JAMNADAS versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 29-06-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PRAFULLA C. PANT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 5 S.C.R. 599 
JAMNADAS 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 156 of2015) 
JUNE29,2016 
[PRAFULLA C. PANT AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134, 201, 304-B and 498A -
Murder of young bride - Within six months of marriage - Body 
chopped off into two pieces and thrown in the Park - Blood stains 
found in the matrimonial house - Pws 1 to 5 had seen one of the 
accused (mother-in-law) throwing the dead body in the park -
Charge-sheet against husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and 
brother-in-law of the deceased - Defence plea that the deceased 
had gone to her relatives place and thereafter, she was missing -
Brother-in-law discharged - Husband, father-in-law and mother-
in-l<I'.v convicted by trial court - Conviction affirmed by High Court 
- Appeal in Supreme Court by mother-in-law withdrawn - Present 
appeal by the husband and father-in-law - Held: Present is a case 
of circumstantial evidence - The chain of circumstances proved on 
record against the appellants-accused are complete - The. defence 
version has also been proved to be false, which is an additional 
link in the chain of circumstances - It is proved that the appellants-
accu::ed had common intention with the co-accused (mother-in-law) 
in the commission of brutal murder of the deceased - Conviction 
con.firmed. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.106 - Burden of proof - -Where an 
offence like murder is committed in secracy, inside the house, though 
the initial burden is on the prosecution,. but such burden would be 
lighter - There is corresponding burden on the accused to explain 
as to how the death has occurred. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The present case is a case of circumstantial 
evidence. In a case of circumstantial evidence charge can be 
said to hav(l been established, when (i) The circumstances from 
599 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
• 
H 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
! . 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully established. 
The accused must be, and not merely may be guilty, before a 
' court can convict and the mental distance between "may be" and 
"must oe" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure 
conclusions; (ii) The facts so established should be consi~tent 
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, (iii) The 
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendtncy; 
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the 
one to "e proved; and (v) 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 
iu all human probability the act must have been done by the 
accused. [Para 18](614-F-H; 615-A-B] 
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 
(1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1985 (1) SCR 88 - relied on. 
:!. The rhain of circumstances proved on the record against 
the· app2llants arc (i) that the deceased was living in the house of 
lhc appellants, after her marriage; (ii) that her death was homicidal 
Ir. nature; (iii) that she was murdered in the house of the 
appellants where blood stains were found; (iv) that after murder, 
her body was cut into two pieces; (v) that the dead body was 
thrown in the park by hflf'mother-in-law who was seen doing so 
by PW 1 to PW 5; (vi) that anti-mortem and post-mortem in.juries 
read with statement of doctor e~tahlish that the crime could not 
have been committed by one person alone; (vii) that there were 
in 'llll five members in the family; (viii) that the appellants have 
failed to disclose as to how deceased has died which was espedally 
within their knowledge; (ix) that it is nobody's case that any 
outsider came in the house; (x) that there was no report lodged 
to police by the appellants regarding homicidal death of the 
deceased; (xi) and that false explanation was given by the 
appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which 
is an additional link on the record against them, in the chain of 
circumstances. The chain of circumstances against the appellants 
is complete. [Paras 30, 31)(619-G-H; 620-A-H; 621-A-C] 
4. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy, 
inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would 
undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount 
JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. 
of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of 
the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial 
evidence. T

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