MATRU ALIAS GIRISH CHANDRA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 914 · Decided: 03-03-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

914 
MATRU alias GIRISH CHANDRA 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
March 3, 1971 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DuA, JJ.] 
Circumstanticl evidence-Weight of. 
Thi' appellant and two others were charged with the offences of murder 
of a woman and her three year old son by brutally staobing them, and 
theft of cash and ornaments from the house of the deceased. The offences 
were alleged to have been committed between 10 and 11 a.m. 
About six months prior to the occur'rence there was a quarrel between 
the deceased and the wife of the appellant who was the next door neigh: 
bour during which the decease\! received an injury. The deceased wrote 
about this incident to her father. 
On the day of the occurrence when 
the husband of the deceased received infohnation of the murder he rushed 
home from his shop and 
gave information of the occurrence to 
the 
polic:e at about 12.40 p.m. but, as he did not suspect anyone, he merely 
mentioned the circumstances in which he had come to know of the. murder. 
The appellant was with him till the time when the First Information Report 
was lodged. 
Next morning one person irif,_rmed the husband of the 
deceased that he had seen the appellant and two unknown persons enter-
ing the~house of the deceased at about 10 or 10.30 a.m. on the previous 
day and another person gave the information that about 11.00 a.m. he had 
seen the appellant and two other persons coming out of his house: The 
husband -,pf the deceased passed on the information to the police. 
By 
that tim~ the appellant had disappeared. Three days la(er, he was appre-
hended. On search of his person a spectacle case containing a pair of 
spectacles and a gold ring were recovered from the folds of his dhoti. 
The Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of murder and the fligh 
Court confirmed the conviction. The other two accused were acquitted. 
On appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence in the .pre-
sent case falls short of the test required for sustaining a conviction. When 
proof of guilt depended solely on circumstantial evidence, it was incum-
bent on the courts to properly consider and scrutinise all the matenal 
factors and circumstances for determining whether the chain of circum-
stantial evidence is so complete as to lead to the only conclusion of guilt. 
[928 F·Hl 
(1) Normally this Court does not go into evidence_ and appraise it 
for itself in c'r:iminal appeals under Art. 136 of the Constitution, because, 
the Article does not confer a right of appeal. It merely clothes this Court 
with discretionary power to scrutinise and go into the evidence in special 
circumstances in order to satisfy itself that irijustice has not been done .. In 
the present case the exceptional features were that it was a case of cir-
cumstantial evidence, the identification of the stolen articles was unsatis-
factory, and the other two accused, who had been charged along with the 
appellant, had been acquitted. [919 F-GJ 
(2) (a) The husband of tihe deceased himself did not think that the 
appellant was inimical towards the deceased and he did not suspect him 
A 
c 
D 
( 
E 
F 
f ·' 
G 
H 
• 
.. 
MATRU v. U.P, STATE (Dua, J.) 
915 
A 
of complicity in the murder. The alleged altercation between the deceased 
and the appellant's wife did not leave any serious impact on the mind of 
the husband of the deceased, and the appellant's admitted presence in the 
house of the deceased till the lodging of the F.I.R. indicated that rela· 
lions between them were not hostile or unfriendly. [921 D-FJ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
( b) The letter written by the deceased to her father about the quarrel 
does not prima facie fall within the purview of s. 32, Indian Evidence 
Act. But even if this letter were held to be admissible the motive which 
it suggested was not o! sue<h a strong and impelling nature as to induce 
the murder of the deceased and her infant child. [927 H, 928 A-Bl 
(3) (a) It is unbelievable that the appellant and his companions en· 
tered . the house of the deceased for the purpo·se of committing murder and 
theft in broad day light when persons who knew him were likely to see 
him entering the house. 
The movements and behaviour of ,the appellant 
did not show any abnormality. On the contrary, the behaviour and con-
duct of the appellant, judged by nolrmal standards, was not' suggestive of 
his involvement in such a heinous crime. In the absence of direct evid· 
ence this consideration could not be

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