Holding

The conviction of the accused under Sections 302, 202 and 34 IPC is upheld as the circumstantial evidence satisfies all the requisite tests and leaves no reasonable doubt of guilt.

Summary

The appellant, Devidas Ram Sunder Shukla (A‑2), together with his son Santosh Devidas Shukla (A‑1) and two others, were convicted under IPC sections 302, 202 and 34 for the murder of Manoja, who was burnt to death in the house they shared. The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the presence of kerosene, burnt matchsticks, blood on the door, broken bangles, and the fact that the accused had seen the victim burning yet did not attempt rescue. The Supreme Court examined the established jurisprudence on circumstantial evidence and held that the cumulative facts were fully proved, conclusive, and incompatible with any hypothesis of innocence. Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial and High Court judgments, dismissing the appeal. The decision reiterates that conviction on circumstantial evidence is permissible when the evidential chain is complete and leaves no reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt.

Issues considered

The adequacy of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction under IPC sections 302, 202 and 34.
Whether the circumstances established by the prosecution satisfy the legal tests for circumstantial evidence as laid down by the Supreme Court.
Whether any reasonable doubt exists that could merit acquittal of the accused.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 174
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 202, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

circumstantial evidencemurderIPC 302IPC 202Section 34convictionappealSupreme Court of Indiacriminal law

Judgment

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 968

A DEVIDAS RAMSUNDi=R SHUKLA
II.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2001)
AUGUST 6, 2008 '
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM -1
SHARMA, JJ]

Evidence:
c Circumstantial evidence - HELD: Conviction can be
based solely on circumstanlial evidence if all the incrimlnat-
iilg facts and circumstances are bound to be incompatible with
innocence of accused or guilt of any other,person - On facts,
the circumstance highlighted in the case unerringly point out
·o the accused' to be guilty of the offences - Penal Code, 1860-
ss. 302 and 202.
~
The appellant (A-2) along· with his son (A-1) and two
others was prosecuted for "commission of offences pun-
ishable ulss 302 and -202 IPC. The prosecution case was
E that during the pendency of a criminal case filed against A-
1 by his wife, A-2 settled another marriage of A-2 conceal-
ing the fact of the first marriage; The second wife (de:.
ceased) remained in the house of the accused till the date
of her death. On the· day of incident A-2 informed the police
F that the deceased caught fire in his house and she was
being removed to the hospital. The Medical Officer of the -4
Hospital declared the victim to have been brought dead
and recorded that she had sustained 99% burns. The trial
court convicted A-1 and A-2 of the offences charged. The
G appeal filed by A-2 only, was dismissed by the High Court.
In the instant appeal filed by A-2, it was contended
for. the appellant that most of the circumstances did not
establish the guilt of the accused.
,. 1
H 968
DEVIDAS RAMSUNDER SHUKLA v. STATE OF 969
MAHARASHTRA
'I
_,;
Dismissing the appeal the Court A
HELD: 1.1 There is no doubt that conviction can be
based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be
tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial
evidence laid down by the this Court. [para 13] [977-D]
B
) Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of
Rajasthan v. Rajaram 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Haryana v.
Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003 (11) SCC 261; and Kusuma
Ankama Rao v State of A.P. (2008) 10 SCR 89 - relied on. c
1.2 It has been consistently laid down by this Court
that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evi-
dence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all
the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to
D
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 closei}' connected with the principal fact
sought to be inferred from those circumstances. ·{Para 8) E
[975-C-E]
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan Al~ (1977) SC 1063;
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR. 1956 SC 316;
Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State .
of UP. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; Ba/winder F
Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar
Chatterjee v. State of M.P AIR 1989 SC 1890; and Bhagat
Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 - referred to.
'Wills' Circumstantial Evidence (Chapter VI) by Sir
G
Alfred Wills - referred to.
1.3 In the instant case, the circumstances highlighted
1' by the trial Court cumulatively pointed out unerringly the
appellant to be guilty of the offence. Besides, presence
of b.lood on the door shows that deceased tried to go out H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A and this is a very vital circumstance; the finding of bro-
ken bangles on the spot show that there was a struggle;
smell of kerosene was found on the lungi which was worn
by A-1 and which was seized. Some parts of skin and flesh
were also found on the lungi giving smell of kerosene.
B Small pieces of flesh were also found on the doors panel <(
. as also on the wooden panel of cot. As rightly noted by
the trial Court and the High Court, no match box was found
at the spot where body was found though some burnt
'.match sticks were found; and the match box was found
c in the kitchen. [para 17] [978-H; 979-A-C-D]
1.4 On consideration of the materials on record in the
background of evidence adduced, the inevitable conclu- ,
;

sion is that the appeal is without merit. (para 17] {979-E]

