MANJUNATH CHENNABASAPA MADALLI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 795 · Decided: 19-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

--'> 
MANJUNATH CHENNABASAPA MADALLI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNA TAKA 
FEBRUARY 19, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-ss. 302 & 498A-Homicidal death of wife-Case 
based on circumstantial evidence-Circumstance of unnatural death-Dying 
declaration purportedly recorded by Tehsildar-Trial Court convicted C 
husband under s.498A & 302 !PC-High Court set aside conviction under 
s.498A but maintained conviction under s.302 !PC-On appeal, held: Mere 
fact that wife died an unnatural death cannot by itself be a circumstance 
against husband particularly when s. 498-A has been held to be 
inapplicable-Conclusion of Courts below that there was dying declaration 
is also not factually correct-Hence conviction set aside. 
D 
Evidence-Circumstantial evidence-Appreciation of-Held: Where a 
case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be 
justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be 
incompatible with the innocence of accused or guilt of any other person-
Circumstances from which inference as to guilt of the accused is drawn have E 
to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely 
connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those 
circumstances. 
According to the prosecution, Appellant ill-treated his wife to extract 
additional dowry. While she was staying at her parental place, Appellant visited F 
that place and had a quarrel with her and other relatives. He stayed at the 
house of in-laws and that night allegedly assaulted his wife with an iron 
implement resulting in her death. Trial Court on the basis of circumstantial 
evidence convicted the Appellant under s.498A & 302 IPC. High Court set 
aside the conviction under s.498A but maintained the conviction under s.302 G 
IPC 
In appeal to this Court the question which arose for consideration is 
whether the prosecutfon on the basis of circumstantial evidence has proved 
its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 
795 
fl 
796 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 2 S.C.R. 
,,.. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
( -
HELD: 1.1. 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 10) [799-G; 800-A) 
B 
1.2. 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 inferred 
from those circumstances. [Para 10) [800-B) 
c 
· 1.3. The conditions precedent, before conviction could be based on 
circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (a) 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; (b) the facts so established should be consistent only 
D 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; (c) 
the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (d) they 
should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (e) 
there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable 
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and 
E must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the 
accused. (Para 17) (802-C-F) 
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1977) SC 1063; Eradu and 
Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, AIR (1956) SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of 
F 
Ka~nataka 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 MP., AIR (1989) SC 1890; Bhagat Ram v. State 
of Punjab, AIR (1954) SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., 
[1996) 10 SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddyv. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR (1990) 
SC 79; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 
G AIR (1952) SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 
(1984) SC 1622; State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram, [2003) 8 SCC 180 and State 
of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh, [2003) 11 SCC 261, relied on. 
k 
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (1992) Crl.LJ 1104,

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