MANIVEL & ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 1036 · Decided: 08-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11S.C.R.1036 
"f 
,_
A 
MANIVEL & ORS. 
\.--
v. 
I 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
i 
' 
(Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2001) 
AUGUST 8, 2008 
' . 
B 
-t-
, 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
I 
SHARMA, JJ] 
\.-
Evidence: 
c 
Circumstantiai evidence - Deceased last seen in the 
company of accused in the evening and in the following mom-
i 
f-
ing found dead in a well - On basis of evidence of prosecution 
t--
witnesses and the circumstantial evidence, trial court and High 
Court convicting accused u/ss 302 and 201 /PC - HELD: 
f 
D Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence if 
all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be 
.J. 
incompatible with innocence of accused and guilt of any other 
person - As regards last seen theory, it comes into play where 
the time gap between the point of time when the accused and 
l 
E the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is 
found dead is so small that possibility of any other person 
than the accused being the author of the crime becomes im-
possible - On facts, evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly 
established the accusations - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 
F 
and 201. 
·"-
t-
The appellants were prosecuted for commission of 
murder of the son of PW-4. The prosecution case was that 
the deceased and A-1 were not on good terms because 
of the marriage of the deceased with a girl who had affair 
r-
G with A-1 prior to and even after her marriage with the de-
ceased. On the day of incident, the accused came to the 
deceased where PW-4 and his daughter PW-5 were also 
y. I 
present, and took him along with them on the pretext of 
hunting. At about 10 P.M. PW-7 saw the deceased in the 
H 
1036 
MANIVEL & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
1037 
company of the accused; they told PW-7 that they were A 
going for hunting. At about 4 A.M. the accused were seen 
by PW-8 but the deceased was not with them; they told 
PW-8 that they were returning from hunting. Soon there-
after the body of the deceased was found in a well. The 
trial court held the accused guilty and convicted them u/ B 
-+ 
ss 302 and 201 IPC. The High Court affirmed the convic-
tion. 
In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was con-
tended for the appellants that since accused were inimi-
cally disposed towards the deceased, the prosecution C 
case that he would have gone out in their company was 
highly improbable; and that the last seen theory could 
not be applied in the instant case. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 There is no doubt that conviction can be 
i,. 
based solely on circumstantial evidence, but it should be 
tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial 
evidence laid down by the this Court. [para 13] [1044 G] 
D 
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V State of E 
Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand 
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of 
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Haryana 
v. Jagbir Singh and Anr 2003 (11) sec 261 - relied on. 
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 
F 
to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or 
the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from G 
which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn 
have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt e1nd have to 
be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact 
sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In the 
instant case, the High Court found that the evidence of H 
1038 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
PWs 4, 5, 7 & 8 clearly established the accusations and, 
therefore, found no infirmity in the judgment of the trial 
Court. [para 5 and 8] [1042 F,G 1043 A,B, 1042 C] 
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063; 
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; 
B Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State 
of UP 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 v. 
State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. 
C v. State of AP 1996 10 SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy v. 
State of AP and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; and State of UP v. 
Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Crl.LJ 1104 - referred to. 
"Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) by Sir 
0 
Alfred Wills - referred to. 
2. So far as the last seen

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