[) Case Law Reference:
AIR 1977 SC 1063 referred to [Para 8]
-~
-AIR 1956 SC 316 referred to [Para.'8]
AIR 1983 SC 446 referred to [Para 8]
Al~ 1985 SC 1224 referred to [Para 8]
E
AIR 1987 SC 350 referred to [Para 8]
AIR 1989 SC 1890 referred to [Para 8]
AIR 1954 SC 621 referred to [Para 8]
(1996) 10 sec 193 referred to [Para 9]
F AIR 1990 SC 79 referred to [Para 9]
~
1992 Crt.LJ 1104 referred to [Para 11)
c

AIR 1952 SC 343 relied on [para 14)
AIR 1984 SC 1622 relied on [para 15)
G 2003 (8) sec 180 relied on [para ~.6]
2003 (11) sec 261 relied on [para 16)
(2008) 10 SCR 89 relied on ·[para 16] 'f

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURlSDICTION: Criminal Appeal
'~
H No. 23 of 2001
DEVIDAS RAMSUNDER SHUKLA v. STATE OF 971
MAHARASHTRA
'I
~
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.6.2000 of A
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
in Crl. Appeal No. 22 of 1994
Satish Tamta and Binu Tamta for the Appellant.
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondent. B.
"'" The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court,
~ Nagpur Bench, Nagpur upholding the conviction of the appel- c
lant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 202 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
'IPC'). There were two appellants before the High Court which
dismissed the appeal. Only present appellant has questioned
the correctness of the judgment.
D
2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:
,.
The appellant (A-2) alongwith co-accused-Santosh
Devidas Shukla (A--1) and two others were tried in Sessions
Trial No. 81 of 1992 in the Court of the Additional Sessions
E
Judge, Achalpur for offences under Sections 302 and 202 read
with section 34 IPC and by the judgment and order dated
i
17 .12.1993 of learned Additional, Sessions Judge, Achalpur,
they were convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and
202 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI
for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipula- F
tion. Except.these two, others were acquitted by the trial Court.
The victim of assault was one Manoja @ Manorama daughter
of Tirathraj Tiwari (PW-5) (hereinafter referred to as the 'de-
ceased'). A-1 was a.resident of Banosa. One·Hira was married
to A-1 in the year 1989. After the marriage, she was residing G
with him. A-2 is the father of A-1. It so happened that the matri-
monial dispute cropped up between Hira and A-1 and as a con-
sequence thereof she left the matrimonial home. She filed a
criminal case against the appellant and co-accused alleging ill
treatment and cruelty. While the proceeding was pending, A-1 H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R.
~

A contracted marriage with deceased Manoja on 8.7.1991 and
in consequence brought her to his house and as such she was "
residing with A-1. It was on 271h May, 1992 that A-2 went to the
police station Daryapur and gave the report (Exh.83) informing
that the deceased was burning in the house and she was being
B removed to the hospital.
~

