AKHILESH HAJAM versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 864 · Decided: 28-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AKHILESH HAJAM 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
APRIL 28, 1995 
B 
(G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860/Evidence Act, 1872 : 
Section 302-Circumstantial evidence-Charge of murdering mother, 
C sister, wife and daughter-Accused making disclosure Statement-Consequent 
recovery of weapon-Circumstantial evidence should be so complete as not 
to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence 
of the "accusetf-Accused convicted by lower courts on circumstantial 
evidence-Benefit of doubt given to the accused and conviction set aside. 
D 
The appellant was charged with the murder of his mother, sister, 
wife and daughter. According to the prosecution, the appellant, after 
committing the murders, fled away towards a nearby village and was 
caught there and brought home. The medical examination or the appellant 
proved that there was no symptom of intoxication. In the trial, prosecution 
E relied on the disclosure statement made by the appellant, with regard to 
the concealment of an iron angle said to have been used as a weapon in 
the commission or the four murders. Though the prosecution examined 12 
witnesses, none or them supported the prosecution case. However, relying 
on the circumstantial evidence recorded, the trial Court recorded the 
finding or guilt against the appellant and convicted him under Section 302 
F IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment. High Court confirmed 
the conviction and sentence. 
In this appeal before this Court, it was contended that the theory or 
intoxication was introduced by the Prosecution which was disaproved by 
the medical examination; that the appellant was very much present in the 
G village but the prosecution had vainly tried to show that he bas absconded 
while in fact be was arrested in the village itself; that the disclosure 
statement and the consequent seizure or blood stained iron angle was not 
worthy of reliance and even if it was accepted, the conviction or the 
appellant could not be based on it; and that there was no eye witness, and 
H in the absence or any evidence or motive the circumstantial evidence did 
864 
A. HAIAM v. STATE OF BIHAR 
865 
not complete the chain so as to lead to the only conclusion that the A 
appellant and none else was the murderer of his mother, wife, sister and 
_ 
_, 'i 
daughter. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The standard of proof required to convict a person on B 
circumstantial evidence is now well settled by a series of pronouncements 
of this Court. According to the standard enunciated by this Court the 
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in support of the case must 
j 
not only be fully established but the chain of evidence furnished by those 
circumstances must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground c 
for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The cir-
cumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt of an accused is to be 
inferred, should be of conclusive nature and consistent only with the 
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the same should not be capable 
of being explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused D 
and when au· the circumstances cumulatively taken together lead to the 
only irresistable conclnsion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of 
the crime. (869-F to H, 870-A) 
2. A perusal of the prosecution evidence goes to show that in all 
E 
probability the four murders took place before 2 P.M. because the dead 
bodies of all the four victims were seen by the hostile witness PW 4 at about 
2.00 P.M. According to the medical evidence the death bad taken place 
more than 24 hours from the time when the post-mortem was performed. 
It is true that there is evidence of PW 2, PW4 and PWS to the effect that 
the victims were alive at 7.30 A.M. but there is no definite evidence as to F 
till what time they were seen alive by the prosecution witnesses. But one 
thing is definitely clear that the murders bad taken place sometime before 
2.00 P.M. It Is also not clear from the prosecution evidence that the 
appellant remained In the house along with the victims right from 7.30 
A.M. till 2.00 P.M. during which the murders were committed. On the G 
contrary PW 4 clearly stated that when be visited the place of occurrence 
the appellant was not seen there. Admittedly the appellant had no motive 
to commit the ghastly crime of bis own mother, sister, wife and daughter 
-~ 
and simply bec

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