GEEJAGANDA SOMAIAH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 899 · Decided: 12-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

GEEJAGANDA SOMAIAH 
A 
V. 
STATEOFKARNATAKA 
MARCH 12, 2007 
[DR. ARIJITPASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code,1860; 
Section 302-Conviction under-Voluntary disclosure made by the 
accused-Artie/es belonging to the deceased recovered from his possession- C 
Held, inference can safely be drawn that the accused committed murder of 
the deceased-Sections 27 and 114 of the Evidence Act, I 872. 
The appellant and the deceased are from the same family but the claim 
of equitable partition and share in family land by the deceased was opposed D 
by the accused. Two days before of the incident, on the request of the deceased, 
the Revenue Inspector has visited the the family lands for having equitable 
partition ofland. On the fateful day, the deceased left to meet the Revenue 
Inspector but didn't return and on the next day his dead body was found by 
his wife lying by the side of the road with injuries on his person. The 
informant, wife of the deceased, suspected the appellant to be the real culprit. E 
The appellant surrendered and on the basis of voluntarily statement made by 
him, gold chain, ring belonging to the deceased and the the weapon alleged to 
have been used in the crime were recovered from the house of the accused. 
The trial Court recorded conviction u/s 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The 
High Court also found the circumstances were conclusive to prove the guilt 
of the accused and, therefore, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, F 
the appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that factual scenario as projected by 
the prosecution does not establish the guilt of the accused and the 
circumstances highlighted by the prosecution to establish its case does not 
present a complete chain of circumstances to warrant any interference of 
guilty. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
899 
G 
H 
900 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD 1.1. 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, viz. (i)the circumstances 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;(ii) the 
B 
facts so 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;(iii) the circumstances should be 
of a conclusive nature and tendency;(iv) they should exclude every possible 
hypothesis except the one to be proved; and(v) there must be a chain of evidence 
!-. 
so compete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent 
c with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability 
the act must have been done by the accused. [Para 13) [905-F; 906-D-E-FJ 
... 
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1977) SC 1063; 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) 
D SC 1224; Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 350 and Ashok 
Kumar Chatterjee v. State of MP., AIR (1989) SC 1890, referred to 
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR (1954) SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy 
and Ors. v. State of A.P., [1996) 10 SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of 
E 
A.P. and Ors., AIR (1990) SC 79; State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 
AIR (1992) Crl. L.J.1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State 
of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1952) SC 343 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. 
State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) SC 1622, relied upon 
Will's Circumstantial Evidence (Chapter VI) by Sir Alfred Wills, referred 
F to. 
2.1. On the basis of the voluntary disclosure made by the accused, the 
article belonging to. the deceased were recovered from his possession, an 
inference, therefore, can safely be drawn that that not only the accused was 
in possession of those articles belonging to the deceased but also committed 
G murder of the deceased. (Para 14) (907-D) 
J.P.Anandv. D.G.Bajfna, AIR (2002) SC 141 and Ezhil and Ors. v. State 
-· 
of Tamil Nadu, AIR (2002) SC 2017, relied upon. 
Guiab Chandv. State of MP., AIR (1995) SC 1598, referred to. 
.; .
H 
~ 
 I 
GEEJAGANDA SOMAIAH v. ST ATE OF KARNA T AKA [PASAYA T . .1.] 901 
~-
3.1. A fact deposed to as discovered in consequence of information A 
received from a pe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.