LexUSMAN MIAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
USMAN MIAN AND ORS. v. ST A TE OF BIHAR OCTOBER 4, 2004 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 Conviction based on circumstantial evidence-Principles restated- Deceased found to have injuries-Not explained properly-Attempt by appellants to bury the body hurriedly-Plea falsified-Appellants absconding- Held, circumstances sufficient to convict the accused-Though falsity of defence plea not enough to convict, it provides additional link to substantiate prosecution case. The deceased was married to appellant no. 1. Appellants 2 and 3 were her step-sons and they were not happy with the marriage. After two months of the marriage deceased started sending information that the appellants used to vex and torture her and had even given threat to kill her. The days prior to the occurrence RH (PW-3), the younger brother of A B D the informant had met her when she asked him to take her lest she might E be killed by the appellants. On getting the information about the death of his sister, PW-IO alongwith PW-4, PW-8, PW-3, his sister and PW-7 went to the house of the appellants in village Nasirpur and saw the dead body of the deceased lying on a cot on the southern verandah of the house. The body was covered by cloth. By that time several persons of the two villages, F namely, Chatarghat and Nasirpur had gathered there. Marks of scratches and bluish stain on the neck and black stain on the right pareital region were visible. On a suspicion after seeing the said marks that the deceased had been killed by her husband and her step-sons, i.e. present appellant, a complaint was lodged. Appellants were absconding from their house. They were pressing hard to bury the dead body but on seeing the police G party they fled away. The accused defended the trial to the effect that the deceased was ill for 3 to 4 days prior to the date of occurrence and had grown very weak. She has come to fetch water from the well that night and received injuries 21 H 22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A when she fell down, became unconscious and subsequently died. The trial court found the accused persons guilty by relying on the circumstances which.were highlighted, holding that the circumstances were sufficient to bring home the accusations disbelieving the evidence of DW-1. In appeal the High Court upheld the order of trial court and held B that there was no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court. . On appeal to this Court, it was contended that the case rests on cfrcumstantial evidence that even if the circumstances are accepted in toto, they do not form a complete chain of circumstances and, therefore, could C not have been relied upon for holding the accused-appellants guilty, and that the materials relied upon by the prosecution, do not bring home the accusation so far as appellant No.I. Respondent-State supported the judgment of the courts below and sub~itted that well reasoned and well discussed judgments of the courts D below have clearly established guilt of the accused persons and no interference is called for. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1. For a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime E must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact ofjactum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that is the evidentiary facts. To put it differently, circumstantial F evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact iii issue which taken together form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. [27-8, CJ · 2. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the G 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 an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved . beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected H with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. USMANMIAN v. STATEOFBIHAR 23 W
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.