HANUMANT versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 1091 · Decided: 23-09-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
' 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
HANUMANT 
v 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. 
RAOJIBHAI 
ti, 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. 
1091 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS and BHAGWATI JJ.] 
Criminal trial-Circumstantial evidence-Sufficiency of evid-
ence for conviction-Caution against basing conviction on guess or 
suspicion-Admission-Must be taken as a whole. 
In dealing with circumstantial evidenee there is always the 
danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal 
proof. It is therefore right to remember that in cases where the 
evidence is of a circumstantal 
nature, 
the 
circumstances 
from 
which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first 
instance be fully established and all 
the 
facts 
so 
established 
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the 
accused. 
Again, the circumstances should 
be 
of 
a 
conclusive 
nature and tendency, and they should be such as to exclude 
every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. 
In 
other 
words; there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not 
to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent 
with 
the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that 
within all human probability the act must have been 
done 
by 
the accused. 
Reg. v. Hodge [(1838) 2 Lew. 227] referred to. 
An admission 
made 
by a person whether amounting to a 
confession or not cannot be split up and part of it used against 
him. It must be used either as a whole or not at all. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDicTION 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 56 of 1951. 
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and 
Order dated the 9th March, 1950, of the High Court of 
Judicature at Nagpur 
(C. R. Hemeon J.) in Criminal 
Revisions 
Nos. 152 
and 153 of 
1949 arising out of 
Judgment and Order dated the 24th March, 1949, of 
the Court of the Sessions: Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal 
Appeals Nos. 26 and 27 of 1949 and Judgment and 
Order dated the 15th January, 1949, of the Court of 
the Special Magistrate, Nagpur, in Criminal Case No. 1 
of 1948. 
15-1 O S. C. India 71 
1952 
Sepl. ZJ, 
1952 
Hanumant 
'v:"· 
The State of 
Madhya 
Pradesh, 
1092 
Sl]PRE!vfE COURT REPORTS 
[19?2] 
N. C. Chatterjee (B. Bannerjee and A. K. Datt, with 
him) for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 
1951. 
Bakshi Tek Chand (K. V. Tambay, with him) for the 
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1951. 
T. L. Shiv de, 
Advocate-General of Madhya Pradesh 
(T. P. Naik; with him) for the respondent. 
1952. Sept. 23. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MAHAJAN 
J.-This 
1s 
a consolidated 
appeal by 
special kave from the two orders of the High Court of 
Judicature at Nagpur passed on the 9th March, 1950, 
'in Criminal Revisions Nos. 152 and 153 of 1949. 
, On a complaint filed by the 
Assistant Inspector-
General 
of 
Police, 
Anti-Corruption 
Department, 
Nagpur, the appellant in 
Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 
1951 
. (H. 
G. 
Nargundkar, 
Excise 
Commissioner, 
Madhya 
Pradesh), 
and 
tne 
appellant in 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 57 of 1951 (R. S. Patel) were tried in the 
court 
of _Shri 
B. K. 
Chaudhri, Special 
Magistrate, 
Nagpur, for the 
offence of 
conspiracy to secure the 
contract of Seoni Distillery from April, 1947, to March 
1951 by 
forging the tender, 
Exhibit P-3A, and for 
commission of 
the offences of 
forgery of the tender 
(Exhibit P-3A) 
and of another document, Exhibit 
P-24. 
The 
learned-Special 
Magistrate 
convicted both 
the appellants on all the three charges. He sentenced 
R. S. 
Patel to 
rigorous 
imprisonment for one year 
under each charge and to pay fines of Rs. 2,000, Rs. 
2,000, and Rs. 1,000, under the first, second and third 
charges respectively. 
The 
appellant 
Nargundkar 
was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months 
under each charge and to pay fines of Rs. 2,000, Rs. 
2,000 and Rs. 1,000, under the first, second and third 
charges respectively. 
Each of the appellants appealed 
against 
their respective 
convictions 
and sentences to 
_the Court of the Sessions Judge, Nagpur. 
The learned 
. Sessions 
Judge 
quashed 
the 
conviction of both the 
appellants under the first charge of criminal conspiracy 
under section 
120-B, 
I. P. C., 
but 
maintained ~he 
l 
.' 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1093 
conv1ct1ons and sentences under section 465, I.P.C., on 
the charges of forging Exhibits P-3 (A) and P-24. 
Both 
the appellants went up in revision against this deci-
sion to the H'.1gh Court but without any succe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.