STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus RAJ KUMAR

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 102 · Decided: 08-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
v.
RAJ KUMAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 31 of  2018)
JANUARY 08, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201 r/w.34 – Case based on
circumstantial evidence – Deceased was residing with PW1 (son),
PW2 (daughter) and accused-respondent (brother-in-law) – On the
fateful night, PW1 heard the cries of deceased on being beaten by
respondent who then took her towards the house of another accused
– Later, dead body of deceased was found hanging from a tree –
Trial court convicted the respondent – Appeal by accused allowed
by High Court on the ground that PW-1 had made improvements in
his deposition and hence, was not a reliable witness – Held:
Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence – In the present
case, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved
by cogent and reliable evidence cumulatively forming a complete
chain pointing out that the murder was committed by the respondent
and none-else – Further, evidence of PW-1 was cogent, natural
and consistent with the prosecution case – High Court entertained
fanciful doubts and rejected the credible evidence of PW-1 on ground
of alleged improvements – Reasonings of the High Court for
acquitting the respondent are unsustainable – Conviction of
respondent by trial court is affirmed.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Burden of proving fact
especially within knowledge – Deceased was living with her 2
children and accused-respondent (brother-in-law) – On the fateful
day, the respondent had beaten the deceased before taking her
towards the house of another accused – Later, dead body of
deceased was found hanging from a tree – Held: In view of s.106,
burden was cast upon the respondent, being the inmate of the house
to give a cogent explanation as to how the deceased died – No
reasonable explanation was forthcoming from him as to why he
had neither lodged the complaint nor informed the police about the
missing of deceased – Accused not throwing light on the fact which
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 102
102
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
103
was within his knowledge, his failure to offer any explanation is a
strong militating circumstance against him.
Criminal law – Last seen theory – Deceased was last seen
alive in the company of accused – Accused did not satisfactorily
explain the missing of deceased – Held: This is a strong militating
circumstance against the accused – Deceased who was residing in
the same house with the accused and was last seen alive with the
accused, it was for him to explain how the deceased died.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:   1.1  Prosecution case is based on circumstantial
evidence.  It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and
that those circumstances must be conclusive in nature unerringly
pointing towards the guilt of the accused.  Moreover all the
circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain
and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.  Further
the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent
with his innocence. [Para 9][107-D-E]
1.2 The deceased was living with her brother-in-law/accused
along with her children. If the deceased was so missing, the
natural conduct of the accused was to inform the police and also
PW-3 (deceased’s brother).  But that was not done. In view of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 burden is cast upon the
accused, being the inmate of the house to give a cogent explanation
as to how the deceased died. The respondent-accused being
inmate of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and
offering no explanation. This is a strong militating circumstance
against the respondent indicating that he might be responsible
for the commission of the offence. [Para 12]108-G-H]
2.  The motive attributed to the accused is that he had
frequently quarrelled with the deceased and also assaulted her.
Evidence of PW-15 as to the motive attributed to the accused
was not properly appreciated by the High Court. [Para 13][109-
A, D]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAJ KUMAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
3. PW-1 is the son of the deceased residing with her and
the accused in the same house, and a natural witness to speak
about the occurrence. Evidence of PW-1 was cogent and 

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