STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus DIPAK HALDER & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 08-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 530 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
v. 
OIPAK HALDER & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2004) 
MAY 08, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND DR. 
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 498A - Married woman 
C burnt to death - Husband and in-laws of deceased allegedly 
ill-treated her due to non-payment of dowry by her father -
Case based on circumstantial evidence - Defence plea that 
the incident occurretl due to bursting of kerosene stove -
Conviction of respondent-husband by trial Court - Reversed 
O by High Court - On appeal, held: Conviction can be based 
on circumstantiai evidence if it is of such a character that the 
same is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused 
and is consistent only with his guilt - In the instant case, apart 
from the fact that the respondent-husband did not make an 
E effort to save the deceased and was shown to have been 
abusing the deceased and his relatives, he tried to prove his 
innocence by manipulating records of a nursing home -
Obvious attempt on part of accused-husband was to show that 
he could not have looked after treatment of the wife as he 
F himself was undergoing treatment - There was no material 
to show that a stove had burst as pleaded by defence - High 
Court did not even analyse the circumstances and came to 
an abrupt conclusion that the circumstances did not constitute 
a complete chain - Circumstances point to only one 
G conclusion, i.e. guilt pf the respondent-husband - Judgment 
of High Court set aside and that of trial Court restored - • 
· Evidence - Circumstantial 9vidence - Appreciation of. 
PW1's daughter was allegedty burnt to death by her 
H 
530 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DIPAK HALDER & 
531 
ANR. 
husband and in-laws. It was alleged that the accused 
A 
persons ill-treated ttie deceased due to non-payment of 
d9WI)' ~y tu~r fattier. The prosecution case was based on 
circrnrnstijnti;;il eyidenc~. The defence plea was that the 
incident Qccurred due to bursting of kerosene stove. The 
tri<il co4rt pqnvicted respon~ent no.1-husband under B 
s.49QA IPC .and s.302 IPC. On appeal, the High Court 
acquitted respondent no.1. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, 
C 
the Court is required to consider whether the cumulative 
effect of all the circumstances, lead to a cQnclusion that 
the $ame was a case of murder and the accused was 
responsible for such murder. A conviction can be based 
on circumstantial evidence if it is of such a character that D 
the same is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the 
accused and is consistent. only with his guilt. The 
incriminating circumstances that are being used against 
the accused must be such as to lead only to a hypothesis 
to reasonably exclude every possibility of his innocence. 
E 
·· To put it differently, the Court should find out whether the 
crime was committed by the accused and the 
circumstances proved formed themselves into a complete 
chain, which clearly points to the guilt of the accused. If 
on the other hand, the circumstances proved against the 
accused are consistent either with the innocence of the 
accused or raise a reasonable doubt about the way the 
prosecution has alleged the offence is committed, the 
accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. [Para 
5] [539-G-H; 540-A-C] 
2. In the instant case, apart from the fact that the 
accused did not make an effort to save the deceased but 
was shown to have been abusing the deceased and ·his 
relatives, tried to prove his innocence by manipulating 
F 
G 
H 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 8 S.C.R. 
-
f 
A records of a nursing home. The obvious attempt was to 
show that he could not have looked after the treatment 
of the wife as he himself was undergoing treatment. 
Several other factors throw considerable light relating to 
the absence of any material to show that a stove had 
B burst which resulted in causing injuries on the body of 
the deceased. The High Court did not even analyse the 
circumstances but came to an abrupt conclusion that the 
circumstances do not constitute a complete chain. The 
circumstances point to only one conclusion, i.e. guilt of 
c the accused-respondent no.1. The judgment of the High 
Court impugned in this appeal is set aside and that of the 
trial Court is restored. [Paras 6 and 7] [540-C-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 543 of 2004. 
D 
• 
From the Judgmen

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