Back
2008 Supreme(SC) 1189
2008(5) Supreme 549
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Devidas Ramsundar Shukla — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2001
Decided on : 06-08-08
Important Point
Where case depends upon conclusion drawn from circumstances cumulative effect of circumstances must be such as to negative innocence of accused and bring offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 202 read with 34 – Death by burn injuries – Prosecution of accused persons A1 and A2 for causing death of deceased,second wife of A1 – Prosecution case that one H was married to A-1 and a matrimonial dispute cropped up between them as a consequence of which she left the matrimonial home – ‘H’ filed a criminal case against appellant and co-accused alleging ill treatment and cruelty – While proceeding was pending, A-1 contracted marriage with deceased and brought her to his house – Allegation that ‘H’ had complained A-1’s marrying deceased for which A-1 and A-2 faced prosecution in criminal Court and since A-2 was instrumental for A-1 marrying deceased it gave rise to a hasty motive to eliminate her – Trial Court convicted Accused persons relying upon circumstantial evidence – Appeal – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal against conviction by A2- A-2 though informed police about deceased burning, did not disclose as to how she got burnt-Again in the report, A-2 did not mention that deceased was wife of A-1 thereby indicating conduct in suppressing true facts – In the room, burnt match sticks were found which tallied with match sticks in the match box seized from the kitchen – No finding of match box in the room, where she was burnt, positively showed that act of setting her on fire was not of her own act – A-2 at the trial denied the fact that deceased died of burning in the house – This conduct on part of A-2 was very relevant to indicate that he must not be innocent as he claimed – The circumstances highlighted by the trial Court cumulatively pointed out unerringly appellant to be guilty of offence – Presence of blood on door showed that deceased tried to go out and this was a very vital circumstance – Additionally, the finding of broken bangles on spot showed that there was a struggle – Smell of kerosene was found on lungi which was worn by A-1 and which was seized – Some parts of skin and flesh were also found on the lungi giving smell of kerosene – If materials on record were considered in background of evidence on record, inevitable conclusion that followed was that appeal was without merit and deserved dismissal. (Para 17)
Circumstantial evidence – 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 innocence of accused or guilt of any other person – The circumstances from which an inference as to guilt of 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 – Where case depends upon conclusion drawn from circumstances cumulative effect of circumstances must be such as to negative innocence of accused and bring offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. (Para 8)
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) – Relied upon.
Facts of the Case :
1.Accused persons A1 and A2 were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased second wife of A1. Prosecution case that one H was married to A-1 and a matrimonial dispute cropped up between them as a consequence of which she left the matrimonial home. ‘H’ filed a criminal case against appellant and co-accused alleging ill treatment and cruelty. While proceeding was pending, A-1 contracted marriage with deceased and brought her to his house .Allegation that ‘H’ had complained A-1’s marrying deceased for which A-1 and A-2 faced prosecution in criminal Court and since A-2 was instrumental for A-1 marrying deceased it gave rise to a hasty motive to eliminate her. Trial Court convicted Accused persons relying upon circumstantial evidence. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by High Court.
2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court by A2.
Findings of the Court :
A-2 though informed police about deceased burning, did not disclose as to how she got burnt. Again in the report, A-2 did not mention that deceased was wife of A-1 thereby indicating conduct in suppressing true facts. In the room, burnt match sticks were found which tallied with match sticks in the match box seized from the kitchen. No finding of match box in the room, where she was burnt, positively showed that act of setting her on fire was not of her own act-.A-2 at the trial denied that fact deceased died of burning in the house. This conduct on part of A-2 was very relevant to indicate that he must not be innocent as he claimed. The circumstances highlighted by the trial Court cumulatively pointed out unerringly appellant to be guilty of offence. Presence of blood on door showed that deceased tried to go out and this was a very vital circumstance. Additionally, the finding of broken bangles on spot showed that there was a struggle. Smell of kerosene was found on lungi which was worn by A-1 and which was seized. Some parts of skin and flesh were also found on the lungi giving smell of kerosene .If materials on record were considered in background of evidence on record, inevitable conclusion that followed was that appeal was without merit and deserved dismissal.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1.Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 202 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). There were two appellants before the High Court which dismissed the appeal. Only present appellant has questioned the correctness of the Judgment.
2.Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows :
The appellant (A-2) alongwith co-accused-Santosh Devidas Shukla (A-1) and two others were tried in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1992 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur for offences under Sections 302 and 202 read with section 34 IPC and by the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.1993 of learned Additional, Sessions Judge, Achalpur, they were convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 202 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation. Except these two, others were acquitted by the trial Court. The victim of assault was one Manoja @ Manorama daughter of Tirathraj Tiwari (PW-5) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’). A-1 was a resident of Banosa. One Hira was married to A-1 in the year 1989. After the marriage, she was residing with him. A-2 is the father of A-1. It so happened that the matrimonial dispute cropped up between Hira and A-1 and as a consequence thereof she left the matrimonial home. She filed a criminal case against the appellant and co-accused alleging ill treatment and cruelty. While the proceeding was pending, A-1 contracted marriage with deceased Manoja on 8.7.1991 and in consequence brought her to his house and as such she was residing with A-1. It was on 27th May, 1992 that A-2 went to the police station Daryapur and gave the report (Exh.83) informing that the deceased was burning in the house and she was being removed to the hospital.
P.S.I. Katkar on arriving at the police station rushed to the hospital. Dr. Shailaja Kale (PW-1) who was the Medical Officer, after seeing deceased Manoja in the hospital at about 5.35 hours declared that she was brought dead and information was given immediately to the P.S.I. who was present in the hospital. That, information was sent to the police station where A/D of Murg Khabari No. 17/92 under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Cr.P.C.’) was registered on 27.5.1992. P.S.I. Katkar after getting the information of registration of crime prepared the spot panchnama in the hospital where the dead body was lying, vide Exh. 25. In the course of enquiry, he also made the inquest panchnama (Ex. 26) and seized some articles therefrom. He then immediately went to the house of accused No. 1, where deceased Manoja was burnt. He prepared the spot panchnama of the scene of offence, vide Ex. 46. He noticed large pieces of skin, flesh and ashes lying, on the floor of the room, burnt matchsticks, bottle containing kerosene, so also a bowl smelling of kerosene. These articles were seized by making a panchnama (Exh. 47). He recorded the statements of various persons in the course of enquiry. The accused gave different versions in respect of the deceased Manoja. He returned to the police station and lodged the FIR vide Exh.84 on the basis of which the offence was registered at Crime No.101/92. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. Since the accused persons abjured guilt, the trial was held.
3.The case based on circumstantial evidence which according to the prosecution unerringly pointed out the appellant to the author of the crime. The circumstances noted by the trial Court are as follows :
(1)Hira, wife of A-1 lodged complaint against appellants alleging ill-treatment making specific mention of fact that A-1 contracted second marriage.
(2)A-2 settled marriage of Manoja with A-1 concealing the fact the A-1 was already married with Hira.
(
