IMPORTANT POINT
When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the possibility of the conclusions being consistent with the innocence of the accused must be ruled out altogether.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 378-Appeal against acquittal-Scope-Principles which would govern and regulate hearing to appeal by High Court.
       Held : (1) In an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses all the powers, and nothing less than the powers, it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction.
       (2) The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by the trial court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse.
       (3) Before reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds and not subscribing to the view expressed by the trial court that the accused is entitled to acquittal.
       (4) In reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court.
       (5) If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted.
       (6) The High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court especially in the witness-box.
       (7) The High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused. (Para 16)
       (ii) Criminal Trial-Murder case-Circumstantial evidence-Evidentiary facts-Circumstances from which an inference as to guilt of accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt-Possibility of conclusions being consistent with innocence of accused must be ruled out altogether. (Paras 19 to 23)
       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction for offence of murdering his wife by strangulation-No eye witness-Deceased was ill-treated at house of her in-laws-At house of her parents, she gave birth to a male child-She was strangulated to death-Her body recovered from a lodge-Evidence on record that appellant with his wife and child came to the Lodge -Appellant later left the Lodge with his child on pretext that his wife had died of heart attack-Circumstances, conduct and behaviour of appellant conclusively establish appellant s guilt-High Court was justified in reversing judgment of acquittal-No infirmity in its judgment. (Para 40)
       (iv) Evidence Act, 1872-Section 73-Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved-By whom comparison shall be made-Powers of Court.
       Held : The Section does not specify by whom the comparison shall be made. However, looking to the other provisions of the Act, it is clear that such comparison may either be made by a handwriting expert under Section 45 or by anyone familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned as provided by Section 47 or by the Court itself. (Para 37)
       As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this does not mean that the Court has not the power to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature as this power is clearly available under Section 73 of the Act. (Para 38)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

When a case relies on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances must be fully established, and the possibility that they could be consistent with the innocence of the accused must be completely ruled out (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
An appeal against an order of acquittal grants the High Court the authority to reappraise and reconsider the entire evidence, including the ability to arrive at its own conclusions if the trial court's findings are against the evidence or are perverse (!) (!) (!) .
Before reversing an acquittal, the High Court must carefully examine each ground on which the trial court based its decision and provide its own reasons for not accepting those grounds (!) (!) .
The presumption of innocence remains in favor of the accused even after an acquittal, and this presumption is strengthened by the acquittal order (!) .
If the High Court finds a reasonable alternative view based on reappraisal of evidence, it should adopt the view that favors the accused (!) .
The trial court's advantage of observing witness demeanor and conduct is a significant factor that the appellate court must consider, but it can still arrive at a different conclusion based on the evidence (!) .
The accused is entitled to benefit of doubt, which must be a reasonable and honest doubt about guilt, not an irrational one (!) .
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that leads to the exclusive guilt of the accused, and the evidence must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused (!) (!) .
The evidence must be cogently and firmly established, pointing unerringly toward the guilt of the accused, and the chain of circumstances must be complete so that no other hypothesis can explain the facts (!) (!) (!) .
The overall evidence, including conduct and behavior, can conclusively establish guilt, especially when the accused's actions are inconsistent with innocence, such as leaving the scene or attempting to conceal identity (!) (!) (!) .
The court has the authority to compare signatures or handwriting using the provisions of the Evidence Act, and such comparisons can be made by experts, persons familiar with the handwriting, or the court itself (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The signatures on relevant documents, such as the register of lodgers and the vakalatnama, can be compared directly, and such comparison can be sufficient to establish the authenticity of the signatures without expert evidence, provided the comparison is clear and convincing (!) (!) (!) .
Conduct such as the accused shaving off his beard and hair to conceal identity, leaving the scene, and his behavior after the incident are significant indicators of guilt that can support conviction (!) (!) .
The overall assessment of evidence, including circumstantial facts, conduct, and behavior, can justify a conviction if they collectively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence (!) (!) (!) .
The appellate court must ensure that the evidence chain is complete, consistent, and incapable of explanation by any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused (!) .

These points encapsulate the legal principles and findings relevant to the case, emphasizing the importance of thorough reappraisal of evidence, the role of conduct, and the proper use of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-Padmavathi, a housewife, in this case, has been strangulated to death, of all persons, by her husband, the appellant before us.

2. BATTLE OF SEXES has always been a battle of wits. Today it is denuded of its charms. It has degenerated into a WAR involving physical violence, torture, mental cruelty and murder of the female, including, particularly, the WIFE.

3. Social thinkers, philosophers, dramatists, poets and writers have eulogised the female species of the human race and have always used beautiful epithets to describe her temperament and personality and have not deviated from that path even while speaking of her odd behaviour, at times. Even in sarcasm, they have not crossed the literary limit and have adhered to a particular standard of nobility of language. Even when a member of her own species, Madame De Stael, remarked "I am glad that I am not a man; for then I should have to marry a woman", there was wit in it. When Shakespeare wrote, "Age cannot wither her; nor custom stale; Her infinite variety", there again was wit. Notwithstanding that these writers have cried hoarse for respect for "Woman", notwithstanding that Schiller said "Honour Women! They entwine and weave heavenly roses in our earthly life." and notwithstanding that Mahabharat mentioned her as the source of salvation, the crime against "woman" continues to rise and has, today undoubtedly, risen to alarming proportions.

4. It is unfortunate that in an age where people are described as civilised, crime against "Female" is committed even when the child is in the womb as the "female" foetus is often destroyed to prevent the birth of a female child. If that child comes into existence, she starts her life as a daughter, then becomes a wife and in due course, a Mother. She rocks the cradle to rear up her infant, bestows all her love on the child and as the child grows in age, she gives to the child all that she had in her own personality. She shapes the destiny and character of the child. To be cruel to such a creature is unthinkable. To torment a wife can only be described as the most hated and derisive act of a human being.

`5. In this appeal, we have to deal with the unfortunate story of torture of a wife and her sudden and untimely death at the hands of a person who had promised to the God, before the altar of fire, to be her protector.

6. The appellant was married to a young woman, by name, Padmavathi @ Janaki, in or about April, 1984 in Belgaum Taluk. Her father was P.W. 8, Paris Savant Kaggodi who was, incidentally, also brother of appellant s mother. Padmavathi, after bidding a-dieu to her father and other relations, came to live with the appellant in her new house where her parents-in-laws also lived. She became the victim of mental torture and cruelty for a charge, which, unfortunately, can be levied easily against any virtuous woman, that she was involved in extra marital relationship; in this case with one Gundu Badasad.

7. On becoming pregnant, Padmavathi came back to her father s house for performance of certain ceremonies connected with the pregnancy and continued to stay there till she delivered a male child. The information of the birth of the child was conveyed to the appellant and his parents but nobody, not even the appellant, came to see Padmavathi or the child although, in normal course, the birth of a male child has the effect of bringing smile even on a frowning face. Like a lull before the storm, this cold-shouldering was the precursor of the evils that were to befall Padmavathi.

8. Four months after the delivery, the appellant suddenly, on a Saturday, came to the house of his father-in-law (P.W. 8) and sought his permission to take his wife and the child to a temple at Stavanidhi which was a sacred and holy place for the Jains. The next morning, that is, on Sunday, the appellant, his wife and the child were seen off by his sister-in-law at the Bus Station where they boarded a Karnataka State Road Transport C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 1101

IMPORTANT POINTWhen a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the possibility of the conclusions being consistent with the innocence of the accused must be ruled out altogether.

Cases Referred (23)

IMPORTANT POINT
When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the possibility of the conclusions being consistent with the innocence of the accused must be ruled out altogether.