LIYAKAT versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 25-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 397 
" "' 
LIYAKAT 
A 
II. 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 25, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
,. 
Pena/Code, 1860-ss. 302and201-Murder-Ofa 1!h 
year old child - His dead body found buried - Two accused -
Deceased child went missing barely within three hours after c 
being given in custody of the accused persons by parents of 
the child - Conviction of accused-appellants on basis of 
circumstantial evidence - Justification of - Held: Justified -
Offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also -
Accused gave no explanation regarding disappearance of the D 
~ "' 
deceased child - They also did not explain as to how the dead 
body came to be buried in their hut - Non-explanation of this 
vital circumstance added to the chain of circumstances. 
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of 
According to the prosecution, the two accused-
E 
Appellants committed the murder of a child aged 1 % years 
and buried his dead body. Following circumstances were 
highlighted by the prosecution to substantiate its 
.. 
accusations, viz.: that the child went missing barely within 
three hours after being given in custody of the accused 
F 
persons by parents of the child; that no explanation was 
given by the accused for missing of the child to the 
parents and they only casually replied that the child must 
have been playing somewhere else; that there was no 
explanation whatsoever as to how the dead body of the G 
child came to be buried in a hut, in use and occupation of 
,, 
the accused persons; that the unsubstantiated defence 
~ 
raised by the appellant no.2 suggesting alibi could not be 
proved at all and that the child had died an unnatural and 
397 
H 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. . v 
A homicidal death due to suffocation before the burial. 
The Trial Court convicted the Appellants under ss.302 
and 201, IPC, sentencing Appellant No.1 to death and 
Appellant No.2 to life imprisonment. High Court confirmed 
B the conviction. It affirmed the life sentence awarded to 
Appellant No.2 but altered the death sentence awarded 
to Appellant No.1 to life sentence. Hence the present 
'f 
appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1. For a crime to be proved it is not 
necessary that the crime must be seen to have been 
committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by 
direct ocular evidence by examining before the court 
those persons who had seen its commission. The offence 
D can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The 
... . 
principal fact or factum probandum may be proved 
indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from 
factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it 
.differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the 
E point in issue but consists of evidence of various other 
facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue 
that taken together they form a chain of circumstances 
from which the existence of the principal fact can be 
legally inferred or presumed. [Para 13] [404-A, B, C] 
F 
1.2. 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 14] [404-C, DJ 
G 
1.3. 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 
H inferred from those circumstances. [Para 14] [404-E, F] 
LIYAKAT v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 
399 
r 
~ 
1.4. The conditions precedent, before conviction A 
could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully 
established. They are: (1) the circumstances from which 
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully 
established. The circumstances concerned must or 
should and not may be established; (2) the facts so B 
established should be consistent only with the 
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they 
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except 
that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should 
be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should c 
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 
conclusion consistent w

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