NARAYAN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 1200 · Decided: 25-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 1200 
NARAYAN 
v 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2009 
' 
FEBRUARY 25, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, 
JJ.] 
' 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 201 - Conviction - On 
the basis of circumstantial evidence -
On appeal, held: 
C Circumstances relied on for conviction, establish the guilt of 
the accused - Conviction confirmed. 
Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Reliance on -
Held: Conviction can be based on such evidence - Condition 
0 precedent for reliance before conviction, discussed. 
Appellant-accused was prosecuted for offences 
punishable u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC. Prosecution was based 
on circumstantial evidence. Courts below convicted him 
placing reliance on the circumstances. Hence the present 
E appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Wher~ a case rests squarely on 
circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be 
F 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 6] [1205-B] 
1.2 When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, 
G such evidence must satisfy the following tests, viz. the 
circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought 
to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 
those circumstances should be of a definite tendency 
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; the 
H 
1200 
NARAYAN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
1201 
..: 
circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain 
A 
so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion 
that within all human probability the crime was committed 
by the accused and none else and the circumstantial 
evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete 
and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than 
B ' 
that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should 
not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but 
should be inconsistent with his innocence. [Para 8] [1206-
A-D] 
. 
1.3 Onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain C 
is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution 
cannot be cured by false defence or plea. [Para 13] [1207-
G-H] 
1.4 Great care must be taken in evaluating 0 
circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is 
. reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour 
of the accused must be accepted. [Para 9] [1206-E-F] 
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063; 
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; 
E 
Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka; 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 M.P AIR 1989 SC 1890; Bhagat Ram v. 
State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. 
F 
v. State of A.P 1996 (10) SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy v. 
State of A.P and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; State of U.P v. Ashok 
Kumar Srivastava 1992 Cr/. l.J. 1104; Hanumant Govind 
Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 
SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 
G 
AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8) 
SCC 180; State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003 (11) 
SCC 261; Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of A.P. 2008 (10) SCR 
89; Manivel and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2008(9) JT 31; 
Raju v. State by Inspector of Police 2009 (3) JT 183 - relied on. 
H 
1202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009]-2 S.C.R. 
A 
"Wills'_. Circumstantial Evidence" by Sir Alfred Wills, 
~ 
(Chapter VI) - referred to. 
2. In the instant case circumstances highlighted by 
the trial court and the High Court are that the accused 
B was living with the deceased as a couple before the 
occurrence; that death of the deceas~d was committed 
by strangulation, and dead body was recovered in a trunk; 
that the accused was absconding after selling his all 
belongings etc; that he disappeared for a long period (4-
c 
5 years); that the accused had hired a Jeep on. rent in 
which loaded his all goods and in which a trunk also 
contained the dead body of deceased which was 
recovered from such trunk. Identification of such trunk 
has also been proved by witnesses; and that the motive 
of crime has been also proved by evidence of prosecution 
D that he was keen to take other women, and he has killed 
his wife (the deceased) for removing her from the scene. 
The circumstances clearly establish the guilt of the accused-
appellant. [Paras 15 and 16) [1208-G-H; 

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