Supreme Court of India
HARENDRA NARAIN SINGH ETCversusSTATE OF BIHAR
- Citation
- 1991 INSC 157
- Decided
- 17 July 1991
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K N SINGH
Holding
The prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence, so the convictions under Sections 302/34 IPC were set aside.
Summary
Dr. Harendra Narain Singh and Ram Nath Singh were convicted for murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC based solely on circumstantial evidence that a dead body was taken from the doctor's dispensary on an ekka to a village courtyard. The Supreme Court examined the principles governing circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the facts must form a complete, exclusive chain that excludes any hypothesis of innocence. It found two fatal gaps: the prosecution did not prove that the dead body was that of the victim, nor that the victim was brought alive to the dispensary. Consequently, the prosecution could not rely on the accused's silence or a false explanation. The Court held that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof and set aside the convictions, allowing the appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC can be sustained on the basis of the circumstantial evidence presented.
- Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances that excludes any reasonable hypothesis of the accused's innocence.
- Whether the lack of identification of the dead body and absence of evidence that the victim was taken alive to the dispensary defeats the prosecution's case.
- Whether an adverse inference can be drawn from the accused's failure to raise a defence.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 3
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 315, s. 34
Subjects
circumstantial evidencemurderIPC 302IPC 34burden of proofidentification of dead bodychain of evidencereasonable doubtcriminal jurisprudence
Judgment
HARENDRA NARAIN SINGH ETC.
A
v.
ST A TE OF BIHAR
JULY 17, 1991
,......
B [K.N. SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 3. Criminal Trial-Evidence
-Circumstantial evidence-Nature and proof of-Conditions prece- l
dent for conviction-Two views possible on circumstantial evidence-
One pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence-
Court should adopt latter-Circumstantial evidence-Onus of proof--
c Prosecution must adduce its own evidence-It cannot rely on the
absence of defence-Infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution cannot be
cured by false explanation of accused.
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 34 Murder-Convic-
D tion based on circumstantial evidence-Validity of.
Appellants I and· 2, along with other co-accused, were prosecuted
for the offence of murder. The entire evidence was circumstantial: (a)
The murder was committed by Appellant-2 in the dispensary of the
Appellant-I, a doctor, with his connivance; (b) the dead body was taken
E out of the dispensary of the appellant-I am! the same was kept on an
ekka and carried to a village Dibbi where it was placed in the courtyard
of one of the co-accused; and (c) Recovery of the dead body from the
courtyard of a co-accused.
The Trial Court acquitted the accused from whose house the
f dead body was recovered but convicted the remaining four accused for
the offences under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal
by the accused persons the High Court acquitted the other two co-
accused but upheld the conviction of the two appellants. Against their
conviction, the appellants filed appeals in this Court, By an order dated
3.5.199I, this Court allowed their appeals and set aside their conviction.
G
Giving reasons in support of its judgment, this Court,
HELD: I. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that
circumstantial evidence must be fully established from which there
should be inevitable conclusion of the guilt of the accused beyond any
H reasonable doubt and the facts so established should be consistent only
54
H.N. SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 55
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, ruling out any hypothesis A
of innocence of the accused. [588 I
.., 2. There is yet another basic rule of criminal jurisprudencethat if
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstan-
tial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, the Court should adopt the latter view favourable to the B
accused. [59C]
3. The prosecution has to succeed on the basis of its own evi-
dence and it can not rely on the absence of' defence to sustain the
guilt as there is no justification for raising such assumption against the
appellants. [63B]
c
Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [I952] 3 S.C.R.
I09I;-Shivaji Saheb Rao Bobde & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, [I973]
2 S.C.C. 793: [I974] I S.C.R. 489 aud Sharad B. Chand v.
Maharashtra, [I985] I S.C.R. 88, referred to.
D
4. In the instant case, there are glaring circumstances which are
fatal to the prosecution case. The prosecution has produced eviderlct
only to the effect that a dead body was taken out of the dispensary of
Appellant-I by Appellant-2 and other accused persons and the same
was carried on the ekka to village Dibbi. The prosecution witnesses
have merely deposed that they had seen a dead body being placed on the E
ekka and taken to village Dibbi. None of the prosecution witness has
however, deposed that he had seen the face of the dead body or
identified the same. In the absence of such evidence it would not be
reasonable to assume that the dead body which was taken out from the
dispensary and placed on the ekka was that of the deceased. In the
absence of identification of dead body by the witnesses it is not legiti- F
mate to hold that the dead body which was taken out from the dis-
pensary of Appellant-I was that of deceased. [62E-F, GI
4.I There is another vital defect in the prosecution case. The
prosecution failed to produce any evidence that the deceased was taken
to the dispensary for treatment by Appellant-2 and other accused G
persons while she was alive and that she was admitted to the dispensary
of Appellant-I for treatment, at a time when she was alive. In the
absence of any such evidence there are various possibilities and
probabilities, one of them being that the deceased may have been
brought to the dispensary for medical assistance after she was found to
be strangulated by some one. Further there is no evidence of the fact H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I19911 3 S.C.R.
