SHANTI DEVI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 226 · Decided: 05-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 226 
SHANTI DEVI 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 954 of 2005) 
OCTOBER 5, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
ss. 302 and 201 - Appellant causing murder, and with the 
help of three others, burying the dead body in a place adjacent 
to her house - Principles as to circumstantial evidence, culled 
out - Held: In the instant case, the circumstances from the day 
0 the deceased went to the house of accused-appellant till 
recovery of his dead body at her instance, which have been 
found proved, formed a chain closely linked together without 
giving any scope for any other conclusion than a definite 
tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-
ap pell ant - In the circumstances, the conclusion was 
E inescapable that the appellant was squarely responsible for 
the murder of the deceased - Circumstantial evidence. 
DELA YILACHES 
F 
Delay of 52 days in lodging FIR - Held: The conduct of 
the appellant in misdirecting the wife and minor son of the 
deceased, first orally and subsequently by sending a letter by 
post, as if the deceased himself was communicating with his 
wife and son, cumulatively influenced their minds which 
G resulted in reporting the fact of missing of the deceased to 
the police belatedly - Having regard to the facts of the case, 
it can not be said that delay in registration of the FIR makes 
the prosecution case unbelie,vable. 
H 
226 
SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
227 
MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE: 
Cause of death - Dead body recovered in a decomposed 
state - Post-mortem report to the effect that the death could 
be as a result of murder as well as naturally - Held: It is not, 
A 
as if based on the postmortem certificate and the version of B 
post-mortem doctor, the offence of murder can be ruled out -
Since the dead body was recovered in a decomposed state, 
it was quite natural that the doctor could not specifically state 
as to the nature of injury on the body. 
The appellant alongwith three others was prosecuted 
C 
for committing the murder of the father of PW2. The 
prosecution case was that on 22.08.1997, the deceased 
went to the house of the appellant and did not return. 
When PW2 asked the appellant about his father, she told 
him that he was involved in a 'charas' case and would 
D 
be released shortly. Subsequently, the appellant visited 
the house of PW2 and took Rs. 5,0001- from him to get 
his father released. When there was no trace of the father 
of PW2, he lodged an FIR. The appellant and three others 
were arrested. On the disclosure statement of the 
E 
appellant, the dead body of the father of PW2 was 
exhumed from a place near her house. The trial court 
convicted the appellant u/s.302 IPC and sentenced her to 
imprisonment for life. She was further convicted with 
other three accused u/s.201 IPC and all the four were 
F 
sentenced to 5 years RI each on this count. On appeal, 
the High Court reduced the sentence of all the accused 
u/s.201 IPC to the period already undergone, but 
maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant 
u/s.302 IPC. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Since, it is a case of circumstantial 
evidence, the principles laid down in various decisions 
H 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A of this Court can be set out as under: 
B 
c 
D 
E 
(i) The circumstances from which an inference of 
guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly 
established. 
(ii) The circumstances should be of a definite 
tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the 
accused. 
(iii) The circumstances taken cumulatively must form 
a chain so complete that there is no escape from the 
conclusion that within all human probability, the 
crime was committed by the accused and none else. 
(iv) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain 
conviction must be complete and incapable of 
explanation on any other hypothesis than that the 
guilt of the accused and such evidence should not 
only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but 
should be inconsistent with his innocence. (Para 8) 
(236-B-G] 
1.2 In the instant case, when the circumstances 
placed before the trial court are considered and the 
various tests relating to the circumstantial evidence are 
applied there can be no difficulty in holding that the chain 
F of circumstances had every definite link. After 22.08.1997, 
having known that the deceased had gone to the 

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