LexGAMPARAI HRUDAYARAJU versus STATE OF AP. THR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 6 S.C.R. 396 A GAMPARAI HRUDAYARAJU t v. STATE OF AP. THR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 2009) B APRIL 16, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] i. Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 203 - Prosecution - c Conviction by courts below, on the basis o circumstantial evidence - On appeal, held: Conviction not maintainable - Prosecution failed to establish the accusations - No circumstance referred to, which could fasten the guilt of the accused. D Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Reliance on - Held: Conviction can be based on such evidence - Condition -./ .... precedent for reliance before conviction, discussed. Appellant was prosecuted for having killed a woman E with whom he was having illicit relations. Trial court convicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence u/ss. 302 and 203 IPC. Conviction was confirmed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. ,,,_ F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The prosecution has failed to establish the accusations, and the conviction cannot be maintained. High Court has not referred to any circumstance which G could fasten guilt on the accused. The evidence of PWs 5 and 6 cannot constitute sufficient evidence against the ~ - accused to fasten the alleged offences. [Paras 9 and 19] [401-E, G-H; 40'2-A; 405-F-G] I 2.1. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial H 396 t GAMPARAI HRUDAYARAJU v. STATE OF AP. THR. 397 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when A all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. [Para 10] [402-A, BJ 2.2. The circumstances from which an inference as B 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 10] [402-C-D] 2.3. Before conviction could be based on C circumstantial evidence, the conditions which must be fully established, are: (1) the circ'umstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established; (2) the facts so D established should be consistent only 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 nature and tendency; (4) they E should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5)there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human F probability the act must have been done by the accused. [Para 17] [405-A-E] / Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063; Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; G 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; Bhagat Ram H 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and t Ors. v. State of A.P. 1996 (10) SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC- 79; State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Crl.LJ 1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya B Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8) SCC 180 and State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003 (11) sec 261, relied on. " ' ' c "Wills Circumstantial Evidence" by Sir Alfred Wills (Chapter VI), referred to. Case Law Reference: AIR 1977 SC 1063 Relied on. Para 10 D AIR 1956 SC 316 Relied on. Para 10 AIR 1983 SC 446 Relied on. Para 10 '"'! ~ AIR 1985 SC 1224 Relied on. Para 10 E AIR 1987 SC 350 Relied on. Para 10 AIR 1989 SC 1890 Relied on. Para 10 AIR 1954 SC 621 Relied on. Para 10 1996 (10) sec 193 Relied on. Para 11 " - F AIR 1990 SC 79 Relied on. Para 12 1992 Crl. LJ 1104 Relied on. Para 13 AIR 1952 SC 343 Relied on. Para 16 G AIR 1984 SC 1622 Relied on. Para 17 ;. 2003 (8) sec 180 Relied on. Para 18 2003 (11) sec 26
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.