SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Manjunath Chennabasapa Madalli
Vs.
State of Karnataka
Crl.A.No.223 of 2007
(Arijit Pasayat and S.H.Kapadia,JJ.)
19.02.2007
JUDGMENT
Dr.Arijit Pasayat, J.
SLP(Crl)No.4077 of 2006
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of
the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The
appellant was found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the trial court and was sentenced
to undergo R.I. for two years and life respectively. Fine was also imposed with
default stipulation.
3. The High Court set aside the conviction for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 but maintained the conviction
under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and consequently the
sentence.
4. The background facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:
“Sumithra (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'), as the daughter of
Siddamma (PW-1) and sister of Hosakerappa (PW-6) as well as grand daughter of
Hanumawwa (PW-7). She was married to the accused about one year back to the
date of incident. After the marriage, Sumithra went to the house of her husband
to lead a happy family life. Though initially they led a happy married life,
bickerings started between the accused and his wife as he started abusing and
ill-treating her on the pretext that she does not know how to do the house-
hold work. However, this was only a pretext to extract additional dowry from
the parents of the deceased. As per the customs during Gowri Festival, the
deceased was brought to her parental place to celebrate the festival and at
that time, the deceased who was pregnant had complained about the ill-
treatment meted out to her by her husband. As such, the parents, grand-mother
and other relatives asked the deceased to stay back in their house. The accused
started visiting the house of PWs 1 and 7 and was insisting upon the deceased
to come back to his village. On such a visit viz., on 9.3.2001, the accused
again came to the house and picked up a quarrel with the deceased and her
mother and other relatives and insisted that she should be sent on that day
itself. The relatives informed him that as Sumithra was pregnant, after
performing certain ceremonies including 'Srimantha', she would be sent back
later. The accused stayed in the house of the in-laws that night. On the next
day i.e. on 10.3.2001, after taking the night meals, the accused and the deceased
slept inside the room whereas, the mother, brother and other relatives slept
outside the hall. In the night around 3.00 a.m., they heard cries coming from
the room and when they went inside, they saw the accused running away and
Sumithra lying unconscious on the ground with bleeding injuries on her head.
Immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Gadag and then to KIMS
Hospital. However, in spite of the medical treatment, she breathed her last on
13.3.2001. In the meantime, on 11.3.2001 itself Head Constable (PW-18) and SHO
of Gadag Rural Police station on getting the medico legal intimation that one
Sumithra was admitted in the hospital and that she was assaulted by her husband
with an iron implement, he went to the hospital and made enquiry and found that
Sumithra, the injured was not in a position to give any statement. As such, he
recorded the statement of Siddamma (PW-1) who was present in the hospital and
treating the same as first information, came back to the Police Station and
registered a case in Crime no. 50/2001 for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 504 and 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860, registering the FIR.
He again went back to the hospital and there, as per the advise of the Doctor,
shifted the injured to KIMS Hospital, Hubli. He again deputed and sent
requisition for recording of the dying declaration by the authorized Taluka
Executive Magistrate, but the same could not be recorded as Sumithra was in
coma. As already noted, at KIMS Hospital, Hubli, in spite of the treatment the
injured Sumithra breathed her last. After her death, the offence punishable
under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was altered to Section 302
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and further investigation was continued.
5. During the investigation, spot mahazar, inquest proceedings were undertaken.
Statement of witnesses, which threw light on the incident, were recorded. The
dead body was subjected to autopsy. Search for the accused was carried out and
he was apprehended on 14.3.2001. After securing all the necessary reports and
on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.
6. On committal and on the basis of the charge sheet materials, the accused was
charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 Indian
Penal Code, 1860. As the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, he
was tried under S.C.No.37/2001.
7. The trial Court found the evidence to be credible and notwithstanding the
fact that the vital witness i.e. the mother of the deceased (PW-1) had resiled
from the statement given during investigation, held that the residual evidence
was sufficient to hold the accused guilty. Accused was accordingly convicted
and sentenced as aforenoted. It was held that the circumstantial evidence
pressed into service was sufficient to establish the accusations. The High
Court in essence affirmed the conclusions, but altered the conviction.
8. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
there was practically no evidence whatsoever and even the so-called
circumstances highlighted by the trial Court and the High Court do not lead to
a conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence as alleged.
9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgments of
the courts below.
10. 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 Rajasthan Indlaw RAJ1; Eradu
and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad2; Earabhadrappa
v. State of Karnataka 3 ;
State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors4.
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab5
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.6.
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 Punjab7, 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.
11. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy
and Ors. v. State of A.P.8,
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....".
12. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors9. 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.
In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava10, 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.
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".
13. 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. In Hanumant
Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh11, 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,12 . 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 be cured by false defence or plea. 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 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 act must have been done
by the accused.
15. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram 13 and State
of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh14 .
16. In the instant case, the only circumstance which was highlighted by the
trial Court and the High Court was that there was unnatural death and
additionally the so called dying declaration purported to have been recorded by
the then Tehsildar (PW-16). The mere fact that the deceased had died an
unnatural death cannot by itself be a circumstance against the accused
particularly when Section 498-A has been held to be inapplicable. Additionally,
the conclusion that there was dying declaration is also not factually
correct. The trial Court itself has referred to the evidence of PW-16 who
categorically stated that though he was requested to record the dying
declaration the same could not be recorded as the doctor was of the opinion
that the deceased was not in a fit condition to give her statement. Thereafter,
no statement was recorded. In fact he was called to attend the inquest.
17. Above being the position the conviction as recorded by the trial Court and
upheld by the High Court is indefensible and is set aside.
18. The appeal is allowed.
Judgment Referred.
1AIR 1977 SC 1063
2AIR 1956 SC 0316
3AIR 1983 SC 0446
4AIR 1985 SC 1224
5AIR 1987 SC 0350
6AIR 1989 SC 1890
7AIR 1954 SC 0621
8(1996) 10 SCC 0193
9AIR 1990 SC 0079
10(1992) Crl.LJ 1104
11AIR 1952 SC 0343
12AIR 1984 SC 1622
13(2003) 8 SCC 0180
14(2003) 11 SCC 0261