Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
20. Last but not least, in the case of Brajendrasingh vs. B State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 289, this Court while reiterating the above principles further added that: "28. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring .home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial. (Ref. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of WB., (1994) 2 SCC 220; Shivu v. High Court of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 713 and Shivaji v. State of Maharashtra, c2008) 1 s sec 269)"
21. As discussed hereinabove, there is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition that conviction can be based F solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence as laid down by this Court. In such a case, all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has committed the crime and none else.
22. From the prosecution side, a number of witnesses have been examined to complete the chain of events and to prove the version given in the FIR and subsequent thereto, We have re-appreciated and analysed the evidence brought on H record from the prosecution side. On the analysis of the MAJENDRAN LANGESWARAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] evidence, we have found many inconsistencies and infirmities in the prosecution version as mentioned hereinafter.
23. Admittedly, there is no eye witness in this case despite the fact that the occurrence took place in the car.go ship and obviously some of the crew members were living and/or on duty around the ship. Both the accused and the deceased were good friends and both were staying in one cabin viz. Cabin No.25. Before the occurrence, the accused was shifted to Cabin No.23. Admittedly, therefore both the accused and the deceased were staying in separate cabin on the date of occurrence.
24. The accused-appellant and the deceased were helmsmen on the ship which was sailing from South Africa to Japan via Singapore. Since the auto-pilot went out of order and could not be repaired, the crew members were directed to manually steer the ship. The accused and one Talghakar showed reluctance to.steer the ship manually and insisted for repair of the auto-pilot and payment of their long overdue overtime. The prosecution case is that the accused and the said Talghakar instigated other crew members to insist and obtain it in writing from the Captain (PW-5) that the ship would be got repaired at Japan otherwise they (crew members) shall not allow moving of the ship from Singapore.
25. The prosecution case is that the accused is alleged to have confessed before PW-6 about the commission of the offence and the blood-stained knife was handed over to PW-6 which was subsequently seized but no blood wa$ noticeable on the clothes of the appellant which were found at the relevant time. The other helmsmen, namely, Baria and Talghakar who were present when the appellant is alleged to have made confes.sion before PW-6, were not examined by the prosecution.
26. The knife (Ex.P-3) was not shown to the doctor concerned who had conducted post mortem examination on A the dead body of the deceased to find out whether the injuries could have been caused by that weapon. Surprisingly, another knife (Ex.2b) alleged to have been recovered from the boiler suit was also not shown to the doctor to ascertain whether the said knife was also used in the commission of the offence.
27. From the evidence, it reveals that after the said incident the appellant was tied up and kept on the bridge for at least 2 to 3 days before being shifted. The contention of the appellant's counsel was that the appellant was susceptible of being forced to hold the knife (Ex.P-3) so as to get his. fingerprints on the C knife which was never kept inside the fish room along with the dead body.
28. Apart from the aforesaid, it appears from the post mortem report that there were about 14 stab wounds on the D neck but there was no blood found on the dress of the appellant or on the scene of occurrence. Though the deceased was alleged to have been assaulted as many as 14 times by a sharp-edged weapon and there was massive blood at the site of the offence, no blood had spilled on the appellant or his E clothes. Moreover, there is nothing on record by way of explanation from the prosecution side as to why the clothes of the appellant were not seized. Further, the alleged knife (Ex.P- 3) was not shown to the doctor who conducted the post mortem . of the deceased in Honkong to take his opinion as to whether F it was Ex.P-3 alone which could have caused those injuries especially when another knife was found from the boiler suit.
29. A very relevant piece of evidence which has been noticed by the High Court, but not given due consideration, is that apart from the blood-stained knife (Ex. P-3) and certain G other items mentioned in the letter of Investigating Officer, one sealed cardboard parcel containing blue soaked boiler suit worn by the deceased at the time of incident was also sent to CFSL for examination and opinion. In the said sealed cardboard box, two Exhibits (2a and 2b) were found. Ex.2a was the dark blue H coloured boiler suit and the Ex.2b was metallic blade fitted in MAJENDRAN LANGESWARAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] a wooden handle like a knife. The length of the metallic blade is about 5.5 centimeter with one edge sharp and another blunt having a round tip at one end. None of the prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer, stated anything as to how and wherefrom the said knife (Ex.2b) was recovered and kept with the boiler suit in the same cardboard box. This knife (Ex.2b) also bore human blood-stained matching 'O' group of the deceased. As per the post mortem report, stab wounds on the neck and chest of the deceased might be by the use of the said weapon Ex.2b. The said knife (Ex.2b) was not subjected to examination to find out the presence of· c fingerprints, if any, of the appellant. The said knife (Ex.2b) was also not shown to the doctor (PW-19) who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased, to seek his opinion if the same could have been possible weapon of offence. Even the opinion of the expert witness (PW-22) was not sought as to whether the cuts on the boiler suit could have been caused by that knife.
30. One more important aspect which has not been taken note of by the trial court and the High Court is that as per the prosecution case, the appellant was the trouble maker and instigated other crew members not to steer the ship manually unless the officers give it in writing about fulfillment of their demand of payment of long overdue overtime. This vital piece of evidence regarding the enmity of the appellant with the higher officials and others has been suppressed: instead, the prosecution tried to show that there was no enmity towards the . appellant.
31. Admittedly, after the alleged incident, the Master of the ship got the scene of offence cleaned like a vision and nothing was kept intact in and around the cabin where the offence was committed. Even the Investigating Officer failed to inspect the cabin. No site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Before the arrival of the Investigating Agency officials, the place of occurrence including cabin was completely washed and A cleaned in such a way as if nothing had happened in the cabin and the place around it.
32. On cbnsideration of all these relevant facts and vital piece of evidence, it can safely be concluded that the offence 8 committed by the appellant has not been fully established beyond all reasonable doubts. The very fact that two blood- stained knives were found by the prosecution proves that the prosecution failed to give sufficient explanation as to who had assaulted the deceased by using another knife (Ex.2b). The C High Court has committed grave error in holding that in view of the findings arrived at by the trial court that offence was committed by using the knife (Ex.P-3), the presence of another knife (Ex.2b) with blood-stains will not demolish the case of the prosecution. In our view, from the circumstances the conclusion of the guilt of the appellant herein has not been fully established D beyond all shadow of doubt as the circumstances are not conclusive in nature – neither the chain of events is complete nor the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the offence was committed by the appellant and none else. Hence, the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment E of conviction passed by the trial court cannot be sustained in law.
33. For the reasons aforestated, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment is liable to be set F aside. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the judgments of the High Court and the trial court are set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.