Holding

The circumstantial evidence did not meet the established criteria for conviction, and the conviction of A‑1 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is set aside.

Summary

Krishnan (A-1) and Tamilarasi (A-2) were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Rasitha Begum, the wife of PW‑1, based solely on circumstantial evidence. The trial court and the Madurai High Court upheld the conviction despite the absence of any direct evidence linking A‑1 to the crime, and despite the fact that the complainant’s statement did not name A‑1 as an assailant. The Supreme Court examined the circumstantial evidence against the established legal tests and found material discrepancies, inconsistencies and gaps, particularly regarding A‑1’s presence at the scene. It held that the prosecution failed to satisfy the requisite conditions for a conviction on circumstantial evidence and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting A‑1 of the murder charge.

Issues considered

The prosecution case rested solely on circumstantial evidence; did it satisfy the legal requirements for conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC?
Was there sufficient evidence to prove that A‑1 was present at the house of A‑2 and A‑3 at the time of the murder?
Did the trial court and High Court commit a manifest error in their appreciation of the evidence?
Should the benefit of doubt be granted to the accused under the principles governing circumstantial evidence?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 374
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34, s. 380, s. 414

Subjects

circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtmurderIPC Section 302IPC Section 34acquittalcriminal appealconviction set asideIndian Penal CodeCode of Criminal Procedure

Judgment

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 1030

A KRISHNAN
V.
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 841 of 2008)
MAY 8, 2008
B •
(S.8. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) ).

Evidence:
Circumstantial evidence - Conviction based on -
c Legality of-Accused held guilty by trial court and High Court
u/s 302134 !PC merely on the basis of circumstantial evidence
- No direct evidence to connect accused with commission of
offence - Accused neither named in complaint nor in FIR -
Presence of accused at scene of occurrence prior to incident
D not proved - Evidence on record to the effect that accused
had earlier appeared a." a witness against police officer
concerned - HELD: Evaluation of findings by trial court as
'
\-
affirmed by High Court suffers from manifest error and
improper appreciation of evidence on record - Conviction and
E sentence of accused set aside -Accused acquitted of the
charge giving him benefit of doubt - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.
302134.
Appellant (A-1) was prosecuted u/s 302/34 IPC with
A-2 (the wife of A-3) for commission of murder of the wife
F of PW-1 as also u/s 380 IPC, whereas A-3 was prosecuted ....
~
u/s 414 IPC. The prosecution case was that the family
members of PW-1 and A-2 and A-3 used to frequently
quarrel on the issues of flowing of drainage water and t~·-

parking of auto rikshaw by A-2 and A-3 in front of the house
G of PW-1. On the day of incident, wife of PW-1 was found
missing from her house. On the following day PW-3 was
stated to have told PW-1 that she noticed his wife lying in
the house of A-2 and A-3 with her legs and hands tied.
). .
i:·

H 1030
-< KRISHNAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR 1031
OF POLICE
--1
She also told PW-1 that on the previous day she had seen A
A-2 quarrelling with his wife. Thereupon PW-1 went to the
police station and lodged a complaint. PW-18, the
Inspector of Police, reached the place of occurrence,
prepared 'Mahazar' and sent the body for post mortem
>
examination. A-2 and A-3 were arrested. The Investigating B
~ Officer recorded confessional statement of A-2. At the
instance of A-2 and A-3 ornaments of the deceased were
recovered. Later A-1 was also arrested. According to the
post-mortem report, the death was caused as a result of
strangulation and asphyxia. The trial court convicted A-1 c
and A-2 u/s 302 r/w s.34 IPC and sentenced them to life
imprisonment. A-3 was acquitted of the charge. The
conviction and sentence of A-1 and A-2 was upheld by
the High Court.
In the instant appeal filed by A-1, it was contended D
for the appellant that ~here was nothing to connect him
with the crime or to show that he had gone prior to the
incident to the house of A-2 and A-3 from where the dead
body was recovered; and that he was falsely implicated
in the case by the police officers, PW-17 and PW-18 since E
he, as a Secretary of the Workers Association and a
member of Communist Party, had filed a compliant against
them earlier for unnecessarily harassing the workers who
had participated in the demonstration and agitations
against the police and executive authorities as a result of F
~
,. which PWs 17 and 18 were transferred.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case there is no direct
evidence to connect the accused with the commission of G
the offences, and the prosecution case entirely rests on
circumstantial evidence. This Court in a series of decisions
,~
has consistently held that the conditions precedent must
be fully established before conviction could be based on
circumstantial evidence. [para 13] [1039-G]
H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. 'I--

