Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
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
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
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 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
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
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
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 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
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.