P.S.I. Katkar on arriving at the police station rushed to the
hospital. Dr. Shailaja Kale (PW-1) who was the Medical Officer,
after seeing deceased Manoja in the hospital at about 5.35 hours ..
declared that she was brought dead and information was given '~
c immediately to the P.S.I. who was present in the hospital. That,
information was sent to the police station where AID of Murg
Khabari No. 17/92 under section 174 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.') was registered on
27.5.1992. P.S.I. Katkar after getting the information of registra- ·
D tion of crime prepared the Spot panchnama in the hospital where
the dead body was lying, vide Exh. 25. In the course of enquiry,
~
he also made the inquest panchnama (Ex. 26) and seized some
articles therefrom. He then immediately went to the house of ac-
cused No. 1, where deceased Manoja was burnt. He prepared
E the spot panchnama of the scene of offence, vide Ex. 46. He
noticed large pieces of skin, flesh and ashes lying, on the floor of
the room, burnt matchsticks, bottle containing kerosene, so also r-
a bowl smelling of kerosene. These articles were seized by mak-
ing a panchnama (Exh. 47). He recorded the statements of vari-
F ous persons in the course of enquiry. The accused gave different
versions in respect of the deceased Manoja. He returned to the
police station and lodged the FIR vide Exh.84 on the basis of
which the offence was registered at Crime No.101/92.
On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
G Since the accused persons abjured guilt, the trial was held.
3. The case based on circumstantial evidence which ac-
cording to the prosecution unerringly pointed out the appellant ..,
to the author of the crime. The circumstances noted by the trial
Court are as follows:
H
DEVIDAS RAMSUNDER SHUKLA v. STATE OF 973
MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

(I) Hira, wife of A-1 lodged complaint against appellants A
alleging ill-treatment making specific mention of fact
that A-1 contracted second marriage.
(2) A-2 settled marriage of Manoja with A-~ concealing
the fact the A-1 was already married with. Hira.
B
(3) A-2 disowned the marriage of Manoja with A-1.
(4) Deceased Manoja was living with A-1 and A-2 till
27 .5.1992 in the house under their folds.
(5) Deceased Manoja was burnt in the room of that very
house. c
(6) Appellant and co-accused saw her burning in the room.
-However, they did not make efforts to save her.
(7) A-2 though informed police about Manoja's burning,
did not disclose as to how she got burnt. D
1'
(8) In the report, A-2 did not mention that Manoja was
wife of A-1 thereby indicating conduct in suppressing
true facts.
(9) A-2 did not state in the report that A-1 tried to
E
extinguish fire, though claimed by him at the trial.
(10) Neither A-2 nor A-1 informed Manoja's father about
her getting burnt.
(11) On the other hand, A-1 and A-2 gave deliberately
wrong name of father of Manoja as 'Akhilesh Tiwari' F
to mislead the police.
(12) Manoja sustained 99% burns and it was shown that
she struggled for survival.
(13) In the room, bottle contained kerosene was found. G
The room Was having smell of kerosene all ov~r.
even felt by P.S.I. Katkar and panch Sk. Raheman on
their arrival in the morning is an eloquent circumstance
when viewed in the context of room remaining
accessible and match box not found in the room. H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A (14) In the ~oom, burnt match sticks were·found whic.h
tallied with match sticks in t~e match box seized from
the kitchen. No finding of match box in the room,
where she was burnt, positively shows that the act of
seUing her on fire was not of her own act.
B (15) One door of the room was open. This shows that A-
1 and A-2 had access to the room and as A-1 and
A-2 admitted to have been to the room and seen her
burning, and A-1 having burn injuries, indicates that
A-1 and A-2 set her on fire.
c
( 16) A-2 at the trial denied that fact Manoja died of burning
in the house. This conduct on his part is very relevant
to indicate that he must not be innocent as he claimed.
( 17) Deceased Manoja was 7-8 weeks' pregnant. There
D was no exceptional reason for her to put an end to
her life. Therefore, this fact that Manoja was carrying,
totally rules out the possibility of she committing
suicide and there existing to kill her.
( 18) Hira complained A-1 's marrying Manoja for which A-
E 1 and A-2 faced prosecution in criminal court. A-2
was instrumental for A-1 marrying Manoja, giving rise
to a hasty motive to eliminate unprotected girl Manoja.
( 19) Mute sufferance of agonies without attracting the
F neighbourhood to rush the spot indicates role played
by agency other than the victim herself who could not
have kepLher mouth shut with extensive injuries.
(20) Evidence and the circumstances do not give rise to
doubt regarding old father of (A-2) or the women folk
G capa_ble of committing the ad of burning.
4. The trial Court placing reliance on the aforesaid circum- ,
stances observed that the aforesaid circumstances were a com-
plete chain to establish the guilt of the appellant and A-1 and
H accordingly found them guilty. ·
DEVIDAS RAMSUNDER SHUKLA v. STATE OF 975
MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
"" 5. In appeal, before the High Court it was submitted that A
the circumstances were not sufficient to conclude about the guilt
of the appellant and co-accused. The High Court did not find
- any substance in this plea and dismissed the appeal.

