2002(3) Crimes 29 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Mumbai High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Vithal Tukaram More & Ors. —Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 2001
Decide on 23-7-2002

Important Point
Applying tests of judging circumstantial evidence in AIR 1992 SC 2045 the Apex Court set aside the conviction of appellants and sentences under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC but refused to interfere with their conviction under Sections 201 r/w 34 IPC.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302 r/w 34, 323 r/w 34 and 201 r/w 34—Offences under—Appellants held guilty alongwith convicted husband and father-in-law of deceased Sundara­bai—Conviction based on circumstantial evidence—Inference of presence drawn from relationship of appellants with deceased—Inference of guilt on the basis of nature and number of injuries (15 antimortem injuries)—Report of death by strangulation—Often beating of deceased on not doing household work—Whether inference of murder by assault with common intention and effort to destroy evidence can be drawn safely? (No, to former only)—Test to base conviction on circumstantial evidence—Whether fulfilled in this case? (No)—Result—Conviction under Sections 302/34, 323/34 not sustainable but conviction under Sections 201/34 sustained as appellants had knowledge of physically assaulted and murdered lady was thrown in well and yet took false plea of absence of deceased at home at the time of incident—Appeal partly allowed.

       Held : In the case of State of U.P. vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, [AIR 1992 SC 2045], this Court has held that the essential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused by circumstantial evidence are : (a) the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; (b) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; (c) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence; (d) the circumstances should to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. In ­considering the validity of the conviction of the present appellants, therefore, we have to apply the above strict test before relying on the circumstantial evidence. From the facts found and the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court and the High Court in appeal, we find that the circumstantial evidence in the present case falls short of the required standard of proof. We also find that there is fallacy in their reasoning and therefore, in the inferences drawn by them from the facts and circumstances alleged to have been proved. (Paras 12 & 13)

       After analysing circumstantial evidence held : We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellants and sentences under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. (Para 22)

       But held : So far as the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC for which they are charged and convicted is concerned, from the discussion of the evidence made by the two courts below and by us above, the evidence on record, in our opinion, is sufficient to sustain their conviction for the said offences. Their presence in the house has been proved. On recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the well, the post-mortem shows the cause of death to be homicidal and not suicidal. The present appellants have been found to be present on the date and hour of the incident in the house in which the deceased was done to death by physical assaults made by the two convicted accused. The present appellants were certainly guilty of screening the offenders. The body of the deceased after she was physically assaulted and murdered was thrown into the well to the knowledge of the appellants. Yet they took a false plea that on the date and hour of the incident, deceased was not in the house. (Para 23)

       Held finally : Consequently, this appeal partly succeeds. We set aside the conviction of the appellants under Section 302, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. Their conviction and sentences imposed on them under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC are maintained. The bail bonds of accused are cancelled and if they have not completed the period of sentences imposed on them under Section 201 read with Section 34, they will suffer the remaining part of the sentences. The appellants/accused who have already suffered the period of sentences for the above offences shall be forthwith released from the custody if not required in any other case. (Para 24)