Holding

A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence must be supported by a conclusive chain of circumstances that excludes all reasonable doubt, which was lacking in this case, so the conviction was set aside.

Summary

The appellant Dauna Devi was convicted along with another accused for murder and concealment of body under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 IPC, based solely on circumstantial evidence that the dead child's body was recovered from a house allegedly belonging to the accused. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had an illicit relationship with the co‑accused and was present at the house when the child disappeared. The trial court and the High Court upheld the conviction, relying on the recovery of the body from the house and alleged confessions. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the chain of circumstances did not conclusively prove the appellant's guilt nor exclude the possibility of another perpetrator, and there was no evidence that she owned or was staying in the house at the relevant time. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was ordered to be released. The decision underscores the stringent standard required for convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

Issues considered

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the fact that the dead body was recovered from a house allegedly belonging to the accused satisfies the requirement of a conclusive chain of circumstances.
Whether the lack of evidence regarding the appellant's ownership or residence in the house defeats the prosecution's case.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 125, s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

circumstantial evidenceconvictionmurderIPCSection 302Section 34Section 201Section 125 CrPCSection 313 CrPCappealacquittalhouse ownershipchain of circumstances

Judgment

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 138

A DAUNA DEVI
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
Criminal Appeal No. 1530 of 2004
APRIL 29, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Evidence: Circumstantial evidence - Conviction by
courts below - Held: Circumstances highlighted by courts
C below did not meet the requisite standard applicable to cases
based on circumstantial evidence - Conviction set aside.
-
The trial court passed conviction order on the basis
of circumstantial evidence. High Court upheld the
conviction. Hence present appeal.
0
Appellant contended that the trial court and the High
Court erroneously observed that the house where the
dead body was recovered belonged to two accused
persons.
E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: In a case of circumstantial evidence it has to
be conclusively es!ablished that the chain of
circumstances lead to the only inference, that of guilt of
F the accused ruling out the possibility of involvement of
any other person to be the author of the crime. There was
no evidence to show that appellant was the o·Nner of the
house and/or was staying in the house at the time of
alleged incident. No question was put in this regard in
G the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The
circumstance highlighted by the trial Court and the High
Court did not meet the requisite standard applicable to
cases based on circumstantial evidence. All other
circumstances including so called confession were
H 138
DAUNA DEVI V. STATE OF BIHAR 139
-

..i
disbelieved by the trial court and the High Court. Therefore, A
the conviction of the appellant as recorded cannot be
maintained. [Para 2] [141-8-E]
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
No. 1530 of 2004
B
From the Judgement and Order dated 06.08.2003 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal
~
No. 249 of 1996

Sudhir Nandrajog, for the Appellant.
c
Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, with him forthe Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
' 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the D
Division Bench of the Patna High Court confirming conviction
of the appellant who faced trial along with one Ran Lakhan Rai
for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section
34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
'IPC'). Each was directed to undergo R.I. for life for the first E -
offence and two years for the later offence.

.. 2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as
follows:
Siya Devi, the informant to this case and the mother of the F
deceased was married with Ram Lakhan Rai and from their
wedlock the deceased Bhikhani Kumari was born. Thereafter
her husband (Ram Lakhan Rai) fell in bad company and meted
inhuman treatment to the informant, as a result of which she
went to her father's place. In spite of the efforts made bythe G
informant, there was no effect on her husband and finally on
;_ -"
9.2.1981 accused Ram Lakhan RaHhrew her out of the house.-.
Accused Ram Lakhan Rai married Dauna Devi, the appellant. '-
Then the informant filed a criminal case in which Ram Lakhan
Rai had absconded. The informant had al.so filed a case of
H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS - {2009] 7 S.C.R.

A maintenance under Section 125. Cr.P.C., against her husband
and the appellant No.1 was ordered to pay maintenance but he
did not comply with the order and the informant filed a Misc.
case for its execution. Ext.9 is certified copy of the order of Misc.
case No.8 of 1981 (Siya Devi vs. Ram Lakhan Rai) under
B Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused Ram Lakhan Rai
agreed to keep the informant and her daughter and he started
keeping them and he pressurized the informant to withdraw the
case which she had instituted. When the informant did not
withdraw the case, accused Ram Lakhan Rai instituted a case
c on her witnesses Dr. Ambika Singh and Shital Sah for abducting
the informant and her daughter to put pressure on her. On
26.7.1984 the informant went to her father's place and she left
her daughter Bhikhani Kumari (deceased) in the house of her
husband. On 31.7.1984 one Kishori Kumari informed her that
D her husband had either concealed her daughter, somewhere or
murdered her. The informant came to her husband's house and
searched for her daughter. On enquiry, she learnt from Bishuni
Numar, Kishori Kumar (PW-4) and Ram Chandra Sah (PW-14)
that the accusd Ram Lakhan Rai, Bindeshwar Thakur, Ram
Ekbal Rai and Mahadeo were talking among themselves to
E remove Bhikani so that the case which had been instituted for
kidnapping may not fail. Ram Prasad Rai and Ram Lochan Rai
had seen the accused taking away a child aged about ten years
alongwith others and Dauna Devi was following them and on
enquiry Ram Lakhan Rai had told that he was taking away a
F child aged about ten years alongwith others and Dauna Devi
was following them and on inquiry Ram Lakhan Rai told that he
was taking Bhikani or curing her of snake bite and thereafter
Bhikhani was not seen in thevillage.
G The trial court held that there were circumstances which
clearly established the accusation. Accordingly, the conviction
was made. In appeal, the High Court concurred with he view of
the trial court and upheld the conviction. In support of the appeal,
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the only factor
H which the trial court and the High Court have taken note of is the
DAUNADEVI V. STATE OF BIHAR 141
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

alleged recovery of the dead body of the child from the house. A
The trial court and the High Court erroneously observed that the
house where the dead body was recovered belonged to two·
accused persons. In the prosecution version from beginning is
that the present appellant was having illicit relationship with the
other accused. Learned counsel for the respondent supported B
the judgment of the High Court.
In a case of circumstantial evidence it has to be
conclusively established that the chain of circumstances lead
to the only inference, that of guilt of the accused ruling out the
possibility of involvement of any other person to be the author of C
the crime. In the instant case there was no evidence to show
that appellant w~s the owner of the house and/or was staying in
the house at the time of alleged incident. No question was put
in this regard in the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
D
In the instant case the circumstance highlighted by the trial
Court and the High Court does not meet the requisite standard
applicable to cases based on circumstantial evidence. All other
~.
circumstances including so called confession were dfsbelieved
'
by the trial co~rt and the High Court.
E
Therefore, the convi~tion of the appellant as recorded
cannot be maintained. The conviction is accordingly set aside .
. The appeal is allowed. The appellant be released from custody
forthwith if not required in any other case.

D.G. Appeal allowed.