AFTAB AHMAD ANSARI versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 1027 · Decided: 12-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 1 S.C.R. 1027 
AFTAB AHMAD ANSARI 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2005) 
JANUARY 12, 2010 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 376 and 201 - Rape and 
murder of minor girl - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation 
A 
B 
of - Appellant seen fleeing away from near the place where 
C 
dead body of deceased was found - Blood stained frock and 
underwear of deceased recovered from house of appellant's 
sister pursuant to voluntary disclosure statement made by 
appellant while in police custody - Underwear of appellant 
seized during course of investigation found stained with blood 
D 
and semen - Appellant made extra judicial confession before 
PW5 - ConviCtion of appellant by Courts below - Propriety 
of - Held: Proper - The chain of circumstantial evidence was 
complete and showed that, within all human probability, rape 
and murder of deceased was committed by appellant and 
E 
none else and he had also caused disappearance of 
evidence of those offences -
When the incriminating 
circumstances proved were put to appellant while recording 
his statement under s.313, CrPC, he merely denied the same 
- Such denial on part of appellant and failure to explain the 
F 
circumstances proved was an additional link in the chain of 
circumstances to bring home the charge against appellant -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313 - Evidence Act, 
1872 - ss. 26 and 27. 
Appellant alongwith another person was prosecuted 
G 
for commission of rape and murder of the five year old 
daughter of PW1 and for causing disappearance of 
evidence of those offences. The prosecution case rested 
on circumstantial evidence. The trial court held that the 
1027 
H 
1028 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 
A four circumstances viz., 1) that both the accused were 
seen by PW-3 fleeing away from near the place where the 
dead body of the deceased was found; 2) that blood 
stained frock and underwear of deceased were 
recovered from the house of appellant's sister pursuant 
B to disclosure statement made by appellant; 3) that 
underwears of both the accused, seized during course 
of investigation, were stained with human blood and 
semen; and 4) that appellant made extra-judicial 
confession before PWS; were fully established, and 
c accordingly convicted both the accused under ss.302, 
376 and 201 of IPC and sentenced them to death. The 
High Court acquitted the other accused, but confirmed 
the conviction of appellant under ss.302, 376 and 201 IPC, 
though it modified the sentence to life imprisonment. 
0 Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The law relating to circumstantial 
evidence is well settled. In dealing with circumstantial 
E evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or 
suspicion lingering on mind may take place of proof. 
Suspicion howsoever strong cannot be allowed to take 
place of proof and, therefore, the Court has to judge 
watchfully and ensure that the conjectures and 
F 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 picturization of actual incident but the 
circumstances cannot fail. Therefore, many a times, it is 
G aptly said that "men may tell lies, but circumstances do 
not". 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 must be proved individually and 
only thereafter the Court should consider the total 
H 
AFTAB AHMAD ANSARI v. STATE OF 
1029 
UTTARANCHAL 
cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of A 
which reinforces the conclusion of the guilt. If the 
combined effect of all the 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/themselves, is/are not B 
decisive. [Para 4] [1043-E-H; 1044-A-B] 
1.2. The circumstances proved should be such as to 
exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be 
proved. But this does not mean that before the C 
prosecution case succeeds in a case of circumstantial 
evidence alone, it must exclude each and every 
hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever 
extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a 
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any 
reasonable ground f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.