B. VENKAT SWAMY versus VIJAYA NEHRU AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 687 · Decided: 25-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 687 
~'.../ 
B. VENKAT SWAMY 
A 
V. 
VIJAYA NEHRU AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.209 of 2001) 
AUGUST 25, 2008 
B 
) 
[DR. ARIJ.IT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB 
ALAM, JJ.) 
Criminal Appeal: 
Penal Code, 1860; ss. 302, 304 and 498: 
c 
Dowry demand - Husband allegedly committed murder 
of wife - Has conviction based on circumstantial evidence -
Correctness of - Held: Inference of guilt can be justified only 
when incriminating facts and circumstances found to be D 
incompatible with innocence of accused - Conviction based 
solely on circumstantial evidence provided it shauld be tested 
• 
by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence -
High Court has rightly held that prosecution could not establish 
the accusations - Moreover, examination in terms of s.313 
E 
Cr.PC. have been done as an empty formality - Though the 
High Court has not deal with the question of applicability of 
s.498 /PC and s.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act but the evidence 
adduced does not establish accusations - Dowry Prohibition 
Act, 1961 - 4 - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - 313 . 
F 
...._~ 
Respondent-Accused A1 a~d his mother A2 allegedly 
· harassing the deceased, wife of A1 for demand of more 
and more dowry. The birthday of the deceased was 
celebrated on April 27, 1996 at the residence of parents of G 
the deceased at Kurnool. After taking dinner, some of the 
.,) 
family members went to a late night movie show at about· 
12.30 a.m. in the night. After returning from the picture, A-
1 and the deceased were sleeping in a bedroom upstairs 
687 
H 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 
A separately. On 28.1.1996 at about 7.00 a.m. PW.3, uncle of 
the deceased received a call from the father of A-1 from 
his residence at Warnaparthy that A-1 had come to 
Wanaparthy and he was weeping and not disclosing 
anything. Then PW.1 to 3 went upstairs to the bedroom of 
8 A-1 and the deceased. The door was bolted from inside. 
When they opened the door, they found that the deceased 
was hanging by one end of the saree tied to the neck and 
the other end of the saree was tied to the ceiling fan. 
Their neighbour, a doctor examined the deceased and 
declared her dead. PW1 father of the deceased lodged an 
C FIR on April 28, 1996 and police registered a case against 
accused husband and his mother under Section 498-A 
and 306, IPC. After completion of the investigation charge 
sheet was filed by the police against accused persons 
under ss.302 and 498A IPC and s.4 of the Dowry 
D Prohibition Act. Trial court found accused-husband guilty 
of committing the offences punishable under ss.498A, 
302 IPC and s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but acquitted 
the mother of A1 as charges against her were not 
established. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the 
E accused of all the charges. Hence, the present appeal. 
Appellant-father of the deceased contended that the 
evidence on record clearly shows a complete chain of 
circumstances and, therefore, the High Court should not 
have directed acquittal of accused, Al; in any event, the 
F High Court has not dealt as to how Section 498A IPC and 
Section 4 of the DP Act have no application in the facts 
and circumstances of the case. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1 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 
H the guilt of any other person. [Para 9] [696 C-D] 
" 
B. VENKAT SWAMY v. VIJAYA NEHRU & ANR. 
689 
""I 
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977) SC 1063; A 
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; 
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State 
of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; Ba/winder 
Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar 
Chatterjee v. State of M.P AIR 1989 SC 1890 - relied on. 
13 
1.2 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. [Para 9] [696 E,F] 
c 
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 - relied 
on. 
1.3 There is no doubt that conviction can be based 
solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested 0 
by t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.