SUDAMA PANDEY AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 05-12-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
SUDAMA PANDEY AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
DECEMBER. 5, 2001 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND KG. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial-Cirl'utnstantial evidence--Conviction on basis of-· 
Circumstances should be such as to .form a chain leading to i1iference ~f the 
guilt ~f the accused. 
Constitwion of India, 1950-Arllcle 136 : 
Concurrent . .findin{?s <~ffacts---Nornu1lly not inte(fered }Vith-Hou·ever 
could be interfered ivith when there is subsrantia~ n1iscarriage of justice. 
A 
B 
c 
Reappraisal o.f evidence-Not nonna/ly done-But could be resorted to 
D 
\~·hen assessn1ent o.f evidence is viliated by error of lcnv or procedure or if I here 
is 111isreading <~f evidence. 
Appellants allegedly caused the death of 12 years old girl. Trial 
Court, relying upon various circumstantial evidence, found the appellants 
E 
guilty and sentenced them to death, High Court confirmed the conviction 
but commuted the death penalty to imprisonment for life. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I. The various circumstances relied on by the Trial Court 
and the High Court did not point to the guilt of the accused and there arc 
various circumstances which throw serions doubts that the victim mu.,t 
F 
have died not in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Thus, the appel-
lants could not be found guilty of the offence charged against them.[ 469-F] 
G 
2. It is settled principle that in the case of circumstantial evidence, 
the various circumstances should form a chain pointing to the guilt of the 
accused. In cases where there is only circumstantial evidence, the Court 
has to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution and decide whetlwr 
H 
465 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
the evidence proves particular facts relevant for the purpose of the case 
and when such facts are proved question arises whether the facts are 
capable of giving rise to any inference of the guilt of the accused person or 
not. An inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly 
consistent with the guilt of the accused and if the proved fact is consistent 
B 
with his innocence he is entitled to benefit of doubt. [ 468-D-E] 
Tanviben Panikaikumar Divdia v. State of Guiarat, [1997) 7 SCC 156 
and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984] 4 SCC 116, 
referred to. 
C 
3. The entire evidence adduced by the prosecution only shows that 
the prosecution witnesses found the appellant; in the vicinty of the place 
where the dead body was found. Even if it is p.resumed that the appellants 
were found sitting together .or found walking oilong the road, that by itself 
is not an incriminating circumst:.lntial evidenc•e pointing to the guilt of the 
D 
accused unless it was very near to the scene of occurrence or that they were 
found in suspicious circumstanc•es. The evidence to the effect that some of 
the appellants teased the deceased is also not satisfactorily proved. Apart 
from this flimsy suspicion, there is no other evidence to connect the appel· 
!ants to the crime. Further, the Investigating Officer could not lay his 
. E 
hands on any incriminating material to connect the appellants to the 
crime, such as recovery of any "eapon allegedly used by them for commit· 
ting crime or any blood stainef!, clothes worn by them which would have 
been of some assistance to prow the guilt of the appellants. The appellants 
were arrested immediately after the incident. None of them had injuries on 
F 
their body. It is also suspicious whether the incident itself had occurred in 
the places alleged. The Investigating Officer deposed that he did not D1;tice 
in the mahazar that there were foot marks or the trampling of the plants 
near the &rea where the dead body was found. Further, the prosecution 
witnesses examined by the pr,lsecution were accused in other criminal 
cases whose evidence should have been considered by the trial court wiih 
G 
extreme care and caution. (472-C-F; 472-B] 
4. Under Article 136 of the Constitution this court seldom interferes 
with the factual findings recorded by two. concurring Courts hut if this 
Court is satisfied that the High Court has committed a serious error of law 
H 
and that there was substantial miscarriag<: of justice, this court could 
SUDAMA PANDEY v. STATE [BALKRISHNAN, J.] 
467 
interfere with the concurring findings of the High Court and ·that of the 
A 
Trial Court. This Court also does not normally enter into a reappraisal or 
review o

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