SHANKARLAL GYARASILAL DIXIT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 384 · Decided: 17-12-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

384 
A 
SHANKARLAL GYARASILAL DIXIT 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
December 17, 1980 
B 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., A. P. SEN AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.] 
Evidence-CircumstanJi'al evidence-Tests to be applied while 
evaluating 
circumstantial evidence-Falsity of defence-If could take the place of proof of 
facts--"Shadow of doubt" meaning of. 
The prosecution alleged that when the deceased 
girl did :.iot ictu1n home 
C 
for quite some time from play her mother, alongwith two neighbouring women 
went in search of her. 
Believing that .she might be in the ~ppellant's house. 
they repeatedly knocked at the door whict> wns locked from inside, but tl1ere 
was no response from within. At that moment P .W. 5 who lived next to the 
appellant's house, arrived on the scene. 
P.W. 5 climbed over the roof of his 
house, entered the appellant's house through the open court-yard and opened the 
front door. 
On entering the house, according to the 
prosecution, the three 
D 
laiies saw the appellant lying on a cot in the court-yard with a co\,..er pulled 
upto his face and the dead body of the child in the bath room, wrapped in a 
blanket. The mother lifted her dead child threw the blanket and ran home 
"'-"th the dead body. The girl's underpant wa11 missing. 
E 
F 
The dead child had injuries on her person and her private parts were 
swollen. Postmortem examination of the dead body showed that the vagina of 
the child was lacerated and her hymen ruptured and that death occurred as a 
result of asphyxia. Examination of the appellant showed that there was a mark 
of dry semen on his underpant and marks of bruises over his left thigh. There 
was no smegma around the corona glandis and there was a small abra111ioo over 
the base of his glans-penis which had a bluish discolouration on it. 
The appellant pleaded that he knew nothing of the crime and that he was 
falsely implicated in the murder. 
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for offences under sections 376 
and 302 l.P.C. by the trial conrt and the conviction and sentence hon been con-
firmed by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, 
G 
HELD : In a case of circumstantial evidence it is necessary for the Court 
to find whether the circumstances on which the prosecution reties are established 
• 
' 
• 
by satisfactory evidence, often described as clear and cogent and whether the 
• 
circumstances are of such a nature as to exclude every other hypothesis save 
the one that the appellant is guilty of the offences of which he is charged. In 
other words, the circumstances have to be of such a nature as to be consistent 
with the sole hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime impaled to 
H 
him. 
[390 B-Cl 
It is not necessary that in every case depending on circumstantial evidence, 
the whole of the law governing cases of circumstantial evidence shonld be set 
-
• 
• 
• 
' 
• 
SHANKER LAL V. MAHARASHTRA 
385 
out in the judgment. Legal principles are not magic incantations. 
'fheir im-
A 
portance lies more in their application to a given set of facts than in their 
recital in the judgment The simple expectation is that the judgment must 
show that the finding of guilt if any has been reached after a proper and care-
ful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are com-
patible with any other reasonable hypothesis. [395D-EJ 
In the instant case the prosecution story that the appellant was not on good 
B 
terms with his mother, brothers and wife, that he was living alone in the bonse 
lllld that on the day of occurrence the young school boys who were his tenants 
were not in the house and that, therefore, he was all alone is proved. That 
P.W. 5 climbed over the roof of his house, entered the appellanfs house and 
opened the front door is also proved. [390H] 
But it is impossible to say that the appellant was in the house when P.W. 5 
C 
and the three ladies entered the house. 
None of the four persons made any 
attempt to elicit any information from the appellant about the presence of the 
dead body in the bath room though it was alleged that everyone saw him ly-
ing on a cot in the court yard. Even if the ladies would not exchange a single 
word with him, P.W. 5 would have instinctively enquired from him as to how 
the dead body of the child was lying in the bath room. P.W. 5 categorically 
stated that he had no talk with the appellant at all. His claim that he caJled 
D 
out to the appellant to open the door but that he declined to do so was a clear 
imp

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