STATE OF GOA versus SANJAY THAKRAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 02-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'• 
! 
J 
STATE OF GOA 
A 
v. 
SANJA Y THAKRAN AND ANR. 
MARCH 2, 2007 
[B.N. AGRA WALANDP.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India-Article I 36-Penal Code, I 860- Sections I 20-
B, 364, 302 and 392-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--Section 313-Accused 
charged of criminal conspiracy, abduction, murder and robbery on basis of C 
circumstantial evidence-Accused last seen with deceased together-Recovery 
of articles of deceased with accused-Tira! Court and High Court acquitting""'•,, 
the acccused-Correctness of-Held, court in appeal can set aside the order 
of acquittal only when the decision is perverse-On examination of evidence, 
there was a considerable time gap between the persons last seen together 
and the proximate time of crime-Prosecution failed to prove that the articles D 
recovered were that of the deceased-Hence, acquittal of accused upheld in 
the absence of any other corroborative evidence to complete the chain of 
circumstances. 
Respondents-couple were charged for offences under sections 120-8, 
364, 302 and 392 read with section 34 IPC for murdering and robbing the E 
deceased couple on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The trial court and 
the High Court acquitted the respondents of the charges on the ground that 
th~ proseuction failed to prove involvement of the respondents in the 
commission of the crime. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant-State contended that certain F 
articles, including some gold jewels belonging to the deceased were seized 
from the respondents; that certain witnesses had deposed that the deceased 
werl!-last seen with the respondents; and that the respondents have not 
explained as to in what circumstance!!, the victims suffered the death, in their 
statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. 
G 
The respondents contended that this Court, in an appeal.arising out of 
special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution oflndia, cannnot, 
on reappraisal of evidence, take a different view against the concurrent orders 
507 
H 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A of acquittal by the trial court and High Court; and that the courts below have 
rightly reached the conclusion on consideration of evidence on record that 
f 
the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt in 
... 
commission of the crime. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. When the case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such 
evidence must satisfy the following tests: 
(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be 
l 
drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 
f 
c 
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly 
pointing towards guilt of the accused; 
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so 
D 
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human 
probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and 
( 4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be 
complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of 
guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the 
E 
guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (Para 13) 
State of U.P. v. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC ll4; Padala Veera Reddy v. State 
of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1989) Supp. 2 SCC 706; Sharad Birdichand 
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC ll6; Gambhir v. State of 
Maharashtra, (1982) 2 SCC 351; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. 
F State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1952) SC 343, referred to. 
.... 
1.2. While exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, 
the court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal 
unless the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality 
and the conclusion arriv~ at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person 
G and therefore, the decision is to be characteried as perverse. Merely because 
two views are possible, the court of appeal would not take the view which would 
upset the judgment delivered by the court below. (Para 15) (519-A-B) 
Tota Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 529; Ramesh Babula/ 
i -
Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, 
H (2003( 8 SCC 180; Bhagwan Singh v. State of MP., (2002) 4 SCC 85; Shivaji 
STA TE OF GOA v. SAN.TAY THAKRAN 
509 
-
Sahabrao Bobade v. Stale of Maharashtra, 11973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Bab/al A 
.... 
l 
Doshi v. Sta

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