Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 367 of 1999
PETITIONER:
Vilas Pandurang Patil
RESPONDENT:
State of Maharashtra
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/05/2004
BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Appellant (also described as accused) calls in question
legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable
under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short
’the IPC’) by reversing the judgment of acquittal rendered by the
Trial Court. Sentence of imprisonment of life and two years
respectively were imposed for the aforesaid two offences.
Background facts which led to trial of the accused are as
follows:
Suman (hereinafter referred to as the ’deceased’) was the
first wife of the accused. Since her relationship with the accused
and her in-laws was strained she along with her 3 daughters Suvarana
(PW-2), Vanita (PW-4) and Vaishali and a son Vijay stayed separately
in village Sangli. In the said village in another house, accused
along with his second wife Sushila, his parents and three brothers
lived.
On 17.9.1983, the accused came to deceased’s house. At about
11.00 a.m. a quarrel between him and Suman took place. The same was
seen by Vanita (PW-4). Thereafter at about 3.00 p.m. the same day,
deceased went along with the accused who was having a sickle and a
rope to bring fodder. In the evening, the accused returned alone to
the house and told Vanita (PW-4) that deceased had gone to Nagaon
Kavathe. The same evening at about 8.00 p.m. the accused went to
the house of one Yeshwant Pandurang Jadhav (PW-6) and confessed to
him that he had murdered his wife. Later around 1.00 to 1.30 a.m. he
went to the house of the police Patil, Bhagwan Vithoba Patil (PW-5)
and also confessed before him that he murdered his wife and had
thrown the corpse into a well. Both Yeshwani Jadhav and Bhagwan
Patil are said to have asked the accused to report the matter to the
police. In the morning Bhagwan Patil along with village Kotwal and
some others went to the well situated in the field of Bhimrao Kadam
and found the corpse of Suman floating on the water inside it. He
asked the village Kotwal to guard it and himself proceeded to police
station Tasgaon with the accused. On 18.9.1983 at about 10.30 a.m.
the accused went to Tasgaon Police Station and gave information that
his wife Suman accidentally died and her corpse was floating in the
well situated in the land of one Bhimrao Kadam. On the said report
(Ex. 29) a case of accidental death was registered and investigation
was undertaken. During investigation, several materials were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
collected and the charge sheet was filed.
In order to further its accusations, during trial prosecution
placed reliance on the evidence tendered by ten witnesses. The
accused pleaded innocence. Since there was no eye witnesses to the
occurrence, prosecution relied on following circumstances in support
of its case. They are as follows:
1. Motive.
2. Conduct of the respondent immediately before and after
the incident;
3. Extra judicial confession;
4. Discovery of blood stained articles and mangalsutra in
the pointing out of the respondents; and
5. Finding of the blood in the nail cuttings of the
respondent.
The Trial Court by a cryptic order held that the circumstances
were not substantially established and, therefore, directed
acquittal.
The State of Maharashtra questioned correctness of the said
judgment. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that there
was no proper application of mind and that erroneous conclusions
have been arrived at by the trial court. Accordingly the conviction
was made and sentence imposed as afore-noted.
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the accused
submitted that the Trial Court had analysed the factual position and
the evidence on record in detail. Without being conscious of the
fact that the appeal was against the judgment of acquittal, the High
Court placed reliance on unimportant aspects and reversed the
finding of acquittal. It was pointed out that the alleged extra
judicial confessions were not admissible in law and the conduct of
accused or recoveries of articles or finding of blood on the nail
clippings of the accused on which the High Court has placed strong
reliance are really of no circumstance.
In response, learned counsel for the State submitted that the
High Court has elaborately detailed as to why it felt the
conclusions of the Trial Court to be erroneous. No infirmity in the
conclusions has been pointed out.
Before analysing factual aspects it may be stated that for a
crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen
to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by
direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons
who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by
circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or factum probandum
may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from
factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it
differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in
issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so
closely associated with the fact in issue which taken together they
form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the
principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.
