It is clear, for resting a conviction in case of circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and all facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence.
Mofil Khan v. State of Jharkhand, [Review Petition (Criminal) No. 641 of 2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 1795 of 2009] has observed, possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of convict is an important factor which has to be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance.
It is also our duty to take into consideration, state of mind of criminal and his socio-economic conditions. Lochan is not a hardened criminal. He is a young person. It cannot be said, there is no possibility of being reformed and rehabilitated. We are also inclined to adopt same reasoning and follow same course as adopted in Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 4 SCC 393.
Death Sentence is commuted to Life Imprisonment.
– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Lochan Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 499-500 of 2018].