KRISHNAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 1030 · Decided: 08-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 1030 
A 
KRISHNAN 
V. 
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 841 of 2008) 
B 
MAY 8, 2008 
• 
(S.8. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) 
). 
Evidence: 
Circumstantial evidence -
Conviction based on -
c Legality of-Accused held guilty by trial court and High Court 
u/s 302134 !PC merely on the basis of circumstantial evidence 
- No direct evidence to connect accused with commission of 
offence - Accused neither named in complaint nor in FIR -
Presence of accused at scene of occurrence prior to incident 
D not proved - Evidence on record to the effect that accused 
had earlier appeared a." a witness against police officer 
' 
concerned - HELD: Evaluation of findings by trial court as 
affirmed by High Court suffers from manifest error and 
\-
improper appreciation of evidence on record - Conviction and 
E sentence of accused set aside -Accused acquitted of the 
charge giving him benefit of doubt - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 
302134. 
Appellant (A-1) was prosecuted u/s 302/34 IPC with 
A-2 (the wife of A-3) for commission of murder of the wife 
F of PW-1 as also u/s 380 IPC, whereas A-3 was prosecuted 
~ .... 
u/s 414 IPC. The prosecution case was that the family 
members of PW-1 and A-2 and A-3 used to frequently 
quarrel on the issues of flowing of drainage water and 
t~·
parking of auto rikshaw by A-2 and A-3 in front of the house 
G of PW-1. On the day of incident, wife of PW-1 was found 
missing from her house. On the following day PW-3 was 
stated to have told PW-1 that she noticed his wife lying in 
). . 
the house of A-2 and A-3 with her legs and hands tied. 
i
H 
1030 
-< 
KRISHNAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR 
1031 
OF POLICE 
--1 
She also told PW-1 that on the previous day she had seen A 
A-2 quarrelling with his wife. Thereupon PW-1 went to the 
police station and lodged a complaint. PW-18, the 
Inspector of Police, reached the place of occurrence, 
prepared 'Mahazar' and sent the body for post mortem 
> 
examination. A-2 and A-3 were arrested. The Investigating B 
~ 
Officer recorded confessional statement of A-2. At the 
instance of A-2 and A-3 ornaments of the deceased were 
recovered. Later A-1 was also arrested. According to the 
post-mortem report, the death was caused as a result of 
strangulation and asphyxia. The trial court convicted A-1 c 
and A-2 u/s 302 r/w s.34 IPC and sentenced them to life 
imprisonment. A-3 was acquitted of the charge. The 
conviction and sentence of A-1 and A-2 was upheld by 
the High Court. 
In the instant appeal filed by A-1, it was contended D 
for the appellant that ~here was nothing to connect him 
with the crime or to show that he had gone prior to the 
incident to the house of A-2 and A-3 from where the dead 
body was recovered; and that he was falsely implicated 
in the case by the police officers, PW-17 and PW-18 since E 
he, as a Secretary of the Workers Association and a 
member of Communist Party, had filed a compliant against 
them earlier for unnecessarily harassing the workers who 
had participated in the demonstration and agitations 
against the police and executive authorities as a result of F 
~ ,. 
which PWs 17 and 18 were transferred. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case there is no direct 
evidence to connect the accused with the commission of G 
the offences, and the prosecution case entirely rests on 
circumstantial evidence. This Court in a series of decisions 
,~ 
has consistently held that the conditions precedent must 
be fully established before conviction could be based on 
circumstantial evidence. [para 13] [1039-G] 
H 
1032 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 
'I--
y 
A 
Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC 351 : 
AIR 1982 SC 1157; Rama Nand v. State of Himacha/ Pradesh 
(1981) 1 SCC 511 : AIR 1981 SC 738; Prem Thakur v. State 
of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 462 : AIR 1983 SC 61; 
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, (1983) 2 SCC 330 : 
B AIR 1983 SC 446; Gian Singh v State of Punjab, 1986 Suppl. 
SCC 676 : AIR 1987 SC 1921; Balvinder Singh v. State of 
> 
Punjab (1987) 1SCC1 : AIR 1987 SC 350; Hanumant Govind 
Nargundkar v State of M.P AIR 1952 SC 3443; C. Chenga 
Reddy v State of A.P (1996) 10 SCC 193; Sashi Jena & Ors. 
c v. Khadal Swain & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 236; and Sharad 
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 
AIR 1984 SC 1622 - relied on. 
1.2 A careful examination of the evidence on record 
shows that P.W.-1 did not name A-1 as an assailant

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