, not an obdurate persistence in disbelief. It does not demand from the Judge a resolute and impenetrable incredulity. He is never required to close his mind to the truth.” 36. In the given facts, applying the test of a prudent man as a standard to measure proof, we are unable to persuade ourselves, that the existence of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are so probable in view of a prudent man. Further, as per the statement of PW1 and PW-2, there is no motive attached to the crime. The witnesses stated that appellant is of their village and they have cordial relation with him. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime assumes greater importance. Further, as per the statement of PW1 and PW-2, there is no motive attached to the crime. The witnesses stated that appellant is of their village and they have cordial relation with him. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime assumes greater importance. The accused can be convicted, in absence of motive, only if each of the circumstances has been proved by the prosecution. As we have, upon scrutiny of the evidence, noted that prosecution has not been able to prove the circumstances connecting the appellant with the commission of the crime, motive becomes a relevant consideration. 37. The Supreme Court in Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Administration, (1994) Supp 3 SCC 367 held as follows: “Normally, there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is why investigating agency as well as the Court while examining the complicity of an accused try to ascertain as to what was the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime in question. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on basis of the materials produced before the Court, the motive loses its importance. But in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance. Of course, if each of the circumstances proved on behalf of the prosecution is accepted by the Court for purpose of recording a finding that it was the accused who committed the crime in question, even in absence of proof of a motive for commission of such a crime, the accused can be convicted. But the investigating agency as well as the court should ascertain as far as possible as to what was the immediate impelling motive on the part of the accused which led him to commit the crime in question…..” 38. That apart, in the case of circumstantial evidence, two views are possible on the face of record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence. The accused is indeed entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him. That apart, in the case of circumstantial evidence, two views are possible on the face of record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence. The accused is indeed entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him. All the judicially laid parameters, defining the quality and content of the circumstantial evidence, to bring home the guilt of the accused on a criminal charge, we find no difficulty to hold that the prosecution, in the case in hand, has failed to meet the same. 39. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, the conviction and life sentence imposed on the accused is totally unsustainable in law, therefore, appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 40. The criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence. 41. The appellant on being released the mandate of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to be complied. 42. Let the lower court record be sent back to court below along with a copy of this judgment, for ascertaining necessary compliance.