LexMANNU SAO versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 811 MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 1165 of 2009) JULY 22, 2010 [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN- AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 201 - Murder- Causing disappearance of evidence of offence - Accused's case that A B he found his wife lying in burnt condition and thereafter, she C expired - Conviction and sentence ulss. 302 and 201 by courts below - Interference with - Held: Not called for- In the case of circumstantial evidence, besides the entire prosecution case, the statement made by accused u/s. 313 Cr.P. C. can be important - Accused admitted in clear terms D that deceased was his wife and she died of burn injuries - However, stated that she committed suicide by burning herself - Accused a/so stated that victim was still alive and her burnt body was lying outside the cabin - He sought help of a person to take victim to the doctor but the person was not E examined nor his name referred in the statement u/s. 313 - Medical evidence that death was caused by strangulating and then the body was burnt - Motive suggested by prosecution reasonable - Also it is difficult to believe that a person would commit suicide without any provocation or incident F immediately preceding the occurrence - Circumstances proved by prosecution are of a conclusive nature - Evidence - Criminal law - Motive. Code of Criminal Procedure, 197"3:s.313 - Essential features of -Explained. G According to the prosecution case, the appellant lodged a report in the police station that he was living with his wife-BO in his cabin. On the fateful day, the 811 H 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. A appellant found BO lying in serious burnt condition in front of his cabin. The appellant sought help of BB to take BO to the doctor. Howev~r, BO expired. PW 3-doctor conducted the postmortem. He opined that BO expired on account of throttling and ante-mortem injuries and B thereafter burn injuries were caused. Thereupon a case for offences punishable u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC was registered. The trial court convicted the appellant u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life u/s. 302 IPC and three years rigorous c imprisonment u/s. 201 IPC. The liigh Court upheld the order of the trial court. Therefore, the accused filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1.1. It is a case of circumstantial evidence as there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. An accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence, provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, complete chain of E events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye- witness to the case. An accused can be convicted on the F basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of accepted principles in that regard. [Para 3) [821-B-C] Sharad v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, referred to. G 1.2. It is not a circumstance or some of the circumstances which by itself, would assist the court to base a conviction, but all circumstances put forth against the accused once are established beyond reasonable doubt then conviction must follow and all inordinate H circumstances would be used for corroborating the case MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR 813 of the prosecution. It is of similar significance for the court to examine whether the requirements to be established in a case of circumstantial evidence are satisfied in the case before it or not. The cases of circumstantial evidence have to be dealt with greater care and by microscopic examination of the documentary and oral evidence on record. It is then alone that the court will be in a position to arrive at a conclusion upon proper analysis of the evidence in relation to the ingredients of an offence. [Paras 6 and 7] [823-G-H; 824-A-C] Anant Lagu v. State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 500; Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa AIR 2003 SC 3915, referred to. 2.1. In the case of circumstantial evidence, particularly, besides the entire case of the prosecution, even the statement of the accused made under section 313 of Cr.P.C. can be of substantial help. The object of recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code is to put all incriminating evidence against
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.