LexSTATE OF U.P versus RAM BALAK AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 219
~-.,
STATE OF U.P
A
v.
RAM BALAK AND AN R.
(Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2002)
OCTOBER 3, 2008
B
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
-i
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 302 and 376:
Rape and murder of a minor - Trial Court convicted ac-
cused persons for committing offences punishable under c
ss.201, 302 and 376 /PC and sentenced them to death -Ac-
quittal by High Court holding that circumstances do not make
a complete chain to establish accusations - Correctness of -
Held: Correct - Though conviction can be based solely on
circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-
D
stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence - Out of cir-
-r
cumstances highlighted by prosecution, none is of any sig-
nificance - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence.
Evidence:
E
Extra-judicial confession - Conviction based on - Held:
Accused did not state about his involvement in committing
offence - Moreover, in his examination u/s.313 Cr.PC., no
question regarding his extra judicial confession was put to him
i - It is inconceivable that a person would inform the Police af-
F
ter three days of occurrence about his purported extra-judicial
confession.
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day
when the vidim, a minor girl had gone to attend the call of
nature in an open field, respondents allegedly followed G
_J
her and after committing r.ape on her, killed her by stran-
gulation. When the victim did not return home, the family
members of the victim started searching her and found
her dead body. PW1, brother of the deceased, lodged an
219
H
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 14 S.C.R.
r-
1-r
A FIR. Investigating Officer utilized the services of sniffer -t ~ .·
dogs to identify the accused persons and arrested them.
Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation,
submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons for
committing the offences punishable under Ss. 201, 302
s and 376 IPC. Trial Court found accused guilty of commit-
ting the rape and murder of the deceased and inter alia
sentenced them to death. On appeal, High Court acquit-
1~
ted the accused persons as the prosecution had failed to
establish accusations against them. Hence, the appeal.
C
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, there is no eye wit-
ness account. The conviction of the-respondents is based
only on circumstantial evidence. (Para - 2) [225,D]
D
1.2 Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial
E
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when
all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found
to be in~ompatible with the innocence of the accused or
the guilt of any other person. (Para - 4) [226,C]
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977) SC 1063;
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR (1956) SC 316;
Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka AIR (1983) SC 446;
State of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR (1985) SC 1224;
Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR (1987) SC 350 and
F Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P AIR (1989) SC 1890 \
'
~
- relied on.
'
1.3 The circumstances from which an inference as
to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved
G beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be
closely connected with the principal fact sought to be in-
ferred from those circumstances. (Para - 4) [226,E]
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR (1954) SC 621; C.
Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193;
H Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. AIR (1990) SC
r----
1
' t
STATE OF U.P v. RAM BALAK
ANDANR.
221
.,_ ·\"
,
79 and State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) Crl.LJ A
-{
-f
_,
I
'!
---\
1104 - referred to.
"Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) by Sir
Alfred Wills - referred to.
1.4 There is no doubt that conviction can be based
solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested
by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evi-
dence. (Para - 9) [228,D]
1.5 Out of the circumstances, as highlighted, really
none is of any significance. (Para - 16) [230,G]
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1952) SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) SC 1622 ; State of
Rajasthan v. Rajaram (2003) 8 SCC 180; State of Haryana v.
Jagbir Singh & Anr. (2003) 11 SCC 261; State of UP v. Satish
(2005) 3 SCC 114; Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State
of A.P (2006) 10 SCC 172 and Jaswant Gir v. State Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.