y

A Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC 351 :
AIR 1982 SC 1157; Rama Nand v. State of Himacha/ Pradesh
(1981) 1 SCC 511 : AIR 1981 SC 738; Prem Thakur v. State
of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 462 : AIR 1983 SC 61;
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, (1983) 2 SCC 330 :
B AIR 1983 SC 446; Gian Singh v State of Punjab, 1986 Suppl.
SCC 676 : AIR 1987 SC 1921; Balvinder Singh v. State of >
Punjab (1987) 1SCC1 : AIR 1987 SC 350; Hanumant Govind
Nargundkar v State of M.P AIR 1952 SC 3443; C. Chenga
Reddy v State of A.P (1996) 10 SCC 193; Sashi Jena & Ors.
c v. Khadal Swain & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 236; and Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 :
AIR 1984 SC 1622 - relied on.
1.2 A careful examination of the evidence on record
shows that P.W.-1 did not name A-1 as an assailant of the
D murder of his wife in the complaint [Ext. P-1] lodged by
~
him in the Police Station on the basis of which FIR [Ext.
· P-14] came to be registered by P.W.-18. The testimony of
this witness has not established that A-1 was present in
the house of A-2 and A-3 at the time and on the day of the
E murder of his wife. On close scrutiny of the testimony of
P.W.-3, and P.W.-6 who scribed the complaint [Ex. P-1] at
the :instance of P.W.-1, it is clear that they have not proved
the presence of A-1 in the house of A-2 and A-3. [para 15-
17] [1024-D-E; 1044-C-D; 1042-F]
F 2.1 P.W.-17-Sub Inspector and P.W.-18-lnspector of
Police in their testimony stated that A-1 being a member
1 -.
of Indian Communist Party, was involved in several
demonstrations and agitations staged by the Communist
Party against the administration. The evidence of both
G these witnesses is to the effect that a case was registered
against both of them and in the said case A-1 appeared
as a witness and deposed against them. An inquiry was ~'
held against them and later on they were transferred from
the Police Station. In the teeth of the evidence of PW-17
H and PW-18, undoubtedly they are hostile witnesses
KRISHNAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR 1033
~ --f OF POLICE
J

deposing against A-1, who appears to have been framed A
later on in the crime by these witnesses mainly on
suspicion and improbability. PW-6, who is a member of
Jammat, admitted that in the year 1994 the Communist Party
leaders and workers staged demonstrations and agitations
against the administration for not arranging proper and B
timely supply of drinking water in which many party
workers were assaulted by the police officials of Police
Station where P.Ws.-17 and 18 at the relevant time were
posted. [para 16 and 19] [1044-F-H; 1045-A; 1043-A-C]
2.2 There is absolutely no evidence appearing on the C
record to establish that A-1 had illicit relations with A-2
and/or it was the cause of murder of deceased by A-1 and
A-2. In the absence of any cogent, believable and
satisfactory evidence, A-1 could not be held guilty of the
+ murder of the deceased only on hypothesis and D
susr.icion. [Para-19] [1045-F-G]
3. On an independent analysis of the entire evidence
on record, it is clear that the prosecution has .failed to
prove 'the charge of murder of the deceased against A-1 E
beyond reasonable doubt. There are material
discrepancies, inconsistencies and vital improvements in
the testimony of P..Ws.-1, 3, 4 and 5 in regard to the
presence of A-1 at the house of A-2 and A-3 at the relevant
- -~
time on the day of occurrence. Therefore, evaluation of
the findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed by F
the High Court suffers from manifest error and improper
appreciation of evidence on record. Thus, as on the basis
of the evidence appearing on record two views are
possible, A-1 is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The
conviction and. sentence of A-1 is set aside and he is G
acquitted of the charge of murder by giving him benefit of
doubt. [ para 20-21] [1046-C-FJ
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 841 of 2008
H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R

A From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.2.2006 of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 826
of 1996

Yogesh Khanna, K. Mayil Samy and V.N. Raghupathy for
B the Appellant. .
\

V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle and Prabu
Ramasubramanian for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

c LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Krishnan has filed this appeal against the judgment and
order dated 07.02.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the
Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal
No. 826/1996, confirming the conviction and sentence for life in
D respect of the offence committed under Section 302 read with t
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short '"he IPC"] in
Sessions Case No. 41/1996 dated 30.08.1996 awarded by the
learned Sessions Judge, Sivaganga.

