YOGESH NARAIN SAXENA versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 856 · Decided: 09-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
YOGESH NARAIN SAXENA 
v. 
. }- .. 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 
MARCH 9, 2007 
B 
[C. K. THAKKERANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, I 860 : 
..( 
c 
Section 302-Conviction under-Based on circumstantial evidence-
Held, on facts, proved. 
The appellant was charged with the offence of committing murder and 
attempt to cause disappearance of the dead body of a young boy, son of his 
next door neighbour with whom he was on visiting terms. The dead body of 
• 
D the victim was found in a tin box lying in the inner room of the quarter of the 
accused . The dead body was removed from the box and on visual examination 
marks of strangulation were noticed on the neck of the deceased. The case of 
the prosecution rests solely on circumstantial evidence. The accused, in his 
.... 
defence, also got examined four witnesses including his wife. The trial court, 
after considering the evidence on record, recorded conviction and awa·rded 
E sentence as aforesaid. The accused-appellant preferred an appeal. The High 
Court, as noted above, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon 
the appellant by the trial court. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that (i) that the case is based 
F 
on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances highlighted by the 
prosecution do not present a complete chain to show that in all human 
probability the act must have been done by the appellant and the judgments of 
··~ 
the trial court as well as that of the High Court are based on hypothesis and 
conjectures. The prosecution has failed to establish that the circumstances 
from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn by the prosecution, is not 
G cogently and firmly established; (ii) that no motive of any kind whatsoever 
has been established by the prosecution from the evidence on record against 
the appellant; (iii) that there is no evidence at all of last seen of the deceased 
....... 
with the accused on the day and at the relevant time of occurrence; (iv) that 
there is no evidence led by the prosecution to prove that any body saw the 
H 
856 
., 
YOGESH NARAIN SAXENA r. STA TE OF UTT ARANCHAL 
857 
child entering into the appellant's house which is surrounded by a number of A 
houses and shops; (v) that the statement of P.W. 1 that the appellant was seen 
by him in the evening on the fateful day in front of his house is just an 
improvement and an after thought; (vi) that no witness has deposed of the 
presence of the appellant in his quarter on the fateful night, (vii) The trial 
court as well as the High Court have failed to appreciate and re-appreciate B 
the evidence of the defence witnesses who have established on record that on 
the day of the occurrence the appellant and his wife both were at some other 
place; and (viii) that the recovery of dead body of the deceased allegedly at the 
instance of the appellant cannot be a conclusive proof of murder by the 
appellant. It was urged that the crime had been committed by some other 
person who concealed the body of the child in the house of the appellant to C 
frame him in a false case. If the evidence of the prosecution is accepted, the 
appellant could only be held guilty for committing the offence under Section 
201 IPC and not for offence under Section 302 IPC, was the last contention 
of the counsel. 
The counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the reasons D 
given by the trial court as well as by the High Court for recording the order 
of conviction of the accused are based upon proper appreciation of evidence 
led by the prosecution in the case. According to him, the chain of 
circumstances is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the 
accused. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELDt.1. There being no direct evidence to connect the accused with 
the crime, the case of the prosecution rests solely on circumstantial evidence 
E 
but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial F 
evidence laid down by the this Court, viz. the circumstances from which an 
inference of guilt sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 
(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing 
towards guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, 
should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion 
that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused G 
and none else; and (iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to s

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