Penal Code – ss.302, 34 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – As per FIR, the appellants-accused (wife of the deceased and coaccused) had illicit relations – It was further stated that on account of disputes, the accused started residing in her paternal house – That the deceased went to his in-law’s house to bring her and the children back, however, on the next day his body was found hanging from tree – Appellants convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34 – On appeal, held: Case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence – There is no direct evidence that the appellants killed or committed the murder of the deceased – In a case of circumstantial evidence, 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 – 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 – Such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence – There is no evidence that the accused were last seen together with the deceased – Prosecution failed to prove the guilt and complete chain of events leading to the only conclusion that the appellants alone committed murder and/or killed the deceased – Order of conviction passed by Trial Court and High Court set aside – Accused acquitted – Evidence.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The case rests on the circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence by which it can be said that the appellants killed or committed the murder of the deceased. There is no direct evidence recorded indicating involvement of the appellants in the crime; the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. In case of a circumstantial evidence, 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 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. On considering the deposition of PW-6 (daughter of the deceased), who can be said to be the star witness and on whose deposition the appellants - accused are held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, even it cannot be said that the prosecution has established and proved that the accused were last seen together with the deceased. In the examination-in-chief, PW-6 has stated that after some quarrel, the grandmother took the deceased to the room where the deceased went to sleep. That thereafter she also gone to sleep and when in the morning she woke up, she came to know that her papa was found hanging on the tree. In the cross-examination, she has specifically stated that she has not seen anybody beating her father. Thus, there is no evidence that the accused were seen last together with the deceased. There is no evidence what happened after the deceased went to the room and had gone to sleep. Under the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt and complete chain of events, which may lead to the only conclusion that the appellants - accused alone committed murder and/or killed the deceased. The Trial Court as well as the High Court have committed a very serious error in convicting the appellants – accused for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC based on such circumstantial evidence. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as well as the High Court convicting the appellants – original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC are quashed and set aside and the accused are acquitted for the offence for which they are convicted. [Paras 7.1, 7.7 and 8][246-F-H; 249-H; 250A-E] Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 : [2010] 9 SCR 1039; G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 593 : [2010] 10 SCR 377 – relied on. Mohd. Younus Ali Tarafdar v. State of West Bengal, (2020) 3 SCC 747 : 2020 (2) JT 456; Anwar Ali and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166 : [2020] 9 SCR 878 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.