RAM AVTAR versus THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 508 · Decided: 08-08-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
508 
RAM AVTAR 
v. 
THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) 
AUGUST 8, 1985 
[ S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ. J 
Indian Penal Code 1860 Section 302 
Accused charged with killing wife by 
strangulation -
Circumstantial evidence alone available appreciation of -
Court 
to take cumulative effect of entire evidence. 
Criminal Trial 
Circumstantial evidence - Chain of continuous circumstan-
ces linked with one another - Necessity of cumulative effect of 
entire evidence to be considered. 
The prosecution alleged chat the appellant had killed his 
wife by strangulation. The marriage of the appellant and the 
deceased took place about a year before the date of occurrence. 
After about six months of the marriage the relations between the 
two spouses started becoming strained. The accused neglected the 
deceased, abused her, teased her, waxed her, and even beat her. 
All these were reported to the relatives of both sides as a 
result of which s panchayat had to be called to bring the two 
partfos together which also was of no avail. 
The Sessions Court after considering the evidence was of 
the opinion that the prosecution case was not proved beyond 
reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the appellant of the 
charges framed against him under Section 302 IPC. 
The State filed 
an appeal before the High Court which 
reveroed the aforesaid decision and came to the conclusion that 
the appellant had killed his wife by strangulation. 
Dismissing this appellant's Appeal to this Court 
BELi>: 
J • The view taken by the H.tgh Court is correct and 
there is no reason to interfere with the same. The trial court 
has gone wrong, and has made a fundamentslly wrong approach. The 
RAM AVTAR v. STATE 
509 
judgment of the trial . court is not only legally erroneous but 
absolutely perverse, 111 view of the circumstances of the case and 
the admiasiona of the witneases, the case againat the accused baa 
been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thia is not a case where two 
viev11 are possible. [516 G,D-E] 
2. Circumstantial evidence 1111St be com;>lete and C011Clusive 
before an accused can be convicted thereon. This, however, does 
not mean that there is any particular or special method of proof 
of circumstantial evidence. One 1111St, however, guard againat the 
dallger of not conaideri11& circumstantial evidence in its proper 
perspective, e.g. where there is a chain of circumstance& linked 
up with one another, it.ia not possible for the court to truncate 
and break the chain of circumst&DCes. In other words, where a 
series of circumstances are dependent 011 one another they should 
be read as one integrated whole and not conaidered separately, 
otherwiae the very concept of proof of circumstantial evidence 
would he defeated. [510 G-511 A] 
J. Where circumstantial ·evidence 
conaists of a chain of 
co11ti11UOUS circumstances linked up with one another, the court 
baa to take the cumulative effect of the entire evidence before 
acquittiD& or convict!D& an accused. (516 F] 
111 the inatant case, the Sessiona Judge bad COlllllitted an 
error. lnatead of taking all the circumstances together which are 
uodol>btedly· circumstantial and closely linked up with 
one 
another, he baa completely misdirected himself by 
separately 
dealing with each circumst&DCe thereby makilJ& a wrong approach 
while appreciatiD& the circumstantial evidence produced ill the 
case. Some letters written by the deceaaed show the callous and 
cruel nature of the accused and his treatment. He appears to have 
been completely indifferent. The deceased prayed to her parents 
for taki11& her with them inme•Uately. Despite the conduct of the 
appellant, the parents-in-law of the deceased were very kind to 
her, but the appellant was made of such a stern nature that he 
would not listen ·to anybody. Tb"' recovery of certain brokell 
bangles and one pair of cufflillks show that duri11& the course of 
strangulation, the deceaaed put up stiff resist&DCe. The medical 
evidence also ·supports that the deceased bad died of manual 
strangulation. A number of prosecution witnesses PWs 5,6,7,8 & 9 
deposed that the appellant had been ill-treatiD& the deceased and 
their relationa were extremely strained, and that the 
relatives 
of the two sides tried their best to bri11& harmony in the 
relatio11S of the accused and the deceased. Another circumst&DCe 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985) SUPP:2 s.c.a. 
of great importance 

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