Supreme Court of India
LIYAKATversusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 250
- Decided
- 25 February 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence established a complete chain satisfying all legal requirements, justifying conviction, and therefore dismissed the appeals.
Summary
The child Noor Alam, about 1½ years old, was left in the custody of accused Liyakat, Zahira, Jeewani and Riyasat by his parents. Within three hours the child went missing and his body was later discovered buried in Liyakat's hut. The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence – the child's custody, the rapid disappearance, the lack of any explanation from the accused, the location of the body, and the medical finding of homicidal suffocation – to charge the accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The trial court convicted Liyakat (death) and Zahira (life imprisonment); the High Court confirmed the life sentence for Zahira and reduced Liyakat's death sentence to life. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence satisfied the established legal tests and held that it formed a complete, unbroken chain that excluded any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, thereby justifying the convictions. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence under Indian law.
- Whether the specific chain of circumstances in this case meets the judicial tests for admissibility of circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the death sentence awarded to the appellant should be upheld or altered.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 367
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302
Subjects
circumstantial evidencemurderchild deathcustodyburial of bodyburden of proofSections 302 IPCSection 201 IPCdeath sentenceappellate review
Judgment
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 397
" "'
LIYAKAT A
II.
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
(Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 25, 2008
B
,. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Pena/Code, 1860-ss. 302and201-Murder-Ofa 1!h
year old child - His dead body found buried - Two accused -
Deceased child went missing barely within three hours after c
being given in custody of the accused persons by parents of
the child - Conviction of accused-appellants on basis of
circumstantial evidence - Justification of - Held: Justified -
Offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also -
Accused gave no explanation regarding disappearance of the
D
~
"' deceased child - They also did not explain as to how the dead
body came to be buried in their hut - Non-explanation of this
vital circumstance added to the chain of circumstances.
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of
According to the prosecution, the two accused- E
Appellants committed the murder of a child aged 1% years
and buried his dead body. Following circumstances were
highlighted by the prosecution to substantiate its
.. accusations, viz.: that the child went missing barely within
three hours after being given in custody of the accused F
persons by parents of the child; that no explanation was
given by the accused for missing of the child to the
parents and they only casually replied that the child must
have been playing somewhere else; that there was no
explanation whatsoever as to how the dead body of the G
child came to be buried in a hut, in use and occupation of
,, the accused persons; that the unsubstantiated defence
~
raised by the appellant no.2 suggesting alibi could not be
proved at all and that the child had died an unnatural and
397 H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
. v
A homicidal death due to suffocation before the burial.
The Trial Court convicted the Appellants under ss.302
and 201, IPC, sentencing Appellant No.1 to death and
Appellant No.2 to life imprisonment. High Court confirmed
the conviction. It affirmed the life sentence awarded to
B Appellant No.2 but altered the death sentence awarded
to Appellant No.1 to life sentence. Hence the present 'f
appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
c HELD: 1.1. For a crime to be proved it is not
necessary that the crime must be seen to have been
committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by
direct ocular evidence by examining before the court
those persons who had seen its commission. The offence
D can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The ... .
principal fact or factum probandum may be proved
indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from
factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it
.differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the
E point in issue but consists of evidence of various other
facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue
that taken together they form a chain of circumstances
from which the existence of the principal fact can be
legally inferred or presumed. [Para 13] [404-A, B, C]
F 1.2. 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. [Para 14] [404-C, DJ
G
1.3. 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 fact sought to be
inferred from those circumstances. [Para 14] [404-E, F]
H
LIYAKAT v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 399
r ~
1.4. The conditions precedent, before conviction A
could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully
established. They are: (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 B
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 should
exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
c
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 probability
the act must have been done by the accused. [Para 21] D
-~ ~
[407-C, D, E, F, G]
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1977) 2 SCC 99)
Eradu v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316);
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330; State
E
of UP v. Sukhbasi 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 v. State of
Punjab [AIR 1954 SC 621]; C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P
[1996 (10) SCC 193]; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P
... [;A.IR 1990 SC 79]; State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava F
[1992(2) SCC 86; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of
M.P [AIR 1952 SC 34; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622] and State of Rajasthan v.
Raja Ram [2003(8) sec 180] - relied on.
G
Wills' Circumstantial Evidence Chapter VI - referred to.
2.1. If the deceased was in the custody or in the
company of the accused, then the accused must supply
some explanation regarding the disappearance of the
deceased. [Para 24] [408-8] H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.G.R.
.. ..