E 3. Three accused - Krishnan [A-1], Tamilarasi [A-2] and
her husband Muthuraman [A-3] were charged in Sessions Case
No. 41/1996 on the file of the Court of Principal Sess:ons Judge,
Sivaganga. A-1 and A-2 were tried under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the IPC and Section 380 of the IPC. A-3 was tried
under Section 414 of the IPC. The learned trial Judge held A-1
F and A-2 guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. All the accused
were acquitted of the charges under Sections 380 and 414 of
the IPC. A-1 challenged his conviction and sentence before the
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 816/1996 whereas A-2
G preferred Criminal Appeal No. 249/1998.
4. Briefly ~t~ted. the case of the prosecution is as under:-
Siddiq (P.W.-1) was residing with his wife Rasitha Begum,
sisters -Amsath (Hamsath) Begum. Sabeetha Begum (P.W -
H 4) Faritha Begum (P.W.-5) and bmther Aliyar in a rental house
=I
KRISHNAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR 1035
--I OF POLICE [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.)

at Mehbobapalayam, Minachipuram, Karaikudi. P.W.-1 is A
working as a Cleaner in Kalakai Vadivel Murugan Lorry. On the
southern side of the house of P.W.-1, Muthuraman {A~;3), an auto-
driver, and his wife Tamilarasi (A-2) are residing. It is the case
of the prosecution that the family members of P.W.-1 on one
> side and A-2 and A-3 on the other had been quarrelling frequently B
--'...
with each other upon trivial issues of flow qf drainage water and
parking of auto-rickshaw by A-3 in front of the house of P.W.-1.
On 28.03.1995 at about 9:45 p.m., P.W.-4 went to the lorry shed
where P.W.-1 is working and informed the latter that .since
morning hours of 28.03.1995 Rasitha Begum was missing from . c
the house. He along with P.W.-4 came to his house a.t about
11 :00 p.m. and started enquiring the whereabouts of his,wife. in
the neighbourhood, but he could not locate her. Later on, Amsatb,
the second sister of P.W.-1, told him that in the morning at about
9:30 a.m. her sister-in-law (Rasitha Begum) had gone tq th13
• shop of a tailor master to get her blouse from him and atthat.
D
time she was wearing a new saree. P.W.-1 went ii:; search of
Rasitha Begum to the shop of tailor master, Katinivaasal, New
Road, and house of his in-laws at Devakotai, but she could not
be located at any place. On 29.03.1995 at about 9:30 a.m.,
P.W.-1 returned home and again made an enquiry from Sm!.' E
1 Mumtaz (P.W.-3) - a neighbour, in regard to the reason qf his
wife missing from the house. P.W.-3 alleged to have told him
that on 28.03.1995 at about 10:30 a.m., she saw Rashita Begum
.., t- and A-2were quarrelling with each other, but she did not think it
proper to intervene since it was practically their daily habits to F
enter into heated exchanges upon petty issues. P.W.-3 also
disclosed that on 29th morning when she along with Faritha
Begum (P.W.-5), Fathima Beevi, and Rakhumat Biwi had
peeped through the eastern side window of the house of A-2
and A-3, they could notice Rasitha Begum lying on the floor of G
,) their house and her both legs and hands were tied. They also
noticed one rice bag and some household materials found
placed upon her dead body. Thereafter, P.W.-1 went to the Police
Station and lodged complaint [Ex. P-1 ], on the basis of which
Sub-Inspector Murugan (P.W.-17) registered Crime No. 145/ H
\-

1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
,_
A 95 [Ex. P-14] under Section 302, IPC in Karaikudi (Ne ih) Police
Station.
5. Balakrishnan (P.W.-18), Inspector of the Police Station,
went to the spot of incident and prepared Mahazar [Ex. P-4]
. and Death Investigation Report [Ex. P-15] in the presence of •
B Panchayatraras, He prepared spot map [Ex. P-16] and ).

