Introduction

• This is a landmark judgment relating to circumstantial evidence.
• This judgment was delivered by a single judge bench comprising of Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan.

Facts

• Accused no 1 (Nargundkar) on 9^th Novemebr 1946 took sealed tenders home.
• It is alleged that the tenders were opened at home.
• The tender rates of one E.J. Doongaji (a bidder) were revealed to Accused no 2 (R.S. Patel)
• Accused no 2 prepared a new tender with rates lower than Doongaji’s rates and replaced it.
• These open tenders were returned to office on 11^th November 1946.
• Based on the recommendations of Accused no 1 the tender of Accused no 2 was accepted and the contract was awarded to him.
• Both the accused were charged for the offence of conspiracy to secure the contract of Seoni Distillery by forging the tender. Thus, they were accused of offences under Section 120B and Section 465 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Learned Sessions Court quashed the conviction of both the appellants under Section 120B but maintained conviction and sentences under Section 465 of IPC.
• The Appellants went up in revision against this decision in the High Court. However, he couldn’t succeed.
• An application was then made under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and this was allowed by the Court.

Issue Involved

• Whether the accused can be held liable for afore mentioned offences?

Observations

• The Court held in this case that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that conviction might be based on suspicions rather than legal proof.
• The Court in this case laid down the principles governing the circumstantial evidence:
  • Circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
  • Fact so established should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that accused is guilty.
  • Facts should be of conclusive nature.
  • The fact should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
  • 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 must have been done by the accused.
• In the facts of the present case the Court held that circumstantial evidences are not such that they can prove beyond reasonable doubt.
• Thus, the Court in effect set aside the conviction of both the appellants.

Conclusion

• The Court in this case laid down the rules of circumstantial evidence.
• The Court in this case laid down the now well-established rule that if the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances must be fully established and conclusively proved.

[Original Judgment]