DHARAM DEO YADAV versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 650 · Decided: 11-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 650 
DHARAM DEO YADAV 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 2006) 
APRIL 11, 2014 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 201, 364 and 394 -
Prosecution under - Circumstantial evidence - Deceased last 
C seen in the company of accused - Recovery of skeleton of 
the deceased u/s. 27 of Evidence Act .:... DNA test proved. her 
identity - Conviction and death sentence by courts below -
Held: Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond 
reasonable doubt - However, death sentence reduced to life 
o imprisonment without any remission as there is no evidence 
as to manner of commission of offence. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313 - Evidentiary 
value - False answers by accused may offer an additional 
E link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain in 
the case of circumstantial evidence. · ' 
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory 
- Applicability of - Discussed. 
F 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The trial Court as well as the High Court 
have correctly appreciated the oral and documentary 
evidence and correctly recorded the conviction. Even 
when there is no eye-witness to support the criminal 
G charge, but prosecution has been able to establish the 
chain of circumstances which is complete leading to 
inference of guilt of accused and circumstances taken· 
collectively are incapable of explanation on any 
H 
650 
• 
• 
DHARAM DEO YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. 
-
651 
reasonable hypothesis save of guilt sought to·be proved, 
A 
accused may be convicted on the basis of such 
circumstantial evidence. [Paras 35 and 14) [675-F-G; 661-
C-D] 
1.2 A conviction cannot be based on the only 
8 
circumstance of last seen together. The conduct of the 
accused and the fact of last seen together plus other 
circumstances have to be looked into. Normally, last seen 
theory comes into play when the time gap, between the 
point of time when the accused and the deceased were 
seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is C 
so small that possibility of any person other than the 
accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes 
impossible. In the present case, though PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 
and 10 have all deposed that the accused was last seen 
with the deceased,. but to record a conviction, that itself D 
would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to 
complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the 
guilt of the accused. [Para 18) [662-G-H; 663-A, DJ 
1.3 The expression "custody" which api;ears in 
Section 27 of Evidence Act did not mean formal custody, 
which includes any kind of surveillance, restriction or 
restraint by the police. Even if the accused was not 
formally arrested at the time when the accused gave the 
information, the accused was, for all practical purposes, 
in the custody of the police. Assuming that the recovery 
of skeleton was not in terms of Section 27 on the premise 
that the accused was not in the custody of the police by 
E 
F 
the time he made the statement, the statement so made by 
him would be admissible as "conduct" under Section 8 of G 
the Evidence Act. In the instant case, there is absolutely 
no explanation by the accused as to how the skeleton of 
the deceased was concealed in his house, especially 
when the statement made by him to PW14 is admissible 
in evidence. No procedural error is seen committed in 
H 
G 
652 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 
A recovering the skeleton, packing it and forwarding the 
same.[Paras 20 and 27] [665·0-F; 664-G, H] 
' 
State of Andhra Pradesh vs: Gangula Satya Murthy 
(1997) 1 sec 272: 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 808; A.N. 
B Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 714; 
Sandeep VS. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 6 sec 107:2012 
(5) SCR 952 - relied on. 
1.4 In the. present case, the DNA sample got from the 
skeleton matched with the blood sample of the father of 
C the deceased and all the sampling and testing have been 
done by experts whose scientific knowledge and 
experience have not been doubted in these proceedings. 
Prosecution has, therefore, succeeded in showing that 
the skeleton recovered from the house of the accused 
D was that of the deceased and it was none other than the 
accused, who had strangulated h~r to death and buried 
the dead body in his house. [Para 34] [675-D, E] 
Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharma.ceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 
E 579 (1993) - referred to. 
1.5 The accused, in his examination under Section 
313

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