SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of M.P.
Vs.
Sanjay Rai
Crl.A.No.641 of 1998
(Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat JJ.)
25.03.2004
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. State of Madhya Pradesh calls in question legality of the judgment rendered
by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the
respondent by upsetting judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court. The
Trial Court found the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused')
guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(in short 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.200/- in addition to sentence of three years RI imposed for offence
punishable under Section 201 IPC and fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation
for fines.
2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
3. Anita Bai (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was married to the
accused on 14.12.1990 at Allahabad (U.P.) whereafter she came to Dhanpuri along
with the accused on 15.12.1990. Anita Bai died on 25.12.1990 at Dhanpuri in her
room in their house. Written report about the incident (Ex.P-14) was lodged by
the accused at P.S. Amlai, District Shahdol on 25.12.1990 at about 11.40 p.m.
It was reported in Ex.P-14 by accused Sanjay Rai that he had gone to the house
of one Rajendra Sharma and had returned from there at about 9.00 p.m. and went
to his room. The room was bolted from inside. On being pushed, the latch fell
down and the door opened. He found that his wife, deceased, was hanging from
the bolt of the almirah, upon which he caught hold of her by the waist and
called his father, who cut the piece of cloth by which she was hanging.
Thereafter, Dr. Gautam (PW- 1) and Dr. Pathak (PW-2) were called, who advised
them to take Anita to the hospital where she was declared dead. On the basis of
the above report, FIR (Ex.P-15) was recorded. Inquest report was made and dead
body was sent for post- mortem examination which was conducted by two doctors
(PW-6 and PW-12). Four injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased.
4. The investigating officer made a query from the doctor as to whether in case
of hanging, ligature marks may be absent. The doctor gave opinion that even in
case of hanging ligature marks may be absent and the presence of ligature marks
would depend upon the nature of ligature and the time for hanging. It was also
found that asphyxia could have resulted even if the body was hanging by a piece
of cloth which was cut immediately after the hanging. During investigation, it
came to light that the respondent-accused and his parents who also faced trial
with the accused were treating the deceased with cruelty on account of
unfulfilled demand of dowry. Initially, the investigation started on the
background of offence relatable to Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. On
completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed and the respondent-accused
and his parents faced trial. They pleaded innocence.
5. The accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences
punishable under Sections 302, 304B and 201 IPC. All the three accused persons
including respondent were found not guilty of offences relatable to Sections
302 and 201 IPC. The parents of the respondent were also found to be not guilty
of offence relatable to Section 302 IPC. So far as respondent is concerned, the
conviction was made, as afore-noted and sentences imposed.
6. An appeal was preferred by the State before the High Court which by the impugned
judgment held the respondent- accused to be not guilty. It was found that the
case was based merely on circumstantial evidence and there was no clinching
material to substantiate all or any of the continuous link of incriminating
circumstances and show that the respondent was guilty of the alleged offences.
Several factors were taken note of. Firstly, the respondent-accused and his
father immediately after the occurrence called the doctors PW-1 and PW-2. There
was no motive for killing as the alleged demand of dowry was not established
and for that reason the Trial Court itself had directed acquittal of the
accused persons from the allegations relatable to Section 304B. The High Court
also noted that there was no evidence of any strangulation, as was held to have
been done by the respondent-accused. The Trial Court wile discarding the
evidence of the doctor referred to some authorities to discard the evidence of
the doctor. Holding the evidence to be not sufficient to fasten the guilt on
the accused, acquittal was directed.
7. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted
that the Trial Court had analysed the evidence in its proper perspective and
had held the accused to be guilty. The High Court was not justified in holding that
the circumstances were not sufficient to establish guilt of the accused. The
circumstances presented unerringly pointed out at the guilt of the accused.
8. In response, Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior advocate for the respondent
submitted that the Trial Court had proceeded on surmises and conjectures and,
therefore, the High Court was justified in directing acquittal. It has been
consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on
circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all
the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh
v. State of Rajasthan1; Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad,
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka; State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors.;
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P..
The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn
have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely
connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those
circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab it was laid down that where the
case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect
of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused
and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
9. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy
and Ors. v. State of A.P. wherein it has been observed thus:
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully
proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the
circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain
of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence....".
10. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. ), it was laid down
that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy
the following tests:
“(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn,
must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing
towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that
there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the
crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete
and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of
the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of
the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
11. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava2 it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
12. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
“(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly
proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum;
(2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any
fact, which infers legal accountability;
(3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best
evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits;
(4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation,
upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt,
(5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is
entitled as of right to be acquitted".
There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial
evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to
circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.”
13. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein
it was observed thus:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts
so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all
human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
14. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra. Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it
has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete
and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot merely be cured by false
defence or plea.
15. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction
could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are:
“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be
established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved;
and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so compete 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 act must have been done by the accused.”
16. The only circumstance which the Trial Court relied upon to hold guilt was
by referring to some text books on medical jurisprudence. With reference to
them it was held that case of strangulation was clearly made out.
17. It cannot be said that the opinions of these authors were given in regard
to circumstances exactly similar to those which arose in the case now before us
nor is this a satisfactory way of dealing with or disposing of the evidence of
an expert examined in this case unless the passages which are sought to be
relied to discredit his opinion are put to him. This Court in Sunderlal v. The
State of Madhya Pradesh disapproved of Judges drawing conclusions adverse to
the accused by relying upon such passages in the absence of their being put to
medical witnesses. Similar view was expressed in Bhagwan Das and another v.
State of Rajasthan. Though opinions expressed in text books by specialist
authors may be of considerable assistance and importance for the Court in
arriving at the truth, cannot always be treated or viewed to be either
conclusive or final as to what such author says to deprive even a Court of law
to come to an appropriate conclusion of its own on the peculiar facts proved in
a given case. In substance, though such views may have persuasive value cannot
always be considered to be authoritatively binding, even to dispense with the
actual proof otherwise reasonably required of the guilt of the accused in a
given case. Such opinions cannot be elevated to or placed on higher pedestal
than the opinion of an expert examined in Court and the weight ordinarily to
which it may be entitled to or deserves to be given.
18. Apart from that, even if on the hypothetical basis it is held that doubt
could arise on the basis of strangulation, in the absence of any evidence
whatsoever to connect the respondent-accused with the act of strangulation, the
conclusions of the Trial Court could not have been maintained and the High
Court which is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence could and has rightly
discarded it.
19. There is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon
which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall
not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is
further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web
of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to
ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. No doubt a miscarriage of
justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the
conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a
duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the
accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any
of the accused really committed any offence or not. [See Bhagwan Singh and
Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh3. The principle to be followed
by Appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is
to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing
so in order to prevent miscarriage of justice resulting therefrom. If the
impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials
have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it would be a compelling
reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji
Sahebrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State
of Gujarat4, Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana5, Raj
Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors.6, State of Punjab v. Karnail
Singh7, State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr.8 and
Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal and Anr. In our view no such error can be said to
have been committed by the High Court, nor any other infirmity to undermine the
legality and propriety of the findings of the High Court, warranting our
interference has been substantiated, in this case.
The inevitable result of this appeal is dismissal, which we direct.
11977 Indlaw RAJ 17
21992 CrLJ 1104
32002 (2) Supreme 567
41996 (4) Supreme 167
52000 (3) Supreme 320
62003 (7) Supreme 152
72003 (5) Supreme 508
82003 (7) Supreme 17