NATHIYA versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAGAYAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 08-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 835 
NATHIYA 
v. 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAGAYAM POLICE 
STATION, VELLORE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of2010) 
NOVEMBER 08, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Murder - Prosecution 
case that accused no. 2 allegedly paramour of appellant-wife of 
C 
victim - Victim as also informant had knowledge of the illicit 
relationship - Victim confided to the informant that few days prior 
to the incident his wife tried to kill him as also appellant and accused 
no. 2 conspired to murder him and grab his property - Intervening 
night dead body of the victim seen floating in the well - Charge 
sheet against appellant and accused no. 2 - Conviction u!s. 302134 
and sentenced accordingly - Said order upheld by the High Court 
- On appeal, held: Materials on record admit of substantial doubt 
vis-a-vis the complicity of the appellants in the crime - Having regard 
to the circumstantial evidence adduced, it would be wholly unsafe 
to sustain their conviction - Thus, they are entitled to the benefit of 
doubt - Evidence. 
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Examination of. to judge 
the culpability of the accused - Principles reiterated. 
Criminal trial - Conviction on a criminal charge - In a criminal 
D 
E 
trial, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute proof 
F 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is patent that there is no eye witness to the 
occurrence and that the prosecution case is based wholly on 
circumstantial evidence. The genesis of the suspicion against the 
appellants, being their amorous association to the anguish 
disliking of the deceased, he being almost reduced to a helpless 
entity, having failed to prevent such liaison inspite of his best 
endeavours. There is indeed some evidence suggestive of such 
an alliance between the_ appellants. This, per se, however, cannot 
835 
G 
H 
836 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
be accepted as a decisive incriminating factor to deduce their 
culpability qua the charge of murder of the deceased. [Para 8)(844-
D-F] 
1.2 The place of occurrence is a well, away from the 
residence of the deceased for which any definitive presumption 
against his wife, as a conspirator of the crime, cannot be drawn 
without the risk of going wrong to cast a burden on her, as 
contemplated under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. [Para 
9](844-F-G] 
1.3 The closest circumstance bearing on the incident is, 
discernible from the testimony of PW3 who stated to have heard 
the shrieks of the deceased, followed by a loud sound of a fall 
inside the well. There is no evidence that immediately thereafter, 
the appellants were seen in the vicinity of the well. The chappals 
of the deceased were found by the side of the well. However, the 
evidence of PW4 is that when the dead body was recovered 
thereafter from the well, both the appellants were present and 
the wife of the deceased, was seen weeping by his side. [Para 
9](844-G-H; 845-A] 
1.4 The medical evidence does not refer to any external 
injury indicative of use of any external force on the deceased, 
resulting in his ante-mortem suffocation and loss of 
consciousness, to be thereafter dispatched into the well. The 
possibility that the cause of death i.e. grievous head injury, 
suffocation and heart failure were post fall manifestations, also 
cannot be ruled out as the medical evidence admits of such an 
eventuality as well. [Para 9)(845-B-C] 
1.5 The inexplicable omission on the part of the prosecution 
·• produce and prove the alleged confessional statements made 
< J 
:l' appellants and reduced into writing by PW9 and witnessed 
by P ~\· 10 substantially denudes its case of necessary credence to 
G incriminate them. The oral testimony of these witesses to the 
effect that such confessional statements had been recorded, ipso 
facto is of no consequence. The recovery of a saree produced by 
the wife of the deceased said to have been gifted to her by the 
accused No.2 and their joint photograph, in the attendant facts 
and circumstances and in the face of the other evidence on record, 
H 
NATHIYA v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 
837 
BAGAYAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE 
does not clinch the issue in favour of the prosecution. [Para 9] [845-
A 
C-D, E-F] 
1.6 The defence proposition that PWl being the cousin 
brother of the deceased had framed the appellants so as to wrest 
his property in absence of his legal heirs in the factual

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