A 2.2. It has been rightly noted by the Trial Court and
the High Court that the accused persons were absolutely
silent and no explanation was offered as to how the body
came to be buried in their hut which was in their exclusive
user. The non-explanation of this vital circumstance adds
B to the chain of circumstances. [Paras 23, 24] [408-A, B]
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICITION: CriminalAppeal
No. 378 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and order dated 6/10/2004 of
c the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.
45/2004.
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 379 of 2008.
D Y.P. Singh, (A.C.). C. Siddharth and Prakriti Purnima for
the Appellant.
- .
Rachna Srivastava for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals are directed against the common
judgment of the Uttranchal High Court.
F :3. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of a Division .
Bench of the Uttaranchal High Court which disposed of Criminal
Reference No. 2 of 2004 and two Criminal Appeal Nos. 45 and
46 of 2002. The two criminal appeals were filed by Liyakat the
present appellant and co-accused Smt. Zahira. The reference
G was necessitated as the Learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court Hardwar has awarded
death sentence to the accused Liyakat. He had also awarded
sentences of imprisonment for life to Zahira and the accused
No. 3. Both of them were convicted for offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
H
LIYAKAT v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 401
("
.. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
the 'IPC'). The trial court, however had acquitted Accused Nos. A
2 and 4 namely Riyasat and Jeewani.
4. Noor Alam was child of PW 1 Rashid and his wife PW 2
Nasreen. PW 1 Rashid and PW2 Nasreen used to reside in the
neighbourhood of Jeewani, original accused No. 4. On the fateful
day i.e. on 12th day of January, 1999, Nasreen was sitting B
alongwith her child in the courtyard of Gulami's house, who is
husband of original accused no.4 Jeewani. At that time Zaheera,
Jiwani, Liyakat and Riyasat were also there. Her husband
Rashid, P.W. 1 came there and asked his wife to go with him to
feed fertilizer to the standing crop in the field. However, Nasreen c
declined to go with him as there was nobody to lookafter Noor
Alam. Hearing this, Jeewani and other accused persons told
that they will look after the child and she could leave the child
with them. P.W.3 Brahm Pal and one Rishipal were also there
• -· at that time. The child was left by Nasreen with the accused D
persons and she left the place alongwith her husband. When
both of them returned at about 4 O'clock, they straightaway went
to the house of Gulami and enquired about Noor Alam. Accused
told them that Noor Alam was playing in the vicinity only. However,
they could not find the child. They searched for the child for the E
rest of the day and night and even on 13th of January, 1999, but
to no effect. However, in the morning of 14th, when Rashid was
searching for child alongwith Brahmpal, Bhagwan and Yasin,
~
they searched the house or hut of Liyakat and saw that in the
northern corner of that hut, foot of small child was protruding out F
of the ground. Seeing this Rashid reached to the Police Station,
Laksar and reported the matter.
5. A case was registered on that basis and the lncharge of
the Police out-post (Chauki) was informed on wireless and
received the message. O.P. Sisodia PW 8 with other officials G
reached the house of the accused and in presence of the
• witnesses, body of Noor Alam, which was buried in the pit in the
northern corner of the hut was recovered. Panchnama and other
formalities were completed and on that very day all the accused
persons were arrested. H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
•
fa 6. The prosecution relied on eight witnesses. They being •
tne parents of the child PW 1 Rashid and PW 2 Nasreen and
two other witnesses PW 3 Brahm Pal and PW 4 Rishipal They
al' supported the prosecution story. Besides them, PW 6 Dr.
R K. Pande is the medical officer, who had conducted post
B mortem on the dead body and PW 7 Rishipal and PW 8. O.P.
Sisodia are the police witnesses.
7. Case of the prosecution in short was that appellant
Liyakat, Riyasat, Zahira and Jeewani committed murder of Noor
Alam a child aged about 1Yi years, the deceased and they
c buried to the body of the child with an idea of screening the act.
The trial court accepted the prosecution version in part so far
as the appellant and Zahira are concerned but directed acquittal
of the co-accused. The-trial court found that the evidence was
clear and cogent and therefore the appellant Liyakat was given
D death sentence and Zahira was given life sentence Since the
sentence of death was awarded, the reference was made to - '
the High Court for confirmation in terms of Section 367 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.').
8. The High Court by the impugned judgment altered the
E death sentence awarded to appellant Liyakat to life sentence. It
however upheld the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to
Zahira.
9. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
F submitted that the case based on circumstantial evidence and
the circumstances highlighted by the trial court and the High
Court do not warrant a conclusion that the appellants were
responsible for the murder of the child.
