STATE OF U.P. versus HARI MOHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 440 · Decided: 07-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
HARi MOHAN AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 7, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Criminal law: 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections. 302, 34 and 201-Murder-
Applicability of circumstantial evidence in conviction of accused when there 
is no direct evidence-Held, the circumstantial evidence should be consistent 
with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. 
D 
Respondent No. I, the accused, was found convicted for murder of his 
younger brother's wife. Body of the deceased was found in a gunny bag floating 
in a pond. The body bore gun shot injuries. The First Additional Sessions 
Judge convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Other respondents 
were convicted under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous 
E imprisonment. On appeal by the respondents, the High Court acquitted the 
accused on the assumption that "the possibility of a suicide of the deceased 
in the house also cannot be denied". The conviction of all the other accused 
persons was also held not maintainable on that account. The State has 
preferred the present appeal. 
F 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is no direct evidence connecting any of the accused 
with the commission of the crime. The case of the prosecution is based upon 
circumstantial evidence. It is often said that witnesses may lie but the 
circumstances cannot. To convict a person on ttie basis of circumstantial 
G evidence all the circumstances relied upon by the prosec_ution must be clearly 
established. The proved circumstances must be such as would reasonably 
exclude the possibility of innocence of the accused. The circumstantial 
evidence should be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent 
with his innocence. The chain of circumstances, furnished by the prosecution, 
H should be so complete as not to lead any reasonable ground for conclusion 
440 
)· 
STATE OF U.P. v. HARi MOHAN 
441 
consistent with the innocence of the accused. Medical evidence in such a case A 
may be an important circumstance giving assurance to the existence of the 
other circumstances alleged against the culprit. When the evidence against 
the accused, particularly when he is charged with grave offence like murder 
consists of only circumstances, it must be qualitatively such that on every 
reasonable hypothesis the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty; not B 
fantastic possibilities nor freak inferences but rational deductions which 
reasonable minds make from the probative force of facts and circumstances. 
1442-H; 443-A-CI 
1.2. On the basis of prosecution evidence led in the case and despite 
mishandling of the case by the investigation officer, this Court is satisfied C 
that the circumstances have been fully established by the prosecution. The 
circumstances are a chain, complet~ in itself and inconsistent with the 
innocence of the accused. On the touchstone of the tests regarding 
appreciation of circumstantial evidence, there is no doubt that prosecution 
had proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused had caused 
the death and thus committed the murder of the deceased. He was rightly D 
convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the IPC and wrongly 
acquitted by the High Court on erroneous considerations. 1448-E-Fl 
1.3. This Court restores the conviction passed by the trial court against 
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing 
him to undergo life imprisonment. (448-HI 
E 
1.4. The prosecution did not succeed in proving the case either under 
section 302 read with section 34 or section 201 IPC against the other accused 
persons and their acquittal by the High Court is upheld.1448-G; 449-A) 
State of Punjab v. Jagbir Singh, Baljit Singh & Karam Singh, 1197413 F 
SCC 277; Sate of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Rai & Sons, JT (1999) 9 SC 43 
and Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR (1966) SC 1322, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 484 
of 1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.91 of the Allahabad High Court 
in Crl. A. No. 3318 of 1978. 
Praveen Swamp and Pramod Swamp for the Appellant. 
G 
G. Krishnan, Radhakrishnan, Amitesh Kumar and Gopal Singh for the 
Respondents. 
H 
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
SETHI, J. Roop Devi, daughter of Bhagwan Sahai (PW 

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