2010 Supreme(SC) 56

2010 (1) Supreme 123
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Harjit Singh Bedi and J.M. Panchal,JJ.
Vijay Kumar Arora — Appellant
versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2009
Decided on : 13-01-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of intuitive reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum.
2. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, Court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is, or are not decisive

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 302 – Prosecution of appellant along with his mother for causing death of deceased his wife by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire – Trial Judge considered circumstances established by the prosecution and held that deceased had neither committed suicide nor received burn injuries accidentally but was set ablaze by appellant – Trial Judge held that circumstances brought on record were inconsistent with innocence of the appellant and established that, in all human probability, the act of murder of the deceased was committed by the appellant – Trial Judge noticed that no satisfactory evidence could be adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of accused No.2 who was mother of appellant – In view of the said conclusions, Trial Judge, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC – Appeal – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal – Overall view of the circumstances brought on record of the case showed that deceased did not die a suicidal death – Presence of kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and clothes put on by her, ruled out the theory of accidental fire as suggested by defence – Established facts of the case abundantly indicated that kerosene oil stove was planted at the site in a fake attempt to hide the homicidal death – Evidence of father of deceased indicated that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry – Evidence relating to cruelty meted out by the appellant to the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry and his extra – marital relations with other girls showed that he had a strong motive to do away with the deceased – Again, Deceased had made dying declaration before six witnesses implicating appellant was firmly established – On reappraisal of evidence adduced by prosecution, held that the circumstances from which the conclusion about the guilt of the appellant was to be drawn were fully proved – The circumstances proved were conclusive in nature – All the facts so established were consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the appellant and inconsistent with his innocence – The circumstances proved excluded possibility of guilt of any person other than the appellant – Appellant had taken the defence that the deceased had received burn injuries accidentally – The defence was disbelieved by Sessions Court and the High Court as well as by this Court – False plea/defence of the appellant was called into aid only to lend assurance to this Court that the circumstances taken in cumulative suggest that it was the appellant who had murdered his wife – On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, held that no error was committed either by Trial Court or High Court in convicting appellant under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife – Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 16 to 18)

        Circumstantial Evidence – The law relating to circumstantial evidence is well Settled – In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind may take place of proof – Suspicion, however, strong cannot be allowed to take place of proof and, therefore, Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof – However, it is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial – Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual incident, but the circumstances can not fail – In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established – Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually – However, in applying this principle, a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them, on the other – In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered – In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies – Although, there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts – In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case – The Court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts – In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, Court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is, or are not decisive. (Para 9)

        Circumstantial Evidence – The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis, except the one sought to be proved – But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be – There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused; and where the various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. (Para 9)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant along with his mother was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased his wife by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire. Trial Judge considered circumstances established by the prosecution and held that deceased had neither committed suicide nor received burn injuries accidentally but was set ablaze by appellant. Trial Judge held that circumstances brought on record were inconsistent with innocence of the appellant and established that, in all human probability, the act of murder of the deceased was committed by the appellant. Trial Judge noticed that no satisfactory evidence could be adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of accused No.2 who was mother of appellant. In view of the said conclusions, Trial Judge, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        On reappraisal of evidence adduced by prosecution, held that the circumstances from which the conclusion about the guilt of the appellant was to be drawn were fully proved. The circumstances proved were conclusive in nature. All the facts so established were consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the appellant and inconsistent with his innocence. The circumstances proved excluded possibility of guilt of any person other than the appellant. Appellant had taken the defence that the deceased had received burn injuries accidentally. The defence is disbelieved by Sessions Court and the High Court as well as by this Court. This false plea/defence of the appellant was called into aid only to lend assurance to this Court that the circumstances taken in cumulative suggest that it was the appellant who had murdered his wife. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, held that no error was committed either by Trial Court or High Court in convicting appellant under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.