that when !he deceased was inside the· dispensary no other person had
A
access to her except the appellants. In- the absence of any such evidence
it would not he legitimate to assume lbat the deceased was strangulated
in the dispens\iry hy Appellant-2 with the connivance of Appellant-I.
Therefore, 1he prosecution failed to prove the necessary facts and the
circumstances established hy it are not sufficient to conclusively point to
B the appellants as the perpetrator of the crime or to rule out the
hypothesis of their innocence. Accordingly, the High Court and the
Trial Court both committed error in convicting the appellants. The
High Court was also not justified in drawing adverse inference for
completing the chain of circumstances to uphold the appellant's convic-
tionmerely on the appellant'sf!IR explanation illdefeqce. [62G-H, 63A-C-DI .
c CRIMINAL APPELLATEJURISDICTION: Crimirnil A11peal
Nos. 578/88 & 728/89.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.7.1986 of Patna High·
Court in Cr!. A. Nos. 97 & 87 of 1983.
D
A. Sharan for the Appellants.
-'
D. Goburdhan for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
SINGH, J These appeals were heard on 3.5.1991 and after hear-
ing learned counsel for the parties we had pronounced the operative
portion of the judgment allowing the appeals and setting aside the
judgment and order of the High Court convicting the appellants for
offences under Section 302/34 I.P.C. We had observed that the
F reasons for the judgment would be given later and now we are giving
reasons for the same. ·
These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order
of the High Court of Patna dated 15.7.1986 upholding the conviction.
of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh and Ram Nath Singh, appellants foE,the
G offences under Section 302/34 of the I. P. c..
Briefly, the facts as disclosed by the prosecution are that Smt.
Jagia Devi,·a widow having two sons was carrying.four months pre-
gnancy-. She was taken to the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain
Singh, the appellant who was a Homeopathic doctor on the pretext of
H tre~tment of pain in _her _stomach though the real purpose for taking·
' '
'
H.N. SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR [SINGH, J.I 57
her to the dispensary was for aborting foetus which she was carrying.
A
She was murdered in the dispensary and her dead body was taken to
Village Dibbi in an Ekka and placed in the courtyard of the house of
Smt. Tileshwara Kuar. Teg Bahadur Singh PW II came to know from
a young boy that a dead body was kept in the courtyard of Smt.
fileshwara Kuar. He went to the house of Smt. Tileshwara Kuar and on
interrogation she told him that some persons after committing murder B
of J agia Devi had kept her ·dead body inside her house. The door of the
house was locked. Smt. Tileshwara handed over the key to Teg
Bahadur Singh who unlocked the door and entered the house and
found the dead body of Jagia lying on the ground in the courtyard. He
rushed to the Police Station and reported the matter to the police
which was reduced in writing. The police registered a case alid pro-
ceeded to the spot. The Investigating Officer recovered the dead body
c
from the house of Tileshwara Kuar and made inquest and sent the
dead body for post-mortem. On completion of investigation the police
submitted-chargesheet against seven accused persons. namely, Tilesh-
wara Kuar, Ram Nath Singh, Bishwanath Roy s/o Dip Roy, Ishwar
Shah, Dr. Harendra Narain Singh, Smt. Jota Kuar w/o Dip Roy and D
Bishwanath Singh alias Bissu. During the pendency of the case before
the Trial Court Bishwanath Roy and Jota Kuar died, therefore, the
trial proceeded only against the remaining five accused persons.
Before the Trial Court, the prosecution produced 14 witnesses in
support of its case but there was no direct evidence or eye witness to E
support the charge of murder. Entire case of the prosecution is
founded on circumstantial evidence. The Trial Court acquitted Smt.
