Important Points
1. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the cumulative effect of all the circumstances proved, must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and to bring home the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
2. In a case of circumstantial evidence when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.
3. Death reference proceedings u/s 366 Cr.P.C. require a re-appraisal and re-assessment of the entire facts and law so as to come to its independent conclusion but while so doing, the High Court cannot also totally over-look the conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge.

Headnote:(i) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 366, 368 r/w 386 -Death reference-Duty of High Court-Proceeding before High Court require re-appraisal and reassessment of entire facts-Duty of High Court more onerous to consider independently the matter carefully and examine all relevant material evidence.
       Held : If the impugned Judgment of the High Court is scrutinized bearing in mind the aforesaid parameters, the conclusion becomes irresistible that the High Court as Court of appeal has failed to exercise its power under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and instead of discharging its bounden duty to examine the evidence and other materials on record and without appreciating the same, it has merely on surmises and conjectures come to the conclusion that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid conclusion cannot be sustained. Not only there has been an infraction of the duty and obligation of the appellate Court but also such infraction has caused gross miscarriage of justice. (Para 5)
       Where the High Court in proceedings u/s 366 Cr. P.C. acquitted the accused, on facts, the Supreme Court held that a bare perusal of the impugned Judgment persuades us to come to the conclusion that the High Court has miserably failed in discharging its power under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by not re-appreciating and re-assessing the facts and law and by not examining the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. When a reference is made to the High Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sessions Judge on passing a sentence of death, the High Court has to satisfy itself whether a case beyond reasonable doubt has been made out against the accused for infliction of the extreme penalty of death. The proceedings before the High Court in such a case require a re-appraisal and re-assessment of the entire facts and law so as to come to its independent conclusion but while so doing, the High Court cannot also totally over-look the conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge. In performing its duty, the High Court is of necessity bound to consider the merits of the case itself and has to examine the entire evidence on record. The legislature having provided in the confirmation proceedings, a final safeguard of the life and liberty of the subject in cases of capital sentences, the duty of the High Court becomes more onerous to consider independently the matter carefully and examine all relevant material evidence and come to a conclusion one way or the other. It is, therefore, the duty of the High Court in a death reference to consider the evidence afresh. (Para 5)
       (ii) Criminal Trial-Conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence -Guiding principles.
       In a case of circumstantial evidence, the cumulative effect of all the circumstances proved, must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and to bring home the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances proved must lead to no other inference except that of guilt of accused. In a case of circumstantial evidence when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. (Para 6)

Judgment

Pattanaik, J.-This appeal by the State of Tamil Nadu is directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court, against the acquittal of the respondent in Death Reference Case No. 2 of 1995, arising out of Sessions Case No. 169 of 1994. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-respondent of the charge under Section 302 for having murdered his wife and two children brutally and sentenced him to death. On a reference being made under Section 366 of the Cr. P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence, the High Court did not confirm the sentence of death and on the other hand acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him and thus the present appeal.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the accused and deceased Jayalakshmi were married together about eight years prior to the date of occurrence in 1994. Out of their wedlock, two female children had been born named Jeeva, aged six years and Sita, aged two years. The accused was not having any job and was solely dependant on his wife, the deceased. He had the habit of taking liquor and for that purpose he used to often demand money from the deceased and used to assault her. On the very date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased at about 7 P.M. and it continued till about 9 P.M. PW1, a close-by neighbour however interfered and pacified, whereupon, she returned to her house which was hardly 150 feet away from the house of the accused. PW4 was present there in the house of PW1 and was sleeping. Suddenly, he heard the cries of the eldest daughter of the deceased and when he came out, he found that the hut of the accused was on fire. PW1 and PW4 then came near the house of the accused, whereupon PW4 entered into the hut of the accused by jumping from the roof and rescued the eldest daughter. By that time, wife of the accused and the youngest daughter Sita had already become victims and had met their death. PW4 then took the eldest daughter to the Government Hospital at Thuraiyur. PW1 went to her father PW2 and narrated the incident. This was recorded by PW2 and was sent to the Padalur Police Station. The further prosecution case is that PW5 met the accused on 11.4.94 at the bus stop and on questioning the accused about the setting fire of his house, he had stated that the deceased refused to serve meals to him and was also not giving money and as he had doubts about her chastity, so on the previous night he strangulated the deceased and has killed her. He also further said that he poured kerosene on the dead body of the deceased and set fire to the body. The eldest daughter, Jeeva was examined by doctor PW8 and extensive burn injuries on her person were found. She however died in the hospital on 11.4.94 at 7 P.M.. The Sub-Inspector of Police on the basis of statement received from PW2, registered a case under Sections 436 and 302 I.P.C. and started investigation and on completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet and on being committed, the accused stood his trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, relied upon the circumstances established by the prosecution witnesses and came to hold that it is the accused who is the perpetrator of the crime and, therefore, convicted him under Section 302 as well as Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Looking to the aggravating circumstances under which the murder was committed and in the absence of any extenuating circumstances, he sentenced the accused to death and made a reference to the High Court under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C. for his conviction under Section 302 and for his conviction under Section 436, the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. It may be stated that the accused himself did not prefer any appeal against the conviction and sentence. The High Court however in the impugned judgment without examining the circumstances said to have been established by the prosecution evidence and withou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1100

Cases Referred (1)