1989 Supreme(SC) 545

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. DUTT, S.R. PANDIAN AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Padala Veera Reddy, Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. and others, Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 1989, D/- 26-10-1989.
Advocates appeared :
Mr. C. Sitaramiah, Sr. Advocate, Mr. A.D.N. Rao and Mr. A. Subba Rao, Advocates with him, for Appellant; Mr. P. Krishna Rao, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad and Mr. G. Prabhakar, Advocates, for Respondents.

Headnote:(i) Evidence Act, 1872 - Case resting on Circumstantial evidence alone - What tests must be satisfied by such evidence?

       Held: This court in a series of decisions has consistently, held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:-

       (1) the circumstances from which art inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

       (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

       (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and

       (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. [See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, (1982 (2) S.C.C. 351)].

        (Para 10)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 498-A - In-laws and husband convicted for committing murder of Vijaya, the deceased and cruelty under Section 498 – A - Appellate Court acquitting - Appeal against acquittal by father of deceased - Case based on circumstantial evidence - Fact that deceased did not accompany her husband & in-laws to attend marriage in the house of P.W. 1 just opposite to accuseds house - Whether shows strained relations between the deceased & accused? (No) - The presence of tin containing poison near dead, body to create impression of suicide by taking poison - A circumstance pointing guilt of accused? (No). The conduct of father-in-law handing 3 letters of deceased as to theory of suicide whether a conclusive circumstance? (No) - Grave suspicion - Whether can take place of proof? (No).

       Result: Acquittal upheld.

       Held: We, in evaluating the circumstantial evidence available on record on different aspects of the case, shall at the foremost watchfully examine whether the accused 1 to 3 had developed bad-blood against the deceased to the extent of silencing her for ever, that too in a very inhuman and horrendous manner. The appellant wants us to infer that the deceased should have been subjected to all kinds of pressures and harassments, and compelled to institute the suit against her father and brother claiming exclusive right over the landed property in order to grab the said property, that this conduct of the accused should have been resented by the deceased and that on that score the accused should have decided to put an end to her life. In our view, this submission has no merit because there is no acceptable evidence showing that there was any quarrel in the family and that a the deceased was ill-treated either by her husband or in-laws. The Appellate Court while dealing with this aspect of the case has observed that there is no evidence that the accused ill-treated the deceased, which observation we have extracted above. Hence, we hold that there is no sufficient material to warrant a conclusion that the accused had any motive to snatch away the life thread of the deceased There is no denying the fact that the deceased did not accompany her husband and in laws to attend the marriage celebrated in the house of P.W. 1 and remained in the scene house and that she has been done away with on the intervening night of 6th / 7th September, 1985. From this circumstance, the court will not be justified in drawing any conclusion that the deceased was not leading a happy marital life. As observed by the Appellate Court, the explanation offered by accused 1to 3 that they remained in the house of P.W. 1 throughout the night is too big a pill to be swallowed. But at the same time in our view, this unacceptable explanation would not lead to any irresitible inference that the accused alone should have committed this murder and have come forward with this false explanation. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it is a case of murder but not a suicide as we have pointed out supra. The placing of the tin container with the inscription Democran by the side of the dead body is nothing but a planted one so as to give a misleading impression that the deceased had consumed poison and committed suicide. But there is no evidence as to who had placed the tin container by the side of the dead body. Even if we hold that the perpetrators of the crime, whoever might have been had placed the tin that in the absence of any satisfactory evidence against the accused would not lead to any inference that these accused or any of them should have done it. It is the admitted case that the first accused handed over three letters Ex. P. 6 to Ex. P. 8 alleged to have been written by the deceased to the Investigating Officer. The sum and substance of these letters are to the effect that the deceased had some grouse against her parents and that the accused were not responsible for her death. The explanation given by accused No1 in this written statement is that by about the time of the arrival of the police one Sathi Presada Reddy handed over these letters to him saying that he (Reddy) found them near the place where the dead body was laid and that he (A.1) in turn handed over them to the police. P.Ws. 8 and 9 have deposed that these letters are not under the hand-writing of the deceased. But the prosecution has not taken any effort to send the letters to any band-writing expert for comparison with the admitted writings of the deceased with the writing found in Ex. P. 6 to Ex. P.8. Under these circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn against accused No1 on his conduct in handing over these letters. (Para 17)

       Held further: No doubt this murder is diabolical in conception and cruel in execution but the real and pivotal issue is whether the totality of the circumstances unerringly establish that all the accused or any of them are the real culprits. The circumstances indicated by the learned Counsel undoubtedly create a suspicion against the accused. But would these circumstances be sufficient to hold that the respondents 2 to 4 (accused 1 to 3) had committed this heinous crime. In our view, they had not. (Para 18)

       Consequently held: We are of the firm view that the circumstances appearing in this case when examined in the light of the above principle enunciated by this court do not lead to any decisive conclusion that either all these accused or any of them had committed the murder of the deceased, Vijaya punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code or the offence of cruelty within the mischief of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence viewed from any angle, the judgment of the Appellate Court does not call for interference. (Para 23)