GANESH LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 619 · Decided: 31-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

J• 
GANESH LAL 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
OCTOBER 31, 2001 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial : 
Appreciation of Evidence-Circumstantial Evidence~Incriminating cir-
cumstances-No explanation offered by accused for such circumstances-
Held, they can be used as inculpatory circumstances-Such circumstances form 
a complete chain and silence of accused supplies 'missing link' if any-On 
facts, held, accused guilty of offence charged-Code of Criminal Procedure, 
I973-Section 3I3. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Indian Evidence Act, I 872-Section 1I4-Presumption-More than one 
offence taking place as part of one transaction-Recovery of recently stolen 
property from possession of accused-Possession unexplained-Other unex-
plained incriminating circumstances also available-Held, presumption arises 
against accused in respect of commission of other offences also .forming part of 
same transaction-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 376(2) (f) and 
E 
404. 
The body of deceased, a young girl of 11 years, was found near the 
field belonging to her father. Her neck was found broken, there was injury 
marks on the neck, blood was oozing out from neck and private parts of 
the body, her both legs were chopped off from near the ankles and kuralias, 
silver ornament worn by deceased, one in each leg, were found missing. 
Prosecution alleged that appellant accused had raped the girl and then 
killed her by throttling. Trial Court convicted accused of offences punish· 
able under Sections 376(2)(0, 302 and 404, IPC which was upheld by the 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of recovery 
F 
G 
and seizure. The seals thereon were affixed at the police station. It was 
H 
619 
\ 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A . rainy season. It had also rained on that night. The fields were wet and had 
water -lo~ging ~t some places. The recovery and seizure had taken place .in 
the wee hours and the only means of light available was a torch carried by 
the police. In such situation, merely because the articles were not sealed at 
the place of seizure but were sealed at the police station, the recovery and 
B ·seizure do not become doubtful. [625-B-C] 
c 
D 
E 
2. In the facts and circumstances of a given cas~ relying on· tli.e 
strength of the presumption the Court may dispense with direct proof of 
. certain such facts as can be safely presumed to be necessarily existing by 
applying the logic and wisdom underlying ~ection 114 of the Evidence Act. 
Where. offences, more than one, have taken place as part ~f one transac-
tion, recent and unexplained possession of property belonging to-deceased 
may enable a . presumption being raised against the accused that he is 
guilty not only of the offence of theft or decoity but also of other offences 
forming part of that transaction, on the following tests being satisfied: (i) 
The offence of criminal misappropriation, theft or dacoity. relating to the 
articles recovered from the possession of the accused and such other of-
fences can reasonably he held to have been committed as an integral part 
·of the same transaetion; (ii) the time lag between-the date of commission of 
the offence and the date of recovery of articles from the accused is not too 
wide· as to snap the link between recovery and commission of the offence; 
(iii) availability of some piece of incriminating evidence or circumstances, 
other than mere recovery of the articles, connecting the accused with such 
other offence; (iv) caution on the part of the Court to see that suspicion, 
howsoever strong, does not take the place of proof. In ~uch cases the· 
F 
explanation offered by the accused for his possession of the stolen property 
.. assumes significance. Ordinarily the purpose of Section 313 of .Code of 
Criminal Procedure is to afford the accused an opportunity of offering an 
explanation of incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evi-
dence against him. it is not necessary for the accused to speak and explain. 
G 
Ho\Yever, when the case rests on circumstantial evidence the failure of the 
accused to ~ffer any satisfactory expianation for his possessio~ of the 
stolen property thouglt not an incriminating circumstance by itself would 
. yet enable an inference being raised against him because the fact being in 
the exclusive knowledge of the accused it was for him to have offered an 
H ·explanation which he fail

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.