recorded the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and other
material witnesses. On the same day, he sent the dead body of
Rasitha Begum to the Government Hospital, Karaikudi, with
requisition [Ex. P-2] for conductir:ig post-mortem. On
c 10.04.1995, P. W.-18 arrested A-2 and A-3 near Karaikudi Water
Tnnk. The Investigating Officer recorded the confessional
statement of A-2 in the presence of Govindam (P.W.-12) leading·
to the recovery of 22 carat black beads golden Karukumani.
He took A-3 to Thirumurugan Amman Sannidi Jewellery Shop
D and recovered M.O.M. 02 [Ex. P-7] from there in the presence
of Saminathan (P.W.-13). On 18.05.1995, A-1 was take11 to the '
Police custody from judicial custody.

6. Dr. Seenivasan (P.W.-2) on 29.03.1995 conducted the
post-mortem on the dead body of Rasitha Begum and as per
E
Post-Mortem Report [Ex. P-3], he noticed the following injuries:-
"External Injuries:-
t

1. Signs of decomposition present whole body

F
2.
edematous except l;mbs.
Foul smelling discharge from the nostril and mouth.
_.,
.
3. Rope mark in both forearms.
4. Left side of the face blackish with contusion and
oedamatous
G 5. Eye lids closed. Tongue outside.
6. A handkerchief seen in the mouth. ''
Teeth 8/8"

Internal Injuries:
H
KRISHNAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR 1037
OF POLICE [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.)

Abdomen distended with gas. Thorax - Ribs normal; A
Lungs congested; Heart empty; Neck - Echymosis and
congested present in anterior aspect of neck; Hyoid bone
- fracture, send for H.P.E.; Stomach contains 50 ml of
digested food particles; Intestine distended with gas; liver
J
congested 'spleen congested; kindly congested; bladder B
-"'"'
empty; Uterus - gravid 10 weeks size; skull contains in
the left parietal region 6cm X 4 cm in size. No evidence
fracture of skull.· Brain partially liquefied. Specimen
preserved - stomach, intestine, liver, spleen, kidney, hyoid
bone." c
In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was as a result
of strangulation of the neck of the deceased and asphyxia within
duration of 24 - 30 hours prior to the post-mortem.

' ~ 7, After completion of the investigation and on receipt of D
the Post-Mortem Report [Ex. P-3) and other documents, charge
$beet was faiJ by P.W.-18 against Ac1, A~2 and A-3 for
e6mmission of the alleged crime. The learned Judicial
Magistrate, Karaikudi, committed the trial to the learned·
Sessions Judge, who framed the charges against A-1, A-2 under
E
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section
380, IPC, for removing 14 gms. gold ornaments from the body
of the deceased and A-3 was charged under Section 414, IPC.
The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The

- t·
prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses in support of
its case. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the F
Coae of Criminal Procedure; the accused persons denied their
involvement in the commission of the offence and stated that
they have been implicated in a false case at the instance of the
Police and lastly they pleaded innocence. However, no defence
evidence has been led by them. G
,..J 8. It is the admitted case of the parties that there is no
direct evidence connecting A-1, A-2 and A-3 in the commission
of the crime. The prosecution case entirely rests upon
circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge relied
H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

A upon the evidence of P.Ws.-1, 3, 4, 5, 17 and 18 and held A-1
and A-2 guilty of the murder of Rasitha Begum and, accordingly,
sentenced them imprisonment for life whereas they were
acquitted unde_r Section 380, !PC. A-3 has been acquitted for
offence under Section 414 of the !PC for lack of cogent and
B convincing evidence against him. A-1 and A-2 filed the above
..
mentioned two separate appeals under Section 374 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure before the High Court against their
conviction and sentence. The Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed both the appeals by common order and confirmed
c the conviction and sentence imposed upon A-1 and A-2 under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of !PC.
9. Krishnan (A-1) is the appellant before us in this appeal.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
D
examined the material on record. ~ .
11. Shri Yoge5h Kanna, learned counsel appearing O'l
behalf of A-1 assailed the judgment of the High Court inter alia
contending:
(i) that the trial court as well as the High Court have
E
committed gross error in convicting the appellant on
the basis of highly unbelievable, insufficient and
unconvincing evidence led by the prosecution;
(ii) that there is not an iota of evidence on record to
F prove that on the day of occurrence, A-1 had gone to i ..
the house of A-2 and A-3 before the alleged incident
of death of Rasitha Begum, whose dead body was
found lying in their house on 29.03.1995.
(iii) that PW. 1 has not named A-1 in the complaint Exhibit
G P-1 on the basis of which FIR [Ex. P-14] was recorded
by P.W. 18.
~'
(iv) That A-1 has been falsely implicated in the
commission of the crime by Sub-Inspector Murugan
-· P.W.-17 and Inspector Balakrishnan - P.W.-18
H
.,
KRISHNAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR 1039
~ OF POLICE [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J]

