KANHAI MISHRA @ KANHAIYA MISAR versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 160 · Decided: 27-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
KANHAI MISHRA @ KANHAIYA MISAR 
v. 
STATEOFBIHAR 
FEBRUARY27, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS, RP. SETHI AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, Sections 302 and 376-Appellant allegedly raped and 
murdered deceased after taking her to an orchard-F ard-beyan was recorded 
after 5 hours-No direct ev.idence available-High Court upheld death sen-
tence passed by Trial Court:-On appeal Held, circumstantial evidence should 
be wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and consistent with 
his guilt to attract conviction-Court should endeavour to find out whether the 
accused committed the crime and circumstances form a complete chain-
Inconsistencies, contradictions and suppression present in statements of 1.0., 
informant and other witnesses-Material lvitnesses who could have given 
direct evidence were not examined-Undue delay in lodging FI.R. gave 
enough time for deliberation:-Only one circumstance that deceased and 
appellant left together was proved, which cannot be said to be inconsistent 
with his innocence-However, such a ghastly crime har to go unpunished 
because of /aches on the part of prosecution in proving the circumstantial 
evidence-Conviction converted into acquittal. 
The appellant allegedly had enticed the deceased and murder her 
after committing rape. According to the prosecution case, he took the 
deceased to an orchard and after about an hour some co-villagers in· 
formed P.W. 3, her father, that she was lying dead over there. The police 
F 
was informed and fard-beyan was recorded after five hours. 10 witnesses 
were examined to prove the circumstances against the appellant as there 
was no direct evidence. Trial Court and the High Court enumerated six 
circumstances against the appellant (1) appellant had come to the house 
of the deceased and taken her along with him (2) they both left together 
G 
(3) they were seen going towards the orchard (4) they were seen plucking 
flowers (5) appellant was seen fleeing away from the place of occurrence 
(6) appellant was absconding for about a month. Both the courts below 
convicted the appellant under Section 302 and 376 IPC and sentenced 
him to death. Hence this appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
160 
+ 
KANHAI MISHRA v. STATB 
161 
HELD : 1. It is a well established rule in criminal jurisprudence that 
circumstantial evidence can be reasonably made the basis of an accused 
person's conviction if it is of such a character that the same is wholly 
inconsistent with innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his 
guilt. The incriminating circumstances for being used against the accused 
must be such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and reasonably exclude 
every possibility of innocence of the accused. In a case of circumstantial 
evidence the whole endeavour and effort of the court should be to find out 
whether the crime was committed by the accused and the circumstances 
proved from themselves into a complete chain unerringly pointing to the 
guilt of the accused. If the circumstances proved against the accused in a 
case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused or with his guilt, 
he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. [163-G-H; 164-A] 
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1963) SC 200; Ronny 
Alias Rona/ James Alwaris & Ors. v. Stale of Maharashtra, [1998] 3 SCC 625 
and Joseph S/o. Wooveli Paulo v. Stale of Kera/a, [2000] 5 SCC 197, relied 
on. 
2. The circumstance that after the alleged occurrence the appellant 
absconded from his house, apart from not being proved by credible materi-
als cannot be used against him as from his statement recorded under Section 
313 Cr.P.C., it would be amply clear that this circumstance was never put to 
him and consequently the same cannot be used against him. [ 168-G) 
Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration), [1988] 3 SCC 609, 
relied on. 
3. Only one circumstance has been proved against the appellant and 
that cannot be said to be inconsistent with his innocence. However, it is sad 
that such a ghastly crime of first committing rape upon a teenager and 
thereafter brutally murdering her is going unpunished because of !aches 
on the part of the prosecution. The conviction is converted into acquittal, 
as the solitary circumstance proved against him can not form the basis of 
conviction. [169-D] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 887 
of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.5.2000 of the fatna High Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F

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