Tileshwara Kuar who had been charged for offences under Section
302/34 and 201 of the !PC but it convicted the remaining accused Ram
Nath Singh, Ishwar Shah, Harendra Narain Singh & Bishwanath Singh
alias Bissu for the offences under Section 302 of the !PC read with F
Section 34 of the IPC and also under Section 315/34, IPC. On appeal
by the accused the High Court acquitted Ishwar Shah, Bishwanath
Singh alias Bissu but it upheld tqe conviction of Dr. Harendra Narain
Singh and Ram Nath Singh for offences under Section 3.02/34 of the
IPC. Aggrieved Dr. Harendra Narain Singh and Ram Nath Singh have
preferred these two appeals. G
The entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial
evidence as rio prosecution witness has given any ditect testimony
against the appellants for the commission of the offence for which they
have been convicted. The Trial Court as well as the High Court both
have relied on circumstantial evidence in convicting the appellants for i-1
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R.
A the offences under Section 302/34 of the !PC. Since the entire case
rests on circumstantial evidence it is necessary to refer to the principles
which should guiJe the Court in considering the conviction of an
accused resting on circumstantial evidence. It is a cardinal principle of
criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence must be. fully
established fro,n which there should be inevitable conclusion of the
B guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused, ruling out any.hypothesis of innocence of the accused. In
Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [19521 3 SCR 1091 this
Court laid down fundamental and basic principles for appreciating the
circumstantial evidence. Mahajan, J, speaking for the Court observed:
c "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 in the first
instance be fully established and all the facts so established
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
D the accu&ed. Again the circumstances should be of a con-
clusive 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 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
E and it must be such as to show that within all human proba-
bility the act must have been done by the accused."
These principles were reiterated by this Court in Shivaji Saheb
Rao Bahde & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, [197312 SCC 793 wherein
it was emphasised that where the prosecution rests merely on circum-
F stantial evidence, the facts 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. The Court further observed that the circumstances should be of
a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possi-
ble hypothesis except the one to be proved and the chain of evidence
G should be so complete as to rule out any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
circumstances must show that in all human probability the act must
have been done by. the accused. These principles have been consis-
tently laid down by this Court in several decisions, it is not necessary to
refer to all these decisions. However, we would like to refer to the
H decision in Sharad B. Chand v. Maharashtra, [198511 SCR page 88 as
' I
H.N. SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR [SINGH, J.] 59
this case has been relied upon by the High Court in upholding the
A
conviction of the appellants. In Sharad B. Chand's case this Court
while considering the absence of explanation or a false explanation of
the accused for the circmstances and the facts proved against him,
struck a note of caution that before a false explanation is used as
additional link against the accused the Court should satisfy itself that
(1) Various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have B
been satisfactorily proved. (2) The circumstances point to the guilt of
accused with reasonable definiteness; and (3) The circumstances are in
proximity to the time and situation where all these conditions are
fulfilled only then a Court can use a false explanation or a false
defence of an accused, as an additional link to lend an assurance to the
Court and not otherwise. There is yet another basic rule of criminal
jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence c
adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt
of the accused and the other to his innocence, the Court should adopt
the latter view favourable to the accused. We have reminded ourselves
of these principles with a view to ascertain as to whether the High
Court has correctly applied these principles in convicting and sentenc- D
ing the appellants.
The evidence produced by the prosecution relates to establish
the circmustances that (1) Smt. Jagia Devi, a widow (brother's daugh-
ter of Smt. Tileshwara Kuar, the accused) died on 22.9.1973. (2)
Death of Jagia Devi was caused due to throttling leading to asphyxia as E
deposed by Dr. Anand Mohan PW 6. The Doctor who carried on the
postmortem of the dead body was of the opinion that Jagia Devi killed
by strangulation in the neck. (3) In the night between 22.9.1973 and
23.9.1973, a dead body was taken out of the dispensary of Dr.
Y Harendra Narain Singh by the accused Ram Nath Singh and Bish-
wanath Singh alias Bissu and placed on an ekka in the presence of F
Ishwar Shah and Dr. Harendra Narain Singh. Smt. Jota Kuar (mother
of Ram Nath Singh, the appellant) was also present there. (4) The
dead body was placed on the ekka af Amanat Khan PW 10 and the
same was carried to village Dibbi. Ram Nath Singh, Bishwanath Singh
and Jota Kuar also accompanied the dead body to village Dibbi. (5)
Recovery of the dead body of Jagia Devi from the courtyard of Smt. G
Tileshwara Kuar, an accused.