against whom A-1, being a Secretary of Silver Labour A
Association, had filed complaint in the year 1994 for
unnecessarily harassing the workers of Silver Patrai
who joined the demonstrations and agitations held
against the owner of the Silver Patrai. According to
j
the learned counsel, A-1 is an active member and B
J.._
office bearer of Communist Party of India and in the
year 1994 he along with other party fellows staged
demonstrations against the Police and Executive
authorities regarding insufficient and inadequate
supply of drinking water facilities to Karaikudi and c
Tirupattur areas and for the acts of commission and
omissions of A-17 and A-18, they were transferred
from Police Station, Karaikudi (North), but again they
were posted back at the same Police Station.
. .. 12 . Shri V. G. Pragasam, learned counsel for the
respondent-State, on the other hand in S' 1pport of the judgment,
D

submitted that the reasons given by the trial court as well as the
High Court for recording the order of conviction againstA-1 are
based upon proper appreciation of evidence led by prosecution
in the case. He submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.-1, 3, 4 and E
5 coupled with the versions of P.Ws.-17 and 18, is clear,
satisfactory and with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant
ahd this Court normally should be slow to interfere with the well-
reasoned and well-merited judgment of the High Court upholding
' t the judgment of the trial court. F
13. Before adverting to the above-stated arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we shall at the
threshold point out that in the present case there is no direct
evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the
offences and the prosecution case entirely rests on G
circumstantial evidence. This Court in a series of decisions has
-~
consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial
evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:-
( i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
.
y

A 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;

B (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a ,.I.
•
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
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
c 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. [See
D Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra ( 1982) 2 SCC 351 : ~
(AIR 1982 SC 1157)]

See also Rama Nand v. State of Himacha/ Pradesh
(1981) 1 SCC 511 : (AIR 1981 SC 738),_Prem Thakur v. State
of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 462 : (AIR 1983 SC 61 ),
E
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, (1983) 2 SCC 330: (AIR
1983 SC 446), Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,_ 1986 Suppl.
SCC 676 : (AIR 1987 SC 1921), Ba/vinder Singh v. State of
Punjab (1987) 1 SCC 1 : (AIR 1987 SC 350).
,
F As far back as in 1952 in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar 1
v. State of M.P [AIR 1952 SC 3443], 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 in the first
G instance be fully established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
f- '
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
H proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a
KRISHNAN v. STATE REPRESEN:ED BY INSPECTOR 1041
OF POLICE [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
-i
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any A
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."
;. B
_)., A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
• : (AIR 1984 SC 1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial
evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution
to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in
prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The c
conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction
could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully
established. They are (SCC pp. 185, para 153) :

(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
D
; is to be drawn should be fully established. The
circumstar;ces concerned must or should and not
may be established;
(ii) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is E
to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency;
F
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved; and
(v) 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 G
must show that in all human probability the act must
,--1 have been done by the accused.
14. We may also make a reference to a decision of this
Court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P (1996) 10 SCC 193,
H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20C8] 7 S.C.R.

A wherein it has been observed thus: (SCC pp.206-207, para 2·1)

"21. 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
8 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
of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence."
c
In Sashi Jena & Ors. v. Khadal Swain & Anr. [(2004) 4
SCC 236], this Court again reiterated the well-settled principle
of law on circumstantial evidence.

