STATE OF U.P. versus SATISH

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 1132 · Decided: 08-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
SA TISH 
FEBRUARY 8, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Penal Code-Sections 302 and 376-Rape followed by murder-
Conviction by trial Court on circumstantial evidence i.e. accused last seen 
C with deceased and recovery of undergarments of accused and deceased-
High Court ordering acquittal holding that circumstances not inspiring 
confidence-On appeal, held: High Court erred in ordering acquittal-Chain 
of evidence on record is complete as to show that crime was committed by the 
accused-Deposition of witnesses showed that deceased and accused were 
last seen together-High Court drew an adverse inference without indicating 
D any reason and hence not sustainable. 
Principle of Just desert-Proportion between crime and punishment-
The criminal law adheres to the principle of proportionality in prescribing 
liability according to the culpability of each ~ind of criminal conduct. 
E 
Circumstantial evidence-last seen theory-Discussed. 
Sentencing-Considerations for awarding sentence-Discussed. 
Accused was prosecuted for rape and murder of six year old girl. 
According to prosecution PW-3 and PW-5 had seen accused carrying the 
F deceased on a bicycle on the date of occurrence, near the place from where 
the dead body of deceased was found. During investigation, undergarments 
of deceased and accused were recovered. Trial Court convicted him under 
section 363, 366, 376(2), 302 & 201 IPC and sentenced him to death. High 
Court set aside the conviction holding that the case rested on 
G circumstantial evidence and the circumstances highlighted by the 
prosecution did not inspire confidence. 
H 
In appeal to this Court, State contended that the evidence of PWs 2, 
3 and 5 clearly established the circumstances pointing the accusing finger 
at the accused; that no question was put to the IO (PW-8) regarding 
1132 
t 
-,.. 
) 
STATE OF U.P. v. SA TISH 
1133 
alleged delayed examination and the explanation was given for non A 
inclusion of the name of the accused in the FIR by PW-I and without 
indicating any reason, the High Court had treated the same to be 
unacceptable. 
The accused-respondent contended that the evidence tendered by the 
prosecution is not sufficient to prove unerringly that the accused was B 
responsible for the crime; and that the case being one, which rests on 
circumstantial evidence, the view taken by the High Court is a possible 
view and, therefore, this court should not interfere. 
Allowing the appea!s, the Court 
HELD: 1. When a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, 
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 
c 
an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved D 
beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected 
with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 
The onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and 
the infirmity of lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by a false 
defence or plea. In the instant case, on analysis of the evidence on record, 
the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has established its E 
accusations. [1138-C-D; 1140-D; 1141-A) 
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1977) SC 1063; Eradu v. State 
of Hyderabad. AIR (1956) SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka 
AIR (1983) SC 446; State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi, AIR (1985) SC 1224; 
Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 350; Ashok Kumar F 
Chatterjee v. State of MP., AIR (1989) SC 1890 and Hanumant Govind 
Nargundkar v. State of MP., AIR (1952) SC 343, relied on. 
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR (1954) SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy 
v. State of A.P .. [1996) 10 SCC 193; State of UP. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 
(1992) Crl. LJ 1104 and Pada/a Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR (1990) G 
SC 79, r~ferred to. 
Will's Circumstantial Evidence '(Chapter VI), referred to 
2.1. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that if 
there is any delay in examination of a particular witness the prosecution H 
1134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A version becomes suspect. It would depend upon several factors. If the 
explanation offered for the delayed examination is plausible and acceptable 
and the court accepts the same as plausible, there is no reason to interfere 
with the con

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