LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus SHYAM BEHARI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 6 S.C.R. 4
-{
A
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
SHYAM BEHARI & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 2004)
B
MARCH 31, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND DR.
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
IND/AN PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
ss. 302134 and 201134 - Accused convicted by trial court
on circumstantial evidence - Acquittal by High Court holding
that the facts with regard to accused last seen with deceased
and recovery of dead body not proved - Witness also found
..
D not reliable. - Held: Judgment of High Court does not suffer
from any deficiency to warrant interference - Circumstantial
evidence ·- Tests to be satisfied - Explained.
The respondents were convicted and sentenced by
the trial court u/ss 302/34 and 201/34 IPC mainly on the
~E circumstantial evidence adduced to establish that the
accused was last seen with the deceased and recovery
of the body of the deceased was made at the instance of
one of the accused. The High Court having acquitted the
"
accused, the State filed the appeal.
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The circumstantial evidence, in order to
sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of
G
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt
of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not
~
only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
should also be inconsistent with his innocence. [Para 4]
(6-F-H]
H
4
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. SHYAM BEHARI &
5
ANR.
~-
Bodh Raj@ Bodha & Ors. v. State of J&K 2002 (2) Suppl. A
SCR 67=2002 (8) sec 45 and Gambhir v. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1982 SC 1157, relied on.
1.2. In the instant case, the High Court found that the
circumstances as regards the accuse being last seen with 8
the deceased and recovery of dead body have not been
-,i., .
established by cogent evidence. So far as the alleged last
seen theory is concerned, the High Court found that the
evidence in this regard does not by iii;elf necessarily lead
to the inference that it was the accus~d who committed
the crime. The High Court also found that the evidence C
of PW4 does not inspire confidence. So far as the alleged
recovery of weapon was concerned, PW-12 who
interrogated the accused, did not record his disclosure
statement. In the circumstances, the judgment of the High
"'
Court does not suffer from any deficiency to warrant D
interference. [Para 5, 7 and 8) [8-C-D, 9-B-E]
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1982 SC 1157
relied on
2002 (2) Suppt SCR 67
relied on
Para 4
Para 7
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 501 of 2004.
E
From the Judgment & Order dated 24. 10.2003 of the High
F
Court of Judicature at Allal)abad in Criminal Appeal No. 1145
of 1981.
Chandra Prakash Pandey for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the order of acquittal recorded by a Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court. The respondents faced trial for alleged
G
H
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 6 S.C.R.
-t
A commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). Learned IVth Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Kanpur found the respondents guilty and
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and two years
...
B rigorous imprisonment respectively for the aforesaid two
offences. In appeal, the High Court reversed the judgment of
conviction and directed acquittal.
2. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the
c
appellant-State submitted that the circumstances which were
highlighted by the trial court to record conviction have been
without any basis reversed by the High Court. Learned counsel
for the respondent supported the judgment of acquittal.
3. The prosecution version rested on circumstantial
D evidence. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well
....
settled. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence,
such evidence must satisfy three tests: (1) the circumstances
from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be
cogently and firmly established: (2) those circumstances should
E be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of
the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should_
form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was
\o
committed by the accused and none else.
F
4. The cirExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.