15. Bearing the above principles of law enunciated by this
D Court, we have scrutinized and examined carefully the
circumstances appearinr, in this case against A-1. P.W.-1, the
husband of Rasitha Begum-deceased had not named A-1 as
an assailant of the murder of his wife in the complaint [Ex. P-1]
lodged by him in the Police Station on the basis of which FIR
E [Ex. P-14] came to be registered by P.W.-18. It is his evidence
that he disclosed the names of the assailants and other material
details of the crime to P.W.-6, who scribed the complaint at his
instance. P.W.-1 went to the Police Station with his brother,
brother-in-law and P.W.-6 and reported the matter to P.W.-18,
F but he again did not name A-1 as an accused along with A-2
1
and A-3 against whom complaint was made. The testimony of
this witness has not established that A-1 was present in the
house of A-2 and A-3 at the time and on the day of the murder of
his wife.
G 16. P.W.-6 in his deposition stated that at about 10:00 or
10:30 a.m. on the day of incide;1t of murder of Rasitha Begum,
he was standing near Ambedkar statue at Karaikudi when P. 1N.-
1 and his brother-in-law Jagir Hussain came to him and told
that his wife was dead and her dead body was lying in the house
H of A-2 and A-3. He scribed complaint [Ex. P-1] at the instance
KRISHNAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR 1043
OF POLICE [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

of P.W.-1 in the latter's house. He admitted in his cross- A
examination that after writing complaint [Ex. P-1], the same was
rea_d over to P.W. 1 who after accepting the contents thereof as
correct signed it. This witness is a member of Jammat. He
admitted that in the year 1994 the Communist Party leaders
and workers staged demonstrations and agitations against the B
•A administration for not arranging proper and timely supply of
drinking water from Karaikudi to Tirupattur in which many party
workers were assaulted by the police officials of Police Station,
Karaikudi, where P.Ws.-17 and 18 at the relevant time were
posted. He also stated that during the said agitations and c
demonstrations, several cases were filed against some
members of the Communist Party. It has come in his evidence
that complaint [Ex. P-1) was written by him in the house of P. W.-
1, whereas it was the specific case of P.W.-1 that Ex. P-1. was
got scribed by him from P.W.-6 on the way when he alongwith
D
~
his brother Aliyar and brother-in-law Jagir Hussain was going
to the Police Station to lodge the complaint. Both these
witnesses are not consistent and have given different and
contradictory version in regard to the place of scribing of the
complainant, on the basis of which the police machinery swung
E
into action.
17. The evidence of P.W.-3- Mumtaz would show that the
family members of P.W.-1 on one side and A-2 and A-3 on the
other had been quarrelling frequently with each other over flow
of drainage water and parking of auto-rickshaw by A-3 in front F
i .. of the house of P.W.-1. Her evidence would also reveal that at
about 10:00 a m. on the day of incident of murder, the deceased
and A-2 had heated exchanges over throwing of drainage water
in front of the house of A-2 and it was on the intervention of A-3
that the matter was got settled. She stated that around 3:00
G
p.m., it came to the notice of the family members of P.W.-1 that
. Rasitha Begum was not found present in her house. The
, ~
intimation about the missing of Rasitha Begum was sent to PW.-
1, who was aw.ay from his house in connection with his
employment at the lorry shed. It is her evidence that on the
H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 7 S.C.R

A morning of 29.03.1995, dead body of Rasitha Begum was found
lying inside the house of A-2 and her both hands and legs were
tied with ropes and one rice bag and other household materials
were found placed upon her body. She along with P.W.-Faritha,
Fathima Bibi and some more persons informed P.W.-1 about
B the incident, who rushed to the place of occurrence and on
seeing the dead body of his wife inside the house of A-2, he
went to police station for reporting the incident of murder. In
cross-examination, she admitted that P.W. 1 is her cousin. This
witness admitted that the death of Rasitha Begum was
c discussed in Jammat meeting. She admitted having joined the
demonstration and procession on the leadership of Palani Baba.
On close scrutiny of the testimony of P.W.-4, we find that she
has not proved the presence of A-1 in the house of A-2 and A-3
when this witness saw Rasitha Begum going to their house in
the morning at about 10:30 a.m. on the day of incident of murder.
0
18. P.W.-4 stated to liave informed her brother P.W.-1 at +
about 9:00 p.m. on 28.03.1995 about missing of her sister-in-
law from their house. She claimed to have seen A-1 in his Silver
Workshop on the day of incident of murder. P.Vlf.-5 Faritha
E Begum is residing nearby the house of P.W.-1 and her house is
adjacent to the house of A-3. She also stated that A-1 is running
a workshop nearby her house. On the morning of 29.03.1995,
she noticed dead body of Rasitha Begum in the house of A-2
and A-3.
F 19. P.W.-17-Sub Inspector and P.W.-18-lnspectorof Police
in their testimony stated that A-1 being a member of Indian
.. (