It has been consistently laid down by this Court that 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. (See Hukam Singh v. State
of Rajasthan (AIR 1977 SC 1063), Eradu v. State of Hyderabad (AIR
1956 SC 316), Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446),
State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi (AIR 1985 SC 1224), Balwinder Singh v.
State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350) and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v.
State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circumstances from which an
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
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. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621) it
was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn
from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must
be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home
the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.
We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C.
Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996 (10) SCC 193), wherein it has
been observed thus :
"21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence,
the settled law is that the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be
fully proved and such circumstances must be
conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the
circumstances should be complete and there
should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.
Further, the proved circumstances must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence."
In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. (AIR 1990 SC 79) it was
laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such
evidence must satisfy the following tests:
1) the circumstances from which an 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 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."
In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (1992 Crl. LJ 1104)
it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating
circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably
capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be
accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon
must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative
effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with
the hypothesis of guilt.
Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book ‘Wills’ Circumstantial
Evidence’ (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be
observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts
alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved
and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2)
the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence
of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases,
whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must
be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to
justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of
explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
guilt; and (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the
accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted.
There is no doubt that 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.
In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. (AIR 1952 SC
343) it was observed thus:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the
evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be in the first instance
be fully established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again,
the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such as
to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed
to be proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and
it must be such as to show that within all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused."
A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622).
Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been
held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is
complete and the infirmity of lacuna in the prosecution cannot be
cured by a false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the
words of this Court, before conviction could be based on
circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are :
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The circumstances concerned must or
should and not may be established;
(2) the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused, that is to say, they should not
be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
(5) 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.
It was rightly contended by learned counsel for the State that
the Trial Court had proceeded in the matter rather casually and
there was no proper application of mind or even discussions
regarding all the relevant evidence on record. Since the Trial Court
had failed to properly analyse the evidence, the High Court was duty
bound to examine the matter in greater detail and to record its
conclusions. It is true that when on the evidence brought on record
two views are possible and the Court has taken a view which is
possible interference by the Appellate Court would not be proper.
But where the consideration reflects total non-application of mind,
interference is not only desirable but proper. We find that extra
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
judicial confession which was claimed to be before PWs 5 and 6, was
unjustifiably discarded by the Trial Court. The evidence of PW-6 was
discarded on the ground that he was not very close to the accused
and not a person on whom the accused could repose confidence. It is
brought on record that the accused and PW-6 were in fact at earlier
point of time classmates and schoolmates. They also used to live
close to each other. Obviously, it is not impossible that the
accused could repose confidence on him. The extra judicial
confession before PW-6 was clear, cogent and appears to have been
made in the normal course without any pressure. The conduct of the
accused after the incident and discovery of blood stained articles
and the mangalsutra have been established by tendering cogent
evidence. The presence of blood in the nail clippings of the accused
was also a vital circumstance. As noted by this Court in Dayanidhi
Bisoi v. State of Orissa (2003 (9) SCC 310), the presence of blood
in the nail clipping may not be sufficient by itself to fasten guilt
on the accused; but when it is considered with other evidence and
found acceptable can provide additional weightage to the prosecution
case. The Trial Court did not seem to consider objectively the
evidence in the right perspective and had merely on surmises and
conjectures, without proper application of mind directed acquittal.
The High Court analysed the evidence in greater detail and
exhaustively having regard to the perfunctory manner of
consideration undertaken by the trial Court. We find no infirmity in
the reasoning indicated by the High Court to discard the view of the
trial Court. The disclosure made in the post mortem examination as
to the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased- head,
knee joints etc., would belie the claim of drowning or death by
suicide. The cause of death as per medical opinion was stated to be
"shock due to big sub-dural hematoma of fracture of base of the
skull". Any affirmance of the judgment of the trial Court in this
case, by the first appellate Court would have resulted in grave
miscarriage of justice. The judgment of the High Court though one
of reversal was well merited supported by sound reasons and based on
overwhelming evidence and therefore does not warrant interference.
Appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused are
cancelled and he shall surrender to custody to serve remainder of
sentence.