TARSEEM KUMAR versus THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 740 · Decided: 18-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, N.P. SINGH

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
TARSEEM KUMAR 
v. 
THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
AUGUST 18, 1994 
[G.N. RAY AND N.P. sn:<GH, JJ.] 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sectio11 3. 
Murde'r--Circun1stantial Evidence-~irciunstances relied 011 
: Dis-
closure of acc11sed to police-Reco1•e0• of dead body and i11crimi11ating 
articles from the ho11se in possession of accuse{f-Signs of draggi11g the body- · · 
F.J.tra j11dicial co11fession of accuse{f-Deceassed last see11 with the ac-
c11sed-Co11victio11 based on circumstantial evide11ce-Validity of-Relevance 
of n1otive bf circunistantial evidence explained. 
D 
Section 27-Disclosure made by accused-Recovery of articles-Where 
E 
F 
prosecution produces stock witness,es to prove in1portant circunzstance Court 
should be cautious about the investigation done by police. 
The appellant was prosecut"d under section 302 of the Indian Penal 
Cade. The Prosecution case, based solely on circumstantial evidence, was 
that : (i) on rn.9.74 the appellant took three rooms on rent from PW 19, 
the owner of the House for storing garments in connection with the 
readymade garment export busin.,ss; (ii) Later, on the appellant's request,, 
two more rooms were given to him on 13.10.74afterPW1 vacated the same; 
(iii) During the period the appellant was in exclusive possession of the 
house, it was alleged that he committed the murder of the son of PW 36 · 
in one of those two rooms on 16.10.1974; (iv) The accused engaged two · 
labourers, PW 2 and PW 3, who were known to the owner of house, for 
digging a pit and since both these labourers were busy during the day, they 
did part of digging on the evening of 17.10.74 and again when they came '. 
G for completing the digging on 18.10.74 they found foul smell coming due · 
to decomposition of the body and they informed PW-19; (v) The appellant 
made a disclosure statement and took the police party to his house from 
where blood stained cloths of appellant's hood group were recovered at his 
stance; (vi) the dead body of the victim was recovered from that portion 
of the house which was in appellant's possession; (vii) A glass tumbler with 
H finger prints of the appellant was recovered from the place of occurrence; 
740 
TARSEEMv. DELHIADMN. 
741 
(viii) There were signs of dragging of the body starting from the room upto A 
the wall of the compound; (ix) the appellant made an extra judicial 
confession befort PWs 8 and 30 that he had hit the victim with a 'Saria'; 
and (x) PW-9, a relative of the deceased, had last seen the deceased with 
the appellant on a Motor Cycle on 16.10.1974. 
Relying on the circumstantial evidence the Trial Court convicted the 
accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The Trial 
Court rejected the 'evidence of last seen' given by PW-9 stating that he was 
B 
a stock witness and that though he was related to the deceased yet he never 
informed this fact to the father of the deceased and other relations when 
they were searching for the deceased. As regards extra judicial confession, C 
the Trial Court rejected the testimony of PW-30 on the ground that he did 
not support the prossecution story a11d accordingly was declared hostile; 
in view of the fact that PW-8 was also proved to be a stock witness it was 
highly improbable that appellant made extra judicial confession before 
him. 
The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal. It relied on the 
signs of dragging of the body starting from the room upto the wall of the 
compound. The appellant filed appeal in this Court. · 
Allowing the appeal, giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, this 
Court 
HELD : 1. As the case is based solely on the circumstantial evidence, 
the Court has to be satisfied that (i) The circumstances from which con-
clusion of guilt is to be drawn has been fully established; (ii) All the facts 
so established are consistent only with the hypotllesis of guilt of the appel-
lant and they do not exclude any other hypothesis except the one sought to 
be proved; (iii) The circumstances <m which reliance has been placed are 
conclusive in nature; (iv) The chain ,of the evidence in the case is such that 
there is no scope for any reasonabk ground for a conclusion consistence 
with the innocence of the accused. (746-C-D] 
2. In the present case, it is not possible to hold that the vital links of 
the prosecution case which are necessary to be proved before a finding can 
be recorded, that the chain of evidence is complete, have been proved 
beyond reasonable doubt

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