MULA DEVI & ANR. versus ST ATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 04-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 319 
MULA DEVI & ANR. 
v. 
ST ATE OF UTT ARAKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1722· of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 4, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
319 
A 
B 
\ 1 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 rlw 34 and 201 - Conviction 
y 
under, by Courts below - Case resting on circumstantial .C 
evidence - Conditions precedent for conviction on basis of 
circumstantial evidence, elucidated - Held: On facts, both Trial 
Court and High Court came to abrupt conclusions about the 
guilt of accused - Circumstances indicated by Trial Court did 
not present a complete chain of circumstances to implicate D 
the accused-Appellants - Hence conviction of the Appellants 
not justified. 
The prosecution case was that while Appellant~., i.e. 
the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased held 
the leg of the deceased, her father-in-law caused her E 
death. 
Placing reliance upon the circumstantial evidence, 
the Trial Court convicted the Appellants under s.302 r/w 
s.34 and s.201 IPC and 'D', the father-in-law of the F 
deceased under s.302 and s.201 IPC. 
The various circumstances highlighted by the Trial 
Court to fasten the guilt on the accused were: i) that the 
deceased lived with the Appellants and the incident G 
occurred in the house they lived in; ii) that the father and 
uncle of the deceased gave statements to the effect that 
Appellants used to harass the deceased and whenever 
she visited her parental house she expressed 
319 
H 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A 
apprehension that she might be killed by them; iii) that 
h 
1 
the medical evidence indicated that the cause of death 
· '--' 
was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation 
and there were post mortem burn injuries on the body of 
the deceased and iv) that no FIR was lodged regarding 
B 
the death of the deceased from the side of the accused. 
On appeal, High Court acquitted the father-in-law of 
the deceased but upheld the conviction of the Appellants. 
Hence the present appeal. 
C 
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 
0 
circumstances are found to be incompatible with the 
innocence of th.e accused or the guilt of any other 
person. 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 
E 
closely connected with the principal fact sought to be 
inferred from those circumstances. [Para 8] [326-D, F] 
1.2. The conditions precedent, before conviction 
could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully 
established. They are: (1) the circumstances from which 
· F 
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 
es.tablished should be consistent only with the 
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they 
G 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 exclude every possible hypothesis except the 
one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of 
H 
I 
I .. 
( 
' r-1. 
MULA DEVI & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 
321 
evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable A 
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence 
of the accused and must show that in all human 
probability the act must have been done by the accused. 
[Para 15] [329-C-H] 
1.4. In the present case, the Trial Court and the High 
Court came to abrupt conclusions about the guilt of the 
Appellants. None of the circumstances indicated by the 
Trial Court really present a complete chain of 
circumstances to implicate the accused-Appellants. The 
circumstances referred to by the Trial Court and the 
abrupt conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court and the 
High Court does not justify the conviction of the 
appellants. Therefore, conviction cannot be maintained 
and is set aside. [Paras 6, 7 and 17] [325-D; 326-C; 330-8] 
B 
c 
I 
D 
I 
Hukam Singh v. State cf Rajasthan AIR (1977) SC 1063; 
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, AIR (1956) SC 316; 
Ear:abhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, 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 3SO; 
E 
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. St

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