6. So far as A-1 is concerned, he has not filed any appeal.
.,. B
7. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appel-
lant submitted that most of the circumstances do not in any way
establish the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel for the State
supported the judgment of the trial Court and the High Court.
8. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that c
where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
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. (See
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu D
and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316);
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State
of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Ba/winder
Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar
Chatterjee v. State of M.P (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circum- E
stances 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 with the principal fact
sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram
v. State of Punjab (AIR .1954 SC 621), it was laid down that F
~ where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from cir-
cumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be
such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the
offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
9. We may also make a reference to a decision of this G
Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P (1996) 10
~ sec 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled .
law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of
H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S. C.R.
....
A guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all
the circumstances should be complete and there should
be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved
circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis
B of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence .... ".

10. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. (AIR
1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the follow-
c ing tests:

"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
-sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established;
D (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; ~

(3) 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 .'
.,._
E was committed by the accused and none else; and ~

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the
-r-.- guilt of the accused and such evidence should not
-(
on!y be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
should be inconsistent with his innocence.
11. In State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992
Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in
G evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the. evidence relied
on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of
the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the
circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully es-
tablist1~;d and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established
H must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guia. ·
DEVIDAS RAMSUNDER SHUKLA v. STATE OF 977
'y
MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

12. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circum- A
stantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules
specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be
clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with
the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the B
party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal
accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstan-
tial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the
nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of
guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the inno- c
cence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any
other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be
any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled
as of right to be acquitted".
13. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely D
'Y on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-
stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by
the this Court as far back as in 1952.

14. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V State of
~
• Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed thus: E
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence
is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in
the first instance be fully established and all the facts so F
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they
should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the
one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must
G
be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave
p
any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused."
H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A 15. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC
1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it
has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that
the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution
s cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions pre-
cedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be
based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.
They are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
c is to be drawn should be fully established. The
circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not
'may be' established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is
D
to say,Jhey should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

E
(3)

(4)
the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency;
they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
,..
the one to be proved; and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
F consistent with the innocence of the accused and
-{
must show that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused.
16. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan
v. Rajaram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir
G Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) sec 261) and Kusuma Ankama
Rao v State of A.P (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of
on 7. 7.2008).
17. The circumstances highlighted by the·trial Court cu-
H mulatively pointed out unerringly the appellant to be guilty of the
DEVIDAS RAMSUNDER SHUKLA v. STATE OF 979
MAHARASHTRA [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

offence. Additionally, certain factors need to be noted. Pres- A
ence of blood on the door shows that deceased tried to go out
and this is a very vital circumstance. Additionally, the finding of
broken bangles on the spot s~ow that there was a struggle. A-1
has taken the stand that he tried to extinguish fire when he went
to the room and saw his wife burning there when he entered the B
room. Statement of witnesses Sk. Raheman and Sk. Munir and
P.S.I. Katkar shows that the doors of the room were open. Wit-
ness Sk. Raheman and Sk. Munir noticed burnt pieces of clothes
and one calendar was found burnt. Additionally, burnt pieces of
skin and flesh were lying there. There were two burnt match sticks c
and there was one bottle containing kerosene and a pot smell-
ing kerosene. Significantly, no match box was found in the
kitchen. Smell of kerosene was found on the lungi which was
worn byA-1 and which was seized. Some parts of skin and
flesh were also found on the lungi giving smell of kerosene. Small
0
pieces of flesh were also found on the doors panel as also on
the wooden panel of cot. As rightly noted by the trial Court and
the High Court no match box was found at the spot where body
was found though some burnt match sticks were found and as
noted above the match box was found in the kitchen. If the ma-
terials on record are considered in the background of evidence E
on record, the inevitable conclusion is that the appeal is without
merit and deserves dismissal which we direct.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.