Important Point
Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court as far back as in 1952.

Headnote:Criminal Trial – 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 – 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 – Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court as far back as in 1952. (Paras 5 and 10)
       AIR 1977 SC 1063; AIR 1956 SC 316; AIR 1983 SC 446; AIR 1985 SC 1224; AIR 1987 SC 350; AIR 1989 SC 1890; AIR 1954 SC 621; (1996) 10 SCC 193; AIR 1990 SC 79; 1992 Crl. LJ 1104; AIR 1952 SC 343; (2005) 3 SCC 114 – Relied upon.
       Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – During night time on previous day of the occurrence accused dragged deceased to his hut beating all along – On next day morning PWs. 1& 2 found her dead – The police found one towel of the accused which was tied around waist of the deceased and the rope was lying near the cot – Trial Court and the High Court have rightly relied upon circumstances to hold accused guilty – Appeal, having no substance, dismissed. (Para 15)
       Facts of the case :
       Adivamma (PW-1) was the mother and Mandapate Rullaiah (PW-2) was brother of Nagandla Pichamma (the ‘deceased’). The deceased belonged to Byneedi Madiga by caste, whereas the accused belongs to Muslim community. The deceased was a deserted lady and she developed illicit intimacy with the accused and gave birth to a female child. She was residing in a thatched house situated adjacent to her parents’ house. During the life time of deceased, the accused used to harass and beat the deceased suspecting her fidelity. On 31.10.1998 at about 9 p.m., while the deceased was watching the T.V. programme in the house of Venkata (PW3), the accused came there and on seeing her the accused became wild and brought the deceased by beating with hands and took up to his house. On the next day morning, PW1 went to the house of the deceased and found the deceased dead and she was lying on the cot. PW1 found ligature marks on her throat and around the neck of the deceased. On hearing the hue and cry of PW-1, the neighbours gathered at the scene of offence. Thereafter, late M. Polaiah, father of the deceased, gave an oral report to the S.I. of Police which was reduced in writing. On the basis thereof a case was registered under Section 302 IPC.
       The learned Sessions Judge, charged the accused of the offence under section 302 I.P.C. or alternatively under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Ultimately, conviction was recorded under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentence of imprisonment of life and fine of Rs.30,000/- with default stipulation was awarded. High Court dismissed the appeal.
       Findings of the Court :
       Prosecution has established its case and the trial court and High Court rightly held the accused guilty of offence under section 302.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning his conviction or offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and sentence of imprisonment of life and fine of Rs.30,000/- with default stipulation.

3.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

“Adivamma (PW-1) is the mother and Mandapate Rullaiah (PW-2) is brother of Nagandla Pichamma (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) brother of the deceased. The deceased, the accused and the other material witnesses lived in Martur. The deceased belonged to Byneedi Madiga by caste, whereas the accused belongs to Muslim community. The deceased was a deserted lady and she developed illicit intimacy with the accused and gave birth to a female child. She was residing in a thatched house situated adjacent to her parents’ house. During the life time of deceased, the accused used to harass and beat the deceased suspecting her fidelity. On 31.10.1998 at about 9 p.m., while the deceased was watching the T.V. programme in the house of Venkata (PW3), the accused came there and on seeing her the accused became wild and brought the deceased by beating with hands and took up to his house. On the next day morning, PW1 went to the house of the deceased and found that the deceased dead and she was lying on the cot. PW1 found ligature marks on her throat and around the neck of the deceased. On hearing the hue and cry of PW 1, the neighbours gathered at the scene of offence. Thereafter, late M. Polaiah, father of the deceased, went to the police station and gave an oral report to the S.1. of Police at about 3.30 p.m., which was reduced in writing under Ex. P5. On the basis of Ex. P-5, PW6 registered a case in Cr. No. 102 of 1998 under Section 302 IPC and issued FIR Ex.P6. Thereafter, PW6 visited the scene of’ offence, prepared scene of observation report Ex. P2 and seized MO.1 to MO.3 in the presence of PW4 and another. Then PW6 examined PWs 1 to 3, 5 and others and recorded their statement. On 02.11.1998 at about 8 AM, PW8 C.I of Police conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW4 and another. Ex, P-3 is the inquest report. On 02.11.1998 itself, Civil Assistant Surgeon at Government Hospital, Addanki (PW 7) conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation with ligature. Ex. P-8 is the post mortem report. On 11.11.1998, the accused surrendered before the court. After completion of investigation, PW 8 filed the charge sheet. On receipt of the committal order by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, the learned Special Sessions Judge for Cases under SCs and STs (P.A.) Act, 1989, Ongole took the case on file in SC No.71/99 on its file and ultimately the accused was put up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, charged of the offence under section 302 I.P.C. or alternatively under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the SCST Act).

The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined PW 1 to PW 8 and marked Exs. P1 to P8 and MOs. 1 to 8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence. Accused pleaded innocence.

Placing reliance on the evidence of PWs. 1& 2 i.e. mother and the brother of the deceased respectively, the trial court recorded his conviction. Since it was a case which was based on circumstantial evidence, the trial court took note of several circumstances to fasten the guilt on the accused. Though he was found not guilty of offence under Section 3, he was acquitted of charges for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(2)(5) of the SCST Act. In appeal the High Court affirmed the conclusions. The High Court took note of the fact that the witnesses h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1029

2007(5) Supreme 674Supreme Court of India(From Madras High Court)Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.Shaik Mastan Vali — PetitionerversusState of Andhra Pradesh — RespondentAppeal (crl.) 1003 of 2007(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2692 of 2006)Decided on : 03-08-2007

Important PointConviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court as far back as in 1952.

Cases Referred (12)

2007(5) Supreme 674
Supreme Court of India
(From Madras High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Shaik Mastan Vali — Petitioner
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1003 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2692 of 2006)
Decided on : 03-08-2007

Important Point
Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court as far back as in 1952.