LexDEVIDAS RAMSUNDER SHUKLA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 968
A
DEVIDAS RAMSUNDi=R SHUKLA
II.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2001)
B
AUGUST 6, 2008
'
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
-1
SHARMA, JJ]
Evidence:
c
Circumstantial evidence - HELD: Conviction can be
based solely on circumstanlial evidence if all the incrimlnat-
iilg facts and circumstances are bound to be incompatible with
innocence of accused or guilt of any other,person - On facts,
the circumstance highlighted in the case unerringly point out
·o the accused' to be guilty of the offences - Penal Code, 1860-
ss. 302 and 202.
The appellant (A-2) along· with his son (A-1) and two
others was prosecuted for "commission of offences pun-
~
E ishable ulss 302 and -202 IPC. The prosecution case was
that during the pendency of a criminal case filed against A-
1 by his wife, A-2 settled another marriage of A-2 conceal-
ing the fact of the first marriage; The second wife (de:.
ceased) remained in the house of the accused till the date
F
of her death. On the· day of incident A-2 informed the police
that the deceased caught fire in his house and she was
being removed to the hospital. The Medical Officer of the
-4
Hospital declared the victim to have been brought dead
and recorded that she had sustained 99% burns. The trial
court convicted A-1 and A-2 of the offences charged. The
G appeal filed by A-2 only, was dismissed by the High Court.
In the instant appeal filed by A-2, it was contended
1
for. the appellant that most of the circumstances did not
establish the guilt of the accused.
,.
H
968
DEVIDAS RAMSUNDER SHUKLA v. STATE OF
969
MAHARASHTRA
'I
_,;
Dismissing the appeal the Court
A
HELD: 1.1 There is no doubt that conviction can be
based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be
tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial
evidence laid down by the this Court. [para 13] [977-D]
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of B
)
Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of
Rajasthan v. Rajaram 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Haryana v.
Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003 (11) SCC 261; and Kusuma c
Ankama Rao v State of A.P. (2008) 10 SCR 89 - relied on.
1.2 It has been consistently laid down by this Court
that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evi-
dence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all
the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to D
be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the
-;.
guilt of any other person. 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 closei}' connected with the principal fact
sought to be inferred from those circumstances. ·{Para 8) E
[975-C-E]
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan Al~ (1977) SC 1063;
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR. 1956 SC 316;
Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State . F
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; and Bhagat
Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 - referred to.
'Wills' Circumstantial Evidence (Chapter VI) by Sir G
Alfred Wills - referred to.
1.3 In the instant case, the circumstances highlighted
1'
by the trial Court cumulatively pointed out unerringly the
appellant to be guilty of the offence. Besides, presence
of b.lood on the door shows that deceased tried to go out H
970
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A
and this is a very vital circumstance; the finding of bro-
ken bangles on the spot show that there was a struggle;
smell of kerosene was found on the lungi which was worn
by A-1 and which was seized. Some parts of skin and flesh
were also found on the lungi giving smell of kerosene.
B Small pieces of flesh were also found on the doors panel
. as also on the wooden panel of cot. As rightly noted by
<(
the trial Court and the High Court, no match box was found
at the spot where body was found though some burnt
'.match sticks were found; and the match box was found
c in the kitchen. [para 17] [978-H; 979-A-C-D]
1.4 On consideration of the materials on record in the
background of evidence adduced, the inevitable conclu-
; ,
sion is that the appeal is without merit. (para 17] {979-E]
[)
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1977 SC 1063
referred to
[Para 8]
-AIR 1956 SC 31Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.