On the basis of these circumstances, the High Court upheld the
conviction of Ram Nath Singh and Dr. Harendra Narain Singh, the
appellants, as in its opinion Ram Nath Singh had motive to murder
J agia Devi as she being a widow w"s carrying pregnancy of four H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A
months. The murder was committed in the dispensary of Dr. Harendra
Narain Singh where she had been taken for medical aid for pain in
stomach. The Trial Court had acquitted Smt. Teleshwara Kuar, from
whose house dead body was recovered. In appeal the High Court
acquitted Ishwar Shah an·:! Bishwanath Singh alias Bissu also. The
prosecution evidence and che circumstances on the basis of which Ram
B Nath Singh and Dr. Ha;·endra Narain Singh have been convicted are
the same as applicable to the case of Ishwar Shah and Bishwanath
Singh alias Bissu, but the High Court acquitted them and at the sarhe
time it upheld the conviction of Ram Nath Singh and Dr. Harendra
Narain Singh on the same set of the evidence and circumstances with-
out there being any distinction. The main circumstances which
weighed with the High Court in upholding the conviction of Ram Nath
c Singh and Dr. Harendra Narain Singh was that the dead body of Jagia
Devi was taken out of the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh
and placed on the ekka of Amanat Khan PW 10 by Rani Nath Singh.
In view of this proved circumstance the High Court concluded that in
all likelihood Jagia Devi was murdered in the dispensary of Dr.
D Harendra Narain Singh with his connivance and thereafter the dead·
body was taken on ekka to village Dibbi and placed in the courtyard nf
Smt. Teleshwara Kuar. The presumption that Ram Nath Singh com-
mitted murder of Jagia Devi by strangulation in the disp~nsary of Dr.
Harendra Narain Singh with his connivance is based on conjecture
without there being any conclusive circumstance justifying such
E presumption.
The High Court has placed strong reliance on the evidence of
PW 10 Amanat Khan in holding the appellants Dr. Harendra Narain
Singh and Ram Nath Singh guilty of murder. PW 10 Amanat Khan was
an ekkawala who plied passengers on hire, he was resident of village
F Bagaura, where the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh was
situate. Amanat Khan testified that at about 2 a.m. in the night the
appellants Ram Nath Singh, Dr. Harendra Narain Singh and Bish-
wanath Singh alias Bissu awakened him and requested him to cairy a
patient to village Dibbi. At first he refused to ply his ekka at that odd
hour of the night but after some time they again returned and put
G pressure on him to take his ekka to the dispensary of Dr. Harendra
Narain Singh for transporting the patient to Village D.ibbi. On their
pursuasion he took his ekka to the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain
Singh where he found Ishwar Shah, Jagannath and Smt. Jota Kuar
(mother of appellant Ram Nath) present at the dispensary. According
to him Ram Nath and Bishwanath, deceased brought a dead body from
H tqe dispensary of the appellant Harern:lra Narain Singh and placed the
H.N. SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR [SINGH, J.l 61
same on the ekka. Ram Nath Singh, Bishwanath Singh alias Bissu and
A
Smt. Jota Kuar also sat in the ekka. On their request he carried therr:
to village Dibbi Where Ram Nath and Bishwanath alias Bissu unloa-
ded the dead body from the ekka at the house of Smt. Teleshwara
Kuar. Amanat :(han's testimony is supported by PW 3, Dukhan
Majhi, PW 4 Bishesh,·1ar Chowkidar and PW 5 Shiv Dutt. Their
testimony is merely to the fact that the appellants Ram Nath Singh and B
Bishwanath Singh were sitting on the ekk3 which was carrying a dead
body from the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh. Placing
reliance on the testimony of these witnesses the High Court and the
Trial Court concluded that Smt. Jagia Devi, the deceased was
murdered in the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh and the
dead body was carried by them on the ekka to village Dibbi and placed C
in the courtyard of Smt. Tileshwara Kuar. the High Court and the Trial
Court both failed to notice that ·the prnsecution produced no evidence
to show that Smt. Jagia, the deceased was brought to the dispensary of
Dr. Harendra Narain Singh while she was alive. There is further no
evidence as to who brought her to the dispensary in what condition.
The only evidence which the prosecution has produced in this respect D
is that a dead body was taken out from the dispensary of Dr. Harendra
Narain Singh and placed on the ekka by Ram Nath Singh and others
and taken to village Dibbi.
The High Court was conscious of the weakness of the prosecu-
tion case, even then it upheld the conviction of the appellant perhaps E
on moral grounds. In para 3 of its judgment the High Court observed:
"although 14 witnesses have been examined on behalf of
the prosecution there is no direct evidence or eye witness
account of murder. The witnesses however are not all
relevant even for proving the circumstances and other col- F
atoral ffiatters".
