STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SANJAY RAI

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 560 · Decided: 25-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
SANJAY RAI 
MARCH 2), 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.} 
Penal Code, I 860-Section 3048-Death of wife-Trial Court convicting 
the husband for strangulation of deceased, by referring to certain opinions 
C of specialist authors on medical jurisprudence-High Court acquitting the 
accused after re-appreciating the evidences-Correctness of-Held, the opinion 
of specialist authors cannot be considered to be authoritatively binding and 
elevated on higher pedestal than the opinion of an expert examined in Court-
High Court is right in re-appreciation of evidence to prevent miscarriage of 
justice. 
D 
For the death of the Respondent's wife, the respondent and his 
parents were charged with offences punishable under sections 302, 3048 
and 201 IPC. The trial court acquitted the parents of the respondent and 
convicted the respondent under section 3048 IPC. In appeal by the State, 
High Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the circumstantial 
E evidences were not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. 
In appeal to this Court, the State contended that the trial court had 
analysed the evidence in its proper perspective and held the respondent 
guilty. 
F 
The respondent contended that as the trial court had proceeded on 
) .. 
surmises and conjectures, the High Court was justified in directing 
!' 
acquittal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: I.I. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, 
H 
the inference of guilt can 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 
560 
STA TE OF M.P. v. SAN.IAY RAI 
561 
beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected A 
with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 
1565-B-DI 
Hukam Singh v. Slate of Rajasthan, AIR (1977) SC 1063; Eradu and 
Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, AIR (1956) SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of 
Karnataka, AIR (1983) SC 446; State of UP. v. Sukhbasi and Ors., AIR B 
(1987) SC 350; Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 350; 
Ashok Kumar Challerjee v. State of MP., AIR (1989) ~C 1890; Bhagat Ram. 
v. State of Punjab, AIR (1954) SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State 
of A.P., [1996[ 10 SCC 193; Pada/a Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., 
AIR (1990) SC 79; State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, [1992] Crl. L.J. C 
1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 
AIR (1952) SC 343 and Sharad Birdhichand Sardo v. State of Maharashtra, 
AIR (1984) SC 1622, referred to. 
Circumstantial Evidence by Sir Alfred Wills, referred to. 
D 
1.2. The only circumstance which the Trial Court relied upon to hold 
guilt of the respondent was by referring to some text books on medical 
jurisprudence. With reference to them it was held that case of 
strangulation was clearly made out. It cannot be said that the opinions of 
these authors were given in regard to circumstances exactly similar to 
those which arose in this case. This is not a satisfactory way of dealing E 
with or disposing of the evidence of an expert examined in this case unless 
the passages which are sought to be relied to discredit his opinion are put 
to him. Though opinions expressed in text books by specialist authors may 
be of considerable assistance and importance for the Court in arriving at 
the truth, they cannot always be treated or viewed to be either conclusive F 
or final as to what such author says to deprive even a Court of law to 
come to an appropriate conclusion of its own on the peculiar facts proved 
in a given case. In substance, though such views may have persuasive value, 
they cannot always be considered to be authoritatively binding, even to 
dispense with the actual proof otherwise reasonably required of the guilt 
of the accused in a given case. Such opinions cannot be elevated to or G 
placed on higher pedestal than the opinion of an expert examined in Court 
and the weight ordinarily to which it may be entitled to or deserves to be 
given. 1568-A-EI 
Sunder/al v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1954) SC 28 and 
Bhagwan Das and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1957) SC 589, referred H 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
120041 3 S.C.R. 
A to. 
1.3. Even if on the hypothetical basis it is held that do

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