Communist Party, was involved in several demonstrations and
agitations staged in Karaikudi area by the Communist Party
against the administration. It is the evidence of P.W.-18 that in
G the year 1994 all political parties had demonstrated against the
civil administration for inadequate and improper suppiy of
drinking water facility from Karaikudi to Tirupattur and in the said
agitation, members of Indian Communist Party including A-1,
had also participated in which one Kannan, a member of
H Congress Party, received beatings. He admitted that a case
KRISHNAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR 1045
---( OF POLICE [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

was registered against him regarding handcuffing of Kannan A
and in the said case A-1 appeared as a witness and deposed
against him. P.W.-18 then stated that RTO also held enquiry
about the same incident in which one Ramachandran, a member
of Indian Communist Party, Karaikudi, deposed against him.
... P.W.-17 has admitted in cross-examination that during strike B
J...
staged by all political parties in 1994, some demonstrators
received injuries at the hands of Police Force. For the said
incident, an inquiry was held by RTO against him and PW-18,
who at the relevant time were lncharge of the Police Station and
later on they were transferred from the Police Station, Karaikudi. c
He then stated that a criminal case was also registered against
him and PW-18 for the same incident, in which A-1 appeared
as a witness and deposed against them. In the teeth of the
evidence of PW-17 and PW-18, undoubtedly they are hostile
; witnesses deposing against A-1, who appears to have been
+ D
framed later on in the crime by these witnesses mai!'llY on
suspicion and improbability. The learned trail Judge observed
that even though there was no direct evidence to prove thatA-1,
in connivance with A-2, committed the murder of Rashita Begum,
but since A-1 had illicit relations with A-2 and on the day of
incident of murder, after A-3 had left his house, A-1 was seen by
E
· the deceased going to the house of A-2 and out of curiosity, the
deceased went to the house of A-2 where she was jointly killed
by A-1 and A-2. This finding of the learned trial Judge and as
accepted by the High Court, in our view, is wholly untenable and
,. t cannot be sustained. There is absolutely no evidence appearing F
on the record to establish that A-1 had illicit relations with A-2
and in the absence of any cogent, believable and satisfactory
evidence, A-1 could not be held guilty of the murder of the
deceased only on hypothesis and suspicion. If the entire incident
was narrated by PW-4 to her brother PW-1 before lodging a G
complaint (Ext. P-1) by him, it was but natural for PW-1 to have
-~ disclosed the name of A-1 in the complaint as an assailant, on
the basis of which FIR (Ext. P-14) was registered by PW-18.
The evidence of P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 regarding removing
of jewellery from the dead body of Rasitha Begum by A-1 and H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
)-•

A A-2 coupled with the version of P Ws.-14 and 18 and the
confessional statement allegedly made by A-1, was not found
believable and reliable by the learned trial Judge and accordingly \.-

B
they were acquitted of the charge under Section 380, IPC. On
the same set of evidence, no acceptable evidence was found
against A-3 for holding him guilty of offence under Section 414,
).
...
•
IPC, and he has been given benefit of doubt.

20. On independent analysis of the entire evidence on
record, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the
)-
charge of murder of Rasitha Begum against A-1 beyond
c reasonable doubt. As noticed in the earlier part of the judgment,
we find material discrepancies, inconsistency and vital
improvements in the testimony of P.Ws.-1, 3, 4 and 5 in regard
~
to the presence of A-1 at the house of A-2 and A-3 at the relevant al
time on the day of occurrence. Having given our careful
D consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel
+ •
for the parties and in the light of the evidence discussed above
and tested in the light of principles of law highlighted above, it
must be held that the evaluation of the findings recorded by the
trial court and affirmed by the High Court suffers from manifest
E error and improper appreciation of evidence on record. Thus,
on the basis of the evidence appearing on record, two views ,.
are possible, A-1 is entitled to the benefitof doubt. ,..
21. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and

F
sentence of A-1 is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge
of murder of Rasitha Begum by giving him benefit of doubt. i
.... '
Appellant-Krishnan is in custody and he is directed to be
released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other
case.
Appeal allowed.
G R.P

"-
Ji