SUBHASH CHAND versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 16-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SUBHASH CHAND 
A 
v . 
. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
OCTOBER 16, 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
B · 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
Section 313-Scope and ambit of-Held: ls to afford the accused per-
sonally an opportunity of explaining any incriminating circumstance so ap-
pearing in evidence-The accused may or may not avail of such an opportunity. 
Criminal Trial : 
'Last seen together'-Evidence to substantiate-Held: Must be such 
that the victim and the accused were seen together at a point of time in close 
proximity with the time and date of commission of crime. 
Semen and hood-Presence of-On the clothes of accused-Evidentiary 
value of-Held: Not by themselves an incriminating piece of evidence con-
necting the accused with the crime in question-Penal Code, 1860, S.376. 
Circumstantial evidence-Conviction based on-Held : Accused can be 
c~nvicted if the claim of circumstantial evidence is so .forged as to rule out the 
possibility ofthe innocence of the accused-Between 'may be true' ancl 'must 
be true' there is a long distance to travel-Such distance must be covered by· 
legal, cogent and unimpeachable evidence. 
Criminal o.ffences-lnvestigation of-Role of Investigating Officer-
Explained and reiterated. 
Words and Phrases: "Alibi"-Meaning of. 
The appellant-accused was convicted by the trial court for offences 
under Section 302 and 376(2)(f) of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to 
death: :put th.e High Court altered the sentence to one of imprisonment 
for life. He.nee this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, S, a young female child aged about 5 
163 
c· 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
years, was found brutally ravished and killed. Human blood of Gi'oup-B 
'-
B 
was found on the clothes of the deceased. The appellant-accused was 
arrested on suspicion and, at his instance, an underwear and 'baniyan' 
were found in a dry well. Hu1J1an semen and human blood of Group-B 
were detected on the underwear. The following pieces of circumstantial 
evidence were against the accused :-
(i) last seen together; 
(ii) abnormal conduct of the accused; 
c 
(iii) recovery of underwear and 'baniyan' (which was found to be 
stained with semen and blood group 'B' which was the blood group of the 
deceased); 
· (iv) false plea of al~bi; and 
D 
(v) accused absconding since the date of offence. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. Last seen together 
To constitute evidence of 'last seen together', the evidence must 
definitely permit an inference being drawn that the victim and the accused 
were seen together at a point of time in close proximity with the time and 
. date of commission of crime. From the evidence of PW· 7 such an inference 
cannot be drawn. [171-B] 
2. Abnonnal conduct of accused 
Any person even, if innocent, and not connected in any way with a 
gruesome crime which had recently occui'~ed and was the talk of the 
town, if called by the police and interrogated as a suspect, would be 
scared ·and be apprehensive of the likelihood of his being implicated in the 
crime. Placed in such a situation if a villager, unaware of the law, hap-
pens to ask a person, who he feels knows the tJ;tings better than what he 
himself does, as to what would be the period\ of incarceration to be 
suffered by any person for such an offence the impulse for inquiry may be 
the outcome of a feeling of nervousness or mere inquisitiveness; such 
SUBHASH CHAND v. STATE 
165 
an enquiry js not necessarily suggestive of the working of a criminal 
A 
mind. [172-F-G) 
3. Recovery of underwear stained with blood and semen 
Presence of semen stain on the underwear, assuming that the under-
wear belonged to the accused, though there is no evidence adduced in this 
regard, is not by itself an incriminating piece of evidence connecting the 
accused with the crime in question. So also the discovery of 'B' group 
blood-stain on the underwear cannot be treated as an incriminating piece 
of evidence again5t the accused connecting him with the crime because 
there is no evidence that the underwear belonged to the accused and 
further the possibility of the underwear being stained with the blood of 
the person to whom it belonged, or the accused if he was wearing it, has 
not been ruled out. [173-H; 174-A-B) 
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1981) SC 
765, relied on. 
4. False plea of alibi 
(a) The purpose of asking questions during examination 

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