VADLAKONDA LENIN versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2012] 10 S.C.R. 1135 · Decided: 22-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 10 S.C.R. 1135 
VADLAKONDA LENIN 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 22, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Allegation that appellant 
had murdered his wife while she was sleeping and had run 
away - Case resting on circumstantial evidence - Conviction C 
of appellant by Courts below - Justification - Held: Justified 
- Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 (father-in-law and brother-in-law 
of appellant) made it clear that appellant had been 
persistently demanding additional dowry and ill-treating the 
deceased - Deceased was found lying injured in her house 
D 
by PWs 3 and 5 - Nobody except appellant was in the house 
immediately before the occurrence - Appellant was seen 
fleeing away from the house by PW3 -
Thereafter, 
whereabouts of appellant were not known until he was arrested 
nearly 15 days thereafter - After arrest, appellant made 
statement on the basis of which a knife and a blood stained 
shirt of the appellant were recovered - Explanation offered by 
appellant for his absence for nearly 15 days following the 
death of his wife was unnatural and opposed to all cannons 
E 
F 
of acceptable human conduct and behavior - "Five golden 
principles» (five conditions) enunciated by Supreme Court in 
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda case must be fulfilled before a 
case against an accused vesting on circumstantial evidence 
can be said to be fully established - In the instant case, 
circumstances proved and established by the prosecution 
squarely satisfied the test laid down in Sharad Birdhichand 
G 
Sarcia - Prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt 
that it was appellant alone and nobody else who had 
committed the offence. 
1135 
H 
1136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of -
Held: The circumstances on which the prosecution relies must 
be · proved beyond all reasonable doubt and such 
circumstances must be capable of giving rise to an inference 
which is inconsistent with any other hypothesis except the guilt 
B of the accused - It is only in such an event that conviction of 
the accused, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence 
brought by the prosecution, would be permissible in law - "Five 
golden principles" enunciated by Supreme Court in Sharad 
Birdhichand Sarda case, recapitulated. 
c 
The prosecution case was that the accused-appellant 
had murdered his wife while she was sleeping and had 
run away. FIR was lodged by PW1, father-in-law of 
appellant, whereafter charge sheet under Sections 302 
and 498A IPC was submitted against the appellant. 
D However in the trial court, charge under section 302 IPC 
alone was framed. The trial ended in the conviction of 
appellant under Section 302 IPC who was sentenced to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction 
and sentence was affirmed by the High Court, and 
E therefore the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. In the instant case, there is no direct 
F evidence of any eye witness to the crime alleged against 
the accused-appellant. However, certain circumstances 
inimical to the accused-appellant have been proved by 
the prosecution. Such circumstances which have been 
culled out by the trial court and also by the High Court 
can be summarised as below: (i) The accused had been 
G making demands for dowry and on that account was 
harassing, intimidating and committing atrocities on the 
deceased; (ii) the accused and the deceased alognwith 
PWs 1 and 2 had attended the betrothal function of the 
brother of the deceased in the evening prior to the 
H 
VADLAKONDA LENIN v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
1137 
PRADESH 
incident. Immediately after the incident, there was a 
A 
quarrel between the accused and the deceased; (iii) in 
the early morning of the next day the deceased was 
found by PW 3, lying in a cot in her own house with 
injuries on her neck; (iv) the accused was found by PW 
3 to be running away from the place; (v) the whereabouts 
B 
of the accused was not known after the incident and he 
could be arrested only around 15 days thereafter; and (vi) 
the accused had stated in his examination under section 
313 Cr.P .C. that he came to know of the incident only from 
the newspapers, whereafter he had explained the whole c 
incident to his sister. The culpability of the accused-
appellant, in the absence of any direct evidence, has to 
be judged on the basis of the circumstances enumerat

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