Holding

The conviction cannot be maintained as the prosecution failed to prove any circumstance that fastens guilt; therefore, the appeal is allowed and the conviction is set aside.

Summary

The appellant, Gamparai Hrudayaraju, was convicted under IPC sections 302 and 203 for the death of a woman with whom he had an illicit relationship. The trial court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, primarily the testimony of witnesses PW‑5 and PW‑6. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any circumstance that fastened guilt on the accused and that the circumstantial evidence did not satisfy the established tests for a conviction. The Court reiterated the stringent conditions that must be met for a conviction on circumstantial evidence, citing numerous precedents. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was ordered to be released. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution established the requisite chain of circumstantial evidence to fasten guilt on the accused under IPC sections 302 and 203.
Whether the trial court and High Court erred in upholding a conviction based on insufficient circumstantial evidence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 174
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 203, s. 302

Subjects

circumstantial evidenceconvictionmurderIPC 302burden of proofcriminal appealacquittalevidentiary standards

Judgment

(2009] 6 S.C.R. 396

t
A GAMPARAI HRUDAYARAJU
v.
STATE OF AP. THR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 2009)
APRIL 16, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
i.

Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 203 - Prosecution -
c Conviction by courts below, on the basis o circumstantial
evidence - On appeal, held: Conviction not maintainable -
Prosecution failed to establish the accusations - No
circumstance referred to, which could fasten the guilt of the
accused.
D
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Reliance on -
-./ ....
Held: Conviction can be based on such evidence - Condition
precedent for reliance before conviction, discussed.

Appellant was prosecuted for having killed a woman
E with whom he was having illicit relations. Trial court
convicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantial
evidence u/ss. 302 and 203 IPC. Conviction was
confirmed by High Court. Hence the present appeal.
,,,_
F Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The prosecution has failed to establish the
accusations, and the conviction cannot be maintained.
High Court has not referred to any circumstance which
could fasten guilt on the accused. The evidence of PWs
G 5 and 6 cannot constitute sufficient evidence against the
accused to fasten the alleged offences. [Paras 9 and 19]
[401-E, G-H; 40'2-A; 405-F-G]
~
-
I
2.1. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial
H 396
GAMPARAI HRUDAYARAJU v. STATE OF AP. THR. 397
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
t
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when A
all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found
to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or
the guilt of any other person. [Para 10] [402-A, BJ

2.2. The circumstances from which an inference as B
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. [Para 10] [402-C-D]

2.3. Before conviction could be based on C
circumstantial evidence, the conditions which must be
fully established, are: (1) the circ'umstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or
'should' and not 'may be' established; (2) the facts so D
established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they E
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 consistent with the innocence
of the accused and must show that in all human F
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
[Para 17] [405-A-E] /

Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063;
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; G
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State
of UP. 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; Bhagat Ram
H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

t
A v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and
Ors. v. State of A.P. 1996 (10) SCC 193; Padala Veera
Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC- 79; State of
U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Crl.LJ 1104;
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya
B Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of Rajasthan
v. Raja Ram 2003 (8) SCC 180 and State of Haryana v.
Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003 (11) sec 261, relied on. ''

"
"Wills Circumstantial Evidence" by Sir Alfred Wills
c (Chapter VI), referred to.

Case Law Reference:

AIR 1977 SC 1063 Relied on. Para 10
D AIR 1956 SC 316 Relied on. Para 10
'"'! ~
AIR 1983 SC 446 Relied on. Para 10

AIR 1985 SC 1224 Relied on. Para 10

AIR 1987 SC 350 Relied on. Para 10
E
AIR 1989 SC 1890 Relied on. Para 10
AIR 1954 SC 621 Relied on. Para 10

F
1996 (10) sec 193 Relied on. Para 11 "-
AIR 1990 SC 79 Relied on. Para 12
1992 Crl. LJ 1104 Relied on. Para 13
AIR 1952 SC 343 Relied on. Para 16
G AIR 1984 SC 1622 Relied on. Para 17 ;.
2003 (8) sec 180 Relied on. Para 18
2003 (11) sec 261 Relied on. Para 18

H
GAMPARAI HRUDAYARAJU v. STATE OF A.P. THR. 399
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-t
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal A
No. 744 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 15.11.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2003. B

Madhu Mooichandani for the Appellants.

I. Venkatanarayana, D. Bharathi Reddy and Altaf Fatima
for the Respondents.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal D
... 1- filed by the present appellant who was found guilty of offence
punishable under Sections 302 and 203 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Appellant was found guilty by
VII Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
Visakhapatnam. E

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

One Kuda Ammaji (hereinafter referred to as the
'deceased') married one Samareddy Surayanarayana (PW-6).
They were blessed with a son and a daughter. Subsequently, F
the deceased secured employment as A.N.M. and shifted her
residence to Munchingput. Thereafter, the appellant who is a
neighbour developed illicit intimacy with the deceased and
started living with her. As the appellant did not allow the children
of deceased to stay with her, PW-1 the sister of the deceased G
brought them to Serivayalu village and was looking after them.

