JAHARLAL DAS versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 12-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAHARLAL DAS 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA 
APRIL 12, 1991 
B 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
c 
D 
E 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 376--Rape and 
murder-Criminal trial-Death penalty-Circumstantial evidence-
Sufficiency of evidence for conviction-Gravity of offence cannot over-
weigh legal proof-Caution against basing conviction on suspicion-
Court should ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take the 
place of legal proof-Necessary conditions for circumstantial evidence 
as a basis for conviction explained-Inquest Report-Purpose of 
The appellant was tried for rape and murder of a girl aged five 
years. The entire evidence against him was circumstantial: (a) the 
accused and the deceased were last seen toghether; (b) false explanation 
given by the accused regarding the whereabouts of the deceased; (c) 
alleged recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the instance of the 
accused and (d) presence of abrasions on the genital of the accused as 
well as blood stains on his wearing apparells and nail clippings. Relying 
ou the circumstantial evidence the Trial Court convicted him under 
Sections 302 and 376 and sentenced him to death for the offence of 
murder and seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence of 
rape. The High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence 
awarded by the Trial Court. In appeal to this court it was contended on 
behalf of the appellant that the circumstantial evidence is wholly insuf-
F 
ficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain the con-
viction must satisfy three conditions; ( 1) the circumstances from which 
G 
an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly 
established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency 
nerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circums-
tances, takeu cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there 
is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the 
crime was committed by the accused and none else, and it should also be 
H 
incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the gnilt 
of the accused. [303E-F] 
298 
)..- . 
~ 
•. -< 
JAHARLAL v. STATE OF ORISSA 
299 
Hanumant and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952] SCR 
1090; Reg v. Hodge, [1838] 2 Lew. 227; Dharam Das Wadhwimiv. State 
of Uttar Pradesh, (1974[ 3 S.C.R. 607 and Jagta v. State of Haryana, 
[ 1975] 1 SCR 165, referred to. 
2. In cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence there 
is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of 
legal proof and such suspicion however so strong cannot be allowed to 
take the place of proof. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that 
conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof for 
sometimes unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between 
moral certainty and the legal proof. At times it can be a case of 'may be 
true'. But there is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 
'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. 
The Court must satisfy itself that the various circumstances in the chain 
of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain 
must be such as to rule out a reasonable likellbood of the innocence of 
the accused. [304F-G, 309E-F] 
3. In the instant case the circumstance that tbe deceased was last 
seen in the company of the accused is not established beyond reasonable 
doubt. This circumstance was not mentioned in the Inquest Report 
~repared by the Investigating Officer. Further the statement of the 
parents of the deceased that the accused took the deceased girl by itself Is 
A 
B 
c 
D 
not enough to conclude that the deceased was last seen in the company 
E 
of accused because even according to them on being enquired the 
accused told them that he had sent the girl back in a truck. [308C, 305F] 
3.1 The prosecution has not conclusively proved the crucial 
circumstance of the recovery of the dead body of the deceased girl at the 
instance of the accused. No Pancbnama was prepared for such a disco· 
F 
very under Section 27 of the Evidence Act aDcl there Is no mention in 
the Inquest Re)!llrt as to how the body was discovered. On the other 
hand there is a:;.y amount of doubt and suspicion about the accused 
having shown the place of occurrence. Once it is held that the crucial 

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