NANHAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 384 · Decided: 11-06-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK VERMA, K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 384 
NANHAR AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2496 of 2009) 
JUNE 11, 2010 
[DEEPAK VERMA AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 3021149 - Conviction under -
Note said to be dying declaration recovered from pocket of 
C deceased which stated that he was administered poison mixed 
in a drink by the accused - Conviction of accused on the 
basis of purported dying declaration and circumstantial 
evidence - High Court upheld the conviction - On appeal, 
held: Prosecution could not establish that the chain of 
D circumstances was complete -
With a broken chain of 
circumstantial evidence, accused could not be held guilty -
Moreover, the said note did not fall in the category of dying 
declaration - A person after consuming excessive liquor 
cannot write such note with so much precision and with a 
E steady hand - Thus the said note did not inspire confidence 
and was not admissible - Order of conviction not sustainable 
- Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Dying declaration. 
Prosecution case was that the wife of accused 3 
developed illicit relations with the deceased. When 
F accused 3 came to know about such relationship, he 
developed grudge against the deceased and planned to 
eliminate him. On the fateful day, dead body of the 
deceased was found in his field. A note stated to be his 
dying declaration was recovered from the match box 
G found in his pocket which stated that the accused 
persons administered poison on him by mixing it In a 
drink. Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 
302/149 IPC based on the circumstances and dying 
H 
384 
' 
NANHAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 
385 
declaration. The High Court affirmed the conviction. 
A 
Hence these appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is well settled law that the prosecution 
must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any 
strength from the weaknesses of the defence. When the 
case is based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of 
circumstances should be complete in all respect and the 
pointer of guilt should continuously be on the accused 
B 
'only. Any deviation of the pointer of guilt on the accused 
C 
would enure him the benefit of doubt. In the instant case, 
it is true that the police official who had prepared the 
Inquest Report had died during the pendency of the trial, 
but no reason was assigned as to why other police 
personnel present along with him were not examined. 
D 
They could have at least explained the true picture and 
proved recovery of dying declaration and pocket 
telephone index diary from possession of deceased. 
[Paras 26, 27, 28] [398-D; 399-C-E] 
E 
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1984 
(4) sec 116, relied on. 
1.2. Admittedly, from the evidence of PW-7, the 
cousin of the deceased, it has come on record that the 
deceased had a bank account and he was also a member 
F 
of some society, where his standard signatures were 
available. But those standard signatures were not made 
the basis lor comparison of his hand-writing alleged to 
have been found from his possession. [Para 29] [399-F-
~ 
G 
1.3. The circumstances from which the conclusion of 
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The 
circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may 
be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a . H 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be 
or should be proved'. 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 
s guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive 
nature and tendency. They should exclude every 
possible hypothesis except th.e one to be proved, and 
there must be a chain of evidence so c~mplete as not to 
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion 
c consistent with the innocence of the accused and must 
show that in all human probability the act must have 
been done by the accused. The cardinal principles with 
regard to the completion of chain of circumstantial 
evidence for holding the appellants guilty could not be 
0 established at all by the prosecution in the present case. 
With such broken chain of circumstantial evidence, at 
many places, it would neither be safe nor prudent to hold 
the appellants guilty. Apart from that, it is extremely 
difficult to come to the

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