LexKRISHNA GHOSH versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ '+ [2009] 5 S.C.R. 333 KRISHNA GHOSH A v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2009) ) MARCH 31, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - 498-A and 302134 - Subjecting the wife to cruelty and her murder - Within 1 year 4 months of c marriage - Circumstantial evidence - Prosecution witnesses proving that body of deceased found from matrimonial home; injuries on her body; accused absconding at the relevant time - Evidence regarding injuries corroborated by autopsy report - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: In view of the D evidence of PWs and autopsy report accused-husband liable to be convicted. Evidence - circumstantial evidence - Reliance on - Held: Conviction can be based on such evidence - Condition E precedent for reliance before conviction, discussed. Appellant-accused was prosecuted alongwith two co-accused (his wife and sister) for having killed his wife 'i and for subjecting her to cruelty. Trial court directed his conviction u/ss. 498-A and 302 IPC. High Court confirmed F the conviction. Hence the present appeal by the accused- husband. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. The evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 14 G ~ clearly establish that the body was found in the matrimonial home of the deceased with injuries noticed by them which fit in with the evidence of the Autopsy 333 H 334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. A Surgeon (PW-15). The death took place within one year and four months of the marriage in the house of the accused persons and the dead body was found with injuries. The injuries on the dead body were noticed by several witnesses e.g. PWs 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8. At the relevant s time the accused persons were absconding which is of considerable importance. From the evidence of PWs 2, 4, 7 and 8, it is seen that the accused persons were absconding since the date of incident when the dead body of the deceased lay in her matrimonial home. The c Investigating Officer's evidence was to that effect. The plea of alibi set up by the appellant has been discarded because there was no material to substantiate such plea. Above being the position, there is no merit in this appeal. (Paras 15 and 17] (342-G-H; 343-A, F] D E 2.1. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. [Para 6] (338-G-H; 339-A] 2.2. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be F inferred from those circumstances. [Para 6] (339-B-C] 2.3. Before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, the conditions which must be fully established, are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully G established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they H ' I ) KRISHNA GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 335 should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except A that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5)there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the s conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. [Para 131 [341-G-H; 342- A-D] Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063; C Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. AIR 1989 SC 1890; Bhagat Ram D 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 A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Crl.LJ 1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR E 1952 SC 343; Sha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.