After making the aforesaid observations ordinarily the High
Court should have rejected the prosecution case which was based on
circumstantial evidence but strangely enough the High Court inspite of
.. \ the aforesaid observations, upheld the conviction of the appellants. G
While dealing with the case of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh the
High Court observed that he was a man of shaky character. This obser-
vation was made on the basis that even though he was a homeopathi_c
doctor but allopathic medicines were recovered from his dispensary.
In our opinion, mere recoyery of allopathic rllectiCi_nes from the dis- H
62 SUPREME COCRT REPORTS [ 1991] 3 S.C.R.
A pensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh does not necessanly show that
he was a man of shaky character. It is a matter of common knowledge
that even a homeopathic doctor sometimes refer· the patients to
allopathic treatment. The fact of recovery of allopathic medicines has
no connection or relation to the commission of the offence for which
Dr. Harendra Narain Singh has been convicted. The High Court
B further observed that when the dead body of the deceased was taken
out from the dispensary by Ram Nath Singh and other accused persons
Dr. Harendra Narain Singh was present at the spot, therefore he was
so closely connected with the affairs taking place at his house that nm1e
• could without his assistance do anything. Apart from this there was no
other evidence or circumstance against Dr. Harendra N.arain Singli It
C is significant to note that according to tile prosecution when the dead
body of the deceased was taken out of dispensary and placed on ekka
Ishwar Shah and Bishwanath Singh alias Bissu accused were also pre-
sent at the .dispensary along with Dr. Harendra Narain Singh yet' they
have been acquitted by the High Court. The .High Court failed to give
any cogent reason for upholding the conviction of Dr. Harendra
D Narain Singh.
We have car.efulLy gone through the evidence. 011 record and con-
sidered the various circumst.ances and the facts o.f the case. In our
opinion, there are two glaring circ·umstances which are fatal to the
prosecution case. T'1e prosecution has produced evidence only to the
E effect that a dead body was taken out of the dispensary of Dr.
Harendra Narain Singh by Ram Nath Singh and other accused persons
and the same was carried on the ekka to village Dibbi. The prosecution
witnesses have merely deposed that they had seen a dead body being
placed on the ekka and taken to village Dibbi. None of the prosecution
witness has however, deposed that he had seen the face of the dead
F body or identified the same .. Jn the absence of such evidence it would
not be reasonable to assume that the dead body which was taken out
from the dispensary and placed on the ekka was that of the deceased
Jagia Devi. In the absence of identification of dead body by the witnes-
ses it is not legitimate to hold that the dead body which was taken out
from the dispensary·of Dr. 1-tatertdra Narain Singh was tpat of Jagia
G' Devi. There is another vital defect in the prosecution Gase. The pro- .t ..
secution failed to produce any .evidence that the deceased i°agia Devi
was taken to the hospital for treatment by Ram Nath Singh and other
accused persons while she was alive and that she was admitted to the
dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh for treatment, at a time
when she was alive. In the absence °Of any Such evidence there are
H various possibilities and prol;>abilities, one of them being that the
H.N. SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR [SINGH, J.] 63
deceased may have been brought to the dispensary for medical assis- A
tance after she was found to be strangulated by some one. There is
further no evidence of the fact that wher: the deceased was inside the dis-
pensary no other person had access to her except the appellants. In the
absence of any such evidence it would not be legitimate to assume that
the deceased was strangulated in the dispensary by Ram Nath Singh
with the connivance of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh. Merely because B
the appellants failed to raise any such plea in their defence does not
lend any support to the prosecution case. The prosecution has to
succeed on the basis of its own evidence and it can not rely on the
., ' absence of defence to sustain the guilt as there is no justification for
raising such assumption against the appellants. The circumstances
established by the prosecution are not sufficient to conclusively point c
to the appellants as the perpetrator of the crime or to rule out the
hypothesis of their innocence. Since the prosecution failed to prove
the necessary facts showing that the deceased while alive was last seen
in the company of the appellants or that the dead body which was
carried on the ekka was that of the deceased Jagia Devi, the High
D
Court was not justified in drawing adverse inference hr completing
the chain of circumstances to uphold the appellant's conviction merely
' on the appellant's false explanation in defence.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
High Court and the Trial Court both committed error in convicting the
appellants. We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the judg- E
ment and order of the High Court convicting the appellants.
T.N.A. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "circumstantial evidence"Sign in to search