LexARVINDKUMAR ANUPALAL PODDAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 12 S.C.R. 299 ARVINDKUMAR ANUPALAL PODDAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 201 O) JULY 26, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Penal Code: ss. 302134 and 201134 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Appellant stated to have killed his first wife - Trial court convicting him and his brother - High Court upholding the conviction of appellant but acquitting his brother - Held: A B c The circumstances are consistent leading to the hypothesis 0 of guilt of the appellant alone and none else and excluding every other hypothesis - The motive along with the chain of circumstances stood proved against the appellant go to show that the appellant alone was responsible for the killing of the deceased. Evidence: Circumstantial evidence - Conviction - Conditions to be fulfilled in a case of circumstantial evidence - Reiterated. E The appellant along with his brother (A-2) was F prosecuted for causing the death of his first wife. The case of the prosecution was that in the morning of 6.12.2001, the appellant and his brother were seen by PW- 1 and PW-6 going along with the deceased; that in the evening the two accused returned alone and their clothes G were found to have been blood stained. On the following day, i.e. 7.12.2001, the appellant was stated to have proclaimed that the deceased had run away from home. In the morning of 8.12.2001, it was noticed that the 299 H 300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 12 S.C.R. A appellant along with his family was in the process of leaving the village. On information, the police reached the village. The appellant informed the 1.0. that he had killed his wife. At his instance, a blood stained knife was recovered and the dead body was fished out which was B found to have been partly eaten out by aquatic animals. At the instance of A-2 the blood stained clothes were seized. The trial court convicted both the accused u/ss 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The High Court acquitted A-2, but C maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 This Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda* has held that in a case of D circumstantial evidence, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; the E circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established; it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict him. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only F 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 G nature and tendency; H (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as ARVINDKUMARANUPALAL PODDAR v. STATE OF 301 MAHARASHTRA not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion A consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." [para 11] [311-A-H; 312-A-B] *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1985 8 (1) SCR 88 =1984 (4) SCC 116; and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 1974 (1) SCR 489 = 1973 (2) sec 793 - relied on 1.2 In the case on hand, the conviction of the appellant I based on circumstantial evidence. The C circumstances stated by the trial court and concretized by the High Court, in the instant case were: the deceased and the accused were last seen together on 06.12.2001 as per the version of PWs 1 and 6; the body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant D as stated by PW-7; the recovery by the 1.0. of the weapon, namely, the knife, from the place of occurrence, the knife containing blood stains; the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased; as per the version of PW-5, the doctor who .conducted the post mortem, the death was homicidal and the injurie~ could have been caused with the weapon marked in the case; frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused as stated by PWs 1 and 2; the theory of the deceased having run away from the matrimonial home not properly explained by the appellant apart from the f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.