Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if it is fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused person.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - TESTS - CONVICTION UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted of murdering a 10 or 12-year-old girl in her house. The prosecution case was that the appellant had been employed by the girl's father, but had lost his job when the father discontinued his business. The appellant allegedly threatened the girl that she would be killed if she complained to her father about his conduct. On the day of the murder, the appellant was seen entering the girl's house with something under his arm wrapped in a piece of cloth. He was later seen leaving the house without the object and wearing a different shirt. The girl's body was found in the house with multiple incised wounds. A blood-stained shirt and chopper belonging to the appellant were found near the body.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the circumstantial evidence against the appellant was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the appellant had been seen entering the girl's house with something under his arm, and that he had left the house without the object and wearing a different shirt. The court also noted that the appellant's blood-stained shirt and chopper were found near the body. The court rejected the appellant's alibi that he was in Mathura on the day of the murder, noting that the petition he allegedly filed in the box of the Superintendent of Police, Mathura, was found two days after the date mentioned in the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence against the appellant was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellant's alibi that he was in Mathura on the day of the murder was credible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the circumstantial evidence against the appellant was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the appellant had been seen entering the girl's house with something under his arm, and that he had left the house without the object and wearing a different shirt. The court also noted that the appellant's blood-stained shirt and chopper were found near the body. The court rejected the appellant's alibi that he was in Mathura on the day of the murder, noting that the petition he allegedly filed in the box of the Superintendent of Police, Mathura, was found two days after the date mentioned in the petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence.

Judgment

S. K. DAS, J. : The learned Sessions Judge of Mathura convicted Charan Singh appellant herein, of killing Sarjiti, a girl aged 10 or 12, in her house in village Anta-ki-Garhi, police station Sadabad, in the district of Mathura, on November 20, 1957 in the morning, and sentenced him to death. There was another charge under S. 380, Indian Penal Code, against the appellant for committing theft of certain ornaments, but of this charge the learned Sessions Judge acquitted him. There was the usual reference to the High Court of Allahabad for confirmation of the sentence. The appellant also filed an appeal. These two were heard together and by its judgment dated July 29, 1958 the High Court dismissed the appeal, accepted the reference and affirmed the conviction and sentence. From this judgment the appellant moved by way of special leave and on December 15, 1958 this Court granted special leave to the appellant. The present appeal has been filed in pursuance of such leave.

2. Sarjiti was the daughter of one Atar Singh by his first wife. Atar Singh lived in village Anta-ki-Garhi, police station Sadabad. After the death of his first wife, he married Ram Siri, sister of his first wife. Atar Singh has two children by his second wife, one of the children being three years old and the other one year old only. The appellant is a resident of the same village and lived close to Atar Singh. The prosecution case was that the appellant was employed by Atar Singh for some time, when the latter was carrying on the business of manufacturing "ghungras" (small bell-like jingling, trinkets worn round the ankles), Atar Singh, however, discontinued that business and the appellant lost his employment. The prosecution case further was that a day before the murder of Sarjiti, the appellant went to the house of Atar Singh in the 1atter s absence and cut jokes with Ramsiri : this was resented by Ramsiri as well as Sarjiti, and both of them said that they would complain to Atar Singh about the appellant s conduct. On this it was said that the appellant threatened Sarjiti that she would be killed if she made a complaint of his conduct to her father. When Atar Singh came back, a complaint was made. Atar Singh went to the house of the appellant and enquired about his conduct. The latter, however, denied having been guilty of any improper conduct and nothing further happened that day. On November 20, 1957 Atar Singh went to his fields early in the morning and Ram Siri with her two small children went out of the house for preparing cow-dung cakes. Sarjiti was left alone in the house. At about 8 or 9 a. m. on that day, the prosecution case stated, the appellant went into the house of Atar Singh. He was then wearing a dhoti and a shirt and carried something under his arm covered in a piece of cloth. Soon after he was seen coming out of the house, and at that time he was wearing a dhoti and a vest only but no shirt. Ram Siri came back at about 9 or 9-30 a.m. and shouted for Sarjiti. Getting no response she went to the house of one Chandan Singh, brother of her husband, and told Chandan s wife that Sarjiti had gone away and she was going to look for her in the village. Atar Singh himself and his brother came back to the house at about 11-30 a. m. Atar Singh saw that a box was lying open in one of the rooms from which he found some ornaments missing. Their was some bhoosa (husk of grain) in one of the rooms and near the bhoosa were blood stains. On removing the bhoosa Atar Singh discovered the dead body of his child Sarjiti. Near the dead body was also found the shirt which, it was stated, belonged to the appellant and which the appellant was seen wearing when he entered into the house of Atar Singh earlier in the day. A gandasa (a chopper for cutting fodder) was also found near the dead body. Both the shirt and the chopper were stained with human blood and the chopper was also said to belong to the appellant. On an alarm raised by Atar Singh, many other

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1959 Supreme(SC) 117

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if it is fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused person.

Cases Referred (2)