LexRAJU versus THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 783
RAJU
A
-=-"'
v
THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2009
FEBRUARY 19, 2009
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.)
(
{
Penal Code, 1860:
S.302, 341 Part I - Trial Court convicting the appellant- c
accused under s.302 /PC- High Court altering it to one under
s.341 Part I /PC- Correctness of- Held: Trial Court and High
Court rightly held the appellant to be the author of the crime -
High Court rightly altered the conviction from s. 302 to s. 341
/PC - Hence no interference called for - Circumstantial D
\'"
evidence.
The appellant-accused was convicted under s.302
IPC by the trial court. High Court altered the conviction to
one under s.341 Part I IPC. Hence the appeal.
I
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1. It has been consistently laid down by this
,.i
Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial
.,,
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when
all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found F
to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or
the guilt of any other person. [Para 7] [ 789-H; 780-A]
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063;
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316;
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State G
~
of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; Ba/winder
,;.
Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350 and Ashok Kumar
Chatterjee v. State of M.P. AIR 1989 SC 1890 - relied on.
783
H
784
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
A
2. 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
closely connected with the principal fact sought to be
inferred from those circumstances. [Para 7] [ 790-C]
B
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 -relied on.
3.1 There is no doubt that conviction can be based
solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested
,.....
by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial ·
).
c evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in
1952. [Para 12] [ 792-B]
3.2 In the instant case, PW-7's evidence is clear and
cogent. His presence at the spot has been established.
He used to have business transactions with the
D deceased. He stated about the present appellant holding
~-
a handle of soil cutter. Though the deceased and the
,
.......
present appellant were engaged in exchange of hot
words, that could not have given an impression to PW-7
that accused would take the life of the deceased.
E Therefore, the fact that he left the place on being told by
the deceased to do so cannot be a ground to dis-believe
his evidence. According to him he had seen the deceased
and the accused engaged in wordy tussle around 9.00
,l.
p.m. The wife of the deceased PW-1 found his dead body
.., .
F
at about 9.30 p.m. The time gap when the deceased was
last seen alive in the company of the accused _and when
his dead body was seen is not very large. Admittedly, the
bone of contention between the deceased and the
accused was non payment of the commission on account
G of which they were quarreling. The trial Court and the High
Court have rightly held the appellant to be the author of
+
'
the crime. No infirmity is found in the conclusion of the
......
High Court to warrant interference. [Para 16] [ 793-F-H;
794-A-B]
H
C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P (1996) 10 SCC
RAJU V. THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
785
193; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. AIR 1990 A
--l.
SC 79; State of U. P v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 Cr/. LJ
1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Haryana B
v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003 (11) SCC 261; Kusuma Ankama
Rao v State of A. P (Criminal Appeal No. 18512005 disposed
,
of by S. C. on 7. 7.2008) and Manivel and Ors. v. State of Tami
~
Nadu (Criminal Appeal No.473 of 2001 disposed of by S.C.
on 8.8.2008) - relied on.
c
Sir Alfred Wills: "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter
VI) - referred to.
Case Law Reference
AIR 1977 SC 1063
relied on
Para 7
D
"
AIR 1956 SC 316
relied on
Para 7
AIR 1983 SC 446
relied on
Para 7
AIR 1985 SC 1224
relied on
Para 7
AIR 1987 SC 350
relied on
Para 7
E
AIR 1989 SC 1890 Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.