10. With reference to the medical evidence, it was
G submitted that this was not a case of strangulation and therefore
the conclusion of killing the child of suffocation cannot be
maintained.
11. The circumstances which we:e highlighted against the
appellant was the fact that t>ie child was ieft in '..'9 custody of the
[<
LIYAKAT v STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 403
,,--~· [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]
appellants, the dead body was found buried in the premises of A
the appellants. No explanation by way of suggestion in cross
examination or in the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
was offered as to how the dead body was found buried in the
hut of the accused which was in his exclusive use.
12. Following circumstances were highlighted by the B
prosecution to substantiate its accusations:
(1) That the child Noor Alam was handed over in the
custody of the accused persons at about 1 O'clock
by the parents; c
(IA) That the child was either a toddler or a crawling boy;
(2) That the child was missing barely within three hours
after he was given in the custody of the accused
persons;
D
(3) That there was no explanation given by the accused
for the missing of the boy to the parents and they only
casually replied that the child, must have been playing
somewhere else;
(4) That the dead-body of the child was found buried in E
the hut, which was in the use and occupation of the
accused persons;
(5) That there is no explanation whatsoever as to how
his body came to be buried in the hut of these accused
F
persons;
(6) That the unsubstantiated defence raised by the
appellant no.2 Zaheera suggesting the alibi, which
could not be proved at all and has been rightly
disbelieved by the trial Court; G
(7) That the child died unnatural and homicidal death
due to suffocation and that the child had died even
before it was buried.
13. Before analysing the factual aspects it may be stated H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
A that for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime
must be seen to have been committed and must, in all
circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining
before the court those persons who had seen its commission.
The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The
s principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by
means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that
is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently, circumstantial
evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of
evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated
c with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of
circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can
be legally inferred or presumed.
14. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that
where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
D 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 01 tbe guilt of any other person. (See
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1977)2 SCC 99), Eradu
v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316), Earabhadrappa v.
E State of Kamataka [(1983) 2 SCC 330], State of UP v. Sukhbasi
[AIR 1985 SC 1224], Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab[AIR
1987 SC 350] and 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
F 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 where the case
depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the
G cumulative effect of the circumstances must be as to negative
the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home
beyond any reasonable doubt.
15. We may also make a reference to a decision of this
Court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P [1996 (10) SCC
H 193] wherein it has been observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07,
LIYAKAT v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 405
~ ,. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
para 21) A
"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
the circumstances should be complete and there should B
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
16. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P {AIR 1990 SC
79] it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial
evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: (SCC
pp. 710-11, para 10)
' . -~
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is D
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established;
..
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
E
(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 was
committed by the accused and none else; and
,
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain F
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." G
17. In State of U. P v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava ii {1992(2)
..,
• SCC 86] it was pointed out that great care must be taken in
evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied
on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of
H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
,
A the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that 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.
18. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book Wills'
8 Circumstantial 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
c must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt
connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of
proof 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
D
admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the
~ ....
incuipatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence
of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any
other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; and (5)
if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused,
E he is entitled as of right to be acquitted."
19. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely
on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the
touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down
F by this Court as far back as in 1952.
20. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkarv. State of M.P {AIR
1952 SC 343] it was observed thus: (AIR pp. 345-46, para 10)
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence
is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which
G
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 the accused. Again, the circumstances should
be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should
H
LIYAKAT v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 407
' ,. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one A
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 B
.. done by the accused."
21. 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 the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain c
is... complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution 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:
(SCC p. 185, para 153) D
t ~·
( 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 E
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; F
( 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 consistent G
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
;.
22. The above position was highlighted in State of
•
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram [2003(8) SCC 180].
H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
A 23. It has been rightly noted by the trial court and the High
Court that the accused persons were absolutely silent and no
explanation was offered as to how the body came to be buried
in their hut which was in their exclusive user.
24. Similarly the non-explanation of this vital circumstance
8 adds to the chain of circumstances. It is now settled law that if
the deceased was in the custody or in the company of the
accused, then the accused must supply some explanation
1
regarding the disappearance of the deceased.
c 25. In the factual background, it is considered in the light
of the' decisions referred to above, the inevitable conclusion is
that the appeals are sans merit, deserve dismissal which we
direct. We record our appreciation for the able manner in which
Mr. Y.P. Singh, learned Amicus Curiae assisted the case.
D 8.8.8. Appeals dismissed.
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