While so, on 21.6.2001, at 06.00 p.m., one Gampari
Baburao told P.W. 5 that the deceased was seriously ill and
asked him to bring ambulance of Primary Health Center, H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

t
A immediately. When P.W. 5 brought the same, the deceased
sent him back saying that she was not ill. Thereafter, within ten
minutes, the appellant and Baburao asked P.W. 5 to come with
the ambulance on the ground that the deceased was sick. The
deceased was shifted into the ambulance by the appellant in
B his arms and taken to Primary Health Center. At about 09:00
p.m., on the same day, she was declared dead.

On 22.6.2001, at about 7.30 a.m. based on the report )t
~'

presented by the appellant, the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.
10) registered a case i'n crime No. 26 of 2001 under Section
c 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ·Code').
Later, during the inquest on the report given by P.W. 1, the sister
of the deceased, P.W .10 altered the sections of law to Sections
498-A and 306 IPC and issued altered First Information Report.
On 23.6.2001, on his surrender before P.W.10, the appellant
0 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. On 30.6.2001,
the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W. 9, based on the "I ~

questionnaire, Ex. P6, given by the Civil Assistant Surgeon
(PW-8) altered the section of law to Section 302 IPC and after
completion of investigation, PW-11 filed the charge sheet. As
E accused pleaded innocence, trial was held.
4. In support of its case the prosecution examined PWs 1
to 11 and marked Exs. P1 to P11. On behalf of defence Exs.
01 and 02 (relevant portions in the statements of PWs and 2)
recorded under section 161 of Code were marked.
.-
F
5. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that though the
prosecution failed to establish a strong motive for the appellant
to cause the death of the deceased, in view of the circumstantial
evidence held that the death of the deceased was homicidal.
G Since only the appellant and the deceased were staying in the
~
house at the relevant point of time, it found the appellant guilty,
convicted him and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for
life and SI for three months for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 203 respectively.
H
GAMPARAI HRUDAYARAJU v. STATE OF A.P. THR. 401
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
t A
6. Before the High Court it was stated that there was no
material to show that the death of the deceased was homicidal.
It was pointed out that in case of smothering, the death would
have been instantaneous. But the trial Court recorded a finding
that the deceased was alive till 9.00 p.m. and, therefore, it
cannot be said that the death was homicidal. It was also pointed B
out that the doctor who treated the deceased was not examined.
The stand of the State was that there was a fracture to thyroid
... ,, cartilage and this certainly was not due to the natural death. The
High Court held that the case was one of circumstantial
evidence. Strangely, the High Court did not analyse the c
evidence of PWs 4 and 5. The High Court found that the
prosecution case although rested on circumstantial evidence,
it clearly established the guilt of the accused.

7. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the D
appellant submitted that the circumstances highlighted do not
~ \r in any way fasten the guilt of the accused.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
supported the judgment.
E
9. We find that the High Court has not referred to any
circumstance which could fasten guilt on the accused. PWs 1
and 2 i.e. sisters of the deceased stated that the ill feelings
., "' prevailed in between the appellant and the deceased with
regard to the children of the deceased born through her first F
husband (PW-6). PWs 4 and 5 stated that the deceased came
to the house of PW-4 and just wished her and left the house.
Ten minutes thereafter the appellant came to her and informed
- that he was going to Primary Health Centre to bring ambulance
to attend to the deceased. Then she went to the house of the G
appellant and found that the deceased was all right and when
Ji
the ambulance came the deceased sent the same back saying
that she was doing well. After some time, ambulance came and
the appellant and the deceased went in it. The evidence of PWs
5 and 6 cannot constitute sufficient evidence against the
H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A accused to fasten the alleged offences.

10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that
where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
8 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 and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316);
Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka (AIR 1983 SC 446);
State of U.P: v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224);
C Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok
Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). 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 with the principal
D fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat
Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down
that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from
Dcircumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must
be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring
E the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.

11. We may also make a reference to a decision of this
Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996)
10 sec 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
F
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled
law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of
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
G be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved
circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence .... ".

H 12. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR
GAMPARAI HRUDAYARAJU v. STATE OF A.P. THR. 403
___...,..
i PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon A
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the
following tests:

"{1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
8
established;
.... -i (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
-(
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a c
chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and none else; and

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
D
_, "' conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation
of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused
and such evidence should not only be consistent with the
guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his
innocence.

-·
-f.

13. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992
- Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken
E

fr );
in 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 F
the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully
established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

14. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills'
1
Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following G
rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial
evidence: (1) the facts alleged as th~ basis of any legal
inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt
connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof
H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
.,

A is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact,
'
which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of
direct or circumstantial 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
B incompatible with the innocence 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".

15. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely
c 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.

16. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State
D of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was
observed thus:
.. ....
"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
E
instance be fully established and all the facts so
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
F proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave 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
G done by the accused." ~

17. A reference may be made to a later decision in
Sha rad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (Al R 1984
SC 1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence,
H it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that
GAMPARAI HRUDAYARAJU v. STATE OF AP. THR. 405
......,, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
1
the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution A
cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions
·precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could
be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.
They are:
8
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt 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 to say, c
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
_, except that the accused is guilty;

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature a.nd
tendency; D
~ ,,. (4) 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 E
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.
-
18. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan F
v. Rajaram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir
Singh and Anr. (2003 ( 11) SCC 261)

19. That being so, the prosecution has failed to establish
the accusations, and the conviction cannot be maintained and
is set aside. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless G
.4
required to be in custody in connection with any other case.

20. The appeal is allowed.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.
H