LexSHAIK MASTAN VALI versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHAIK MAST AN V ALI A v. STA TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AUGUST 3, 2007 [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860-s.302-Accused had illicit relations with the daughter of PWJ-He beat and dragged her out of the house of PW3 at night-Next morning PWsl and 2 found her lying dead on a cot-Police C found a towel of accused tied around the waist of deceased and a rope lying near the cot-Autopsy surgeon opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation with ligature-Conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence-Challenge to-On facts, held: Prosecution has established its accusations-Courts below rightly relied upon the circumstances to hold accused-Appellant guilty. D Evidence-Circumstantial evidence-Appreciation of-Law elucidated. Appellant had illicit relations with the daughter of PWl and frequently visited her house. According to the prosecution, at night while PWl 's daughter was watching T. V. in the house of PW 3, Appellant came there and E started beating her and thereafter dragged her out. The next morning PWs. I& 2 found her lying dead on a cot. PW2 is brother of the deceased. The police found one towel of Appellant, which was tied around the waist of the dec~sed and a rope; which was lying near the cot The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation with ligature. Placing reliance upon the evidence of PWsl & 2 and the several F circumstances of the case, Trial Court convicted Appellant under s.302 IPC. High Court upheld the conviction. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, G the inference of guilt' an be 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. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond 779 H 780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R. A reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. (Para 5) (783-A, B, CJ 1.2. The conditions precedent, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (1) the B circumstances from which 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 established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the C circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they shoul.d exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable 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. D (Para 12) (785-D, E, F, GI 1.3. When the evidence on record is analysed in the background of principles highlighted above, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has established its accusations. [Para 14) (786-A) Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR [ 1977) SC 1063; Eradu v. State E of Hyderabad, AIR (1956) SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR (1983) SC 446; State of UP. v. Sukhbasi, AIR (1985) SC 1224; Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR (1987) SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of MP., AIR (1989) SC 1890; C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P., [1996) 10 SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR (1990) SC 79; State of UP. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) Crl. LJl 104; Hanumant Govind F Nargundkar v. State of MP., AIR (1952) SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) SC 1622 and State of UP. v. Satish, (2005) 3 sec 114, relied on. Circumstantial Evidence (Chapter VJ) by Alfred Wills, referred to. G 2. In the instant case the deceased has intimacy with the accused- Appellant and used to live in a hut and the accused frequently visited the house of the deceased and lived there as husband and wife; During night time on the previous day of the occurrence while the deceased was watching T.V. in the house of PW 3, the accused came to the house of P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.