Holding

The circumstantial evidence satisfied all the requisite tests, forming a complete chain that excluded any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and the conviction was affirmed.

Summary

The appellant Narayan was convicted for the murder of his wife Hunji and for causing the disappearance of evidence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The dead body was discovered in a trunk at a bus stand, identified as Hunji, and the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence such as the couple’s cohabitation, Narayan’s disappearance after selling his belongings, the hire of a jeep carrying the trunk, and motive evidence. The trial court and the Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction, which the appellant challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground that the circumstantial evidence did not unerringly point to his guilt. The Supreme Court reiterated the established tests for circumstantial evidence, held that the chain of circumstances was complete, cogent, and inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence, and therefore affirmed the conviction. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a conviction for murder and for causing disappearance of evidence can be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Whether the circumstances presented satisfy the legal tests required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302

Subjects

circumstantial evidencemurderIPC 302IPC 201convictionchain of evidencecriminal appealSupreme Court of India

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 1200

A NARAYAN
v
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2009
'
FEBRUARY 25, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,
JJ.]
'
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 201 - Conviction - On
the basis of circumstantial evidence - On appeal, held:
C Circumstances relied on for conviction, establish the guilt of
the accused - Conviction confirmed.
Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Reliance on -
Held: Conviction can be based on such evidence - Condition
0 precedent for reliance before conviction, discussed.
Appellant-accused was prosecuted for offences
punishable u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC. Prosecution was based
on circumstantial evidence. Courts below convicted him
placing reliance on the circumstances. Hence the present
E appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Wher~ a case rests squarely on
circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be
F 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 6] [1205-B]
1.2 When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence,
G such evidence must satisfy the following tests, viz. the
circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought
to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; the
H 1200
NARAYAN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1201

..: circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain A
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 the circumstantial
evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete
and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than B'
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. [Para 8] [1206-
A-D] .
1.3 Onus is 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. [Para 13] [1207-
G-H]
1.4 Great care must be taken in evaluating 0
circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is
.reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour
of the accused must be accepted. [Para 9] [1206-E-F]
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063;
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; E
Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka; AIR 1983 SC 446; State
of U.P v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; Ba/winder
Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar
Chatterjee v. State of M.P AIR 1989 SC 1890; Bhagat Ram v.
State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. F
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 Cr/. l.J. 1104; Hanumant Govind
Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952
SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra G
AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8)
SCC 180; State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003 (11)
SCC 261; Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of A.P. 2008 (10) SCR
89; Manivel and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2008(9) JT 31;
Raju v. State by Inspector of Police 2009 (3) JT 183 - relied on. H
1202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009]-2 S.C.R.

A "Wills'_. Circumstantial Evidence" by Sir Alfred Wills, ~
(Chapter VI) - referred to.
2. In the instant case circumstances highlighted by
the trial court and the High Court are that the accused
was living with the deceased as a couple before the
B occurrence; that death of the deceas~d was committed
by strangulation, and dead body was recovered in a trunk;
that the accused was absconding after selling his all
belongings etc; that he disappeared for a long period (4-
5 years); that the accused had hired a Jeep on. rent in
c which loaded his all goods and in which a trunk also
contained the dead body of deceased which was
recovered from such trunk. Identification of such trunk
has also been proved by witnesses; and that the motive
of crime has been also proved by evidence of prosecution
D that he was keen to take other women, and he has killed
his wife (the deceased) for removing her from the scene.
The circumstances clearly establish the guilt of the accused-
appellant. [Paras 15 and 16) [1208-G-H; 1209-A-D]
Case Law Reference
E
AIR 1977 SC 1063 ReHed on. Para 6
AIR 1956 SC 316 Relied on. Para 6
AIR 1983 SC 446 Relied on. Para 6
F AIR 1985 SC 1224 Relied on. Para 6
AIR 1987 SC 350 Relied on. Para 6
AIR 1989 SC 1890 Relied on. Para 6

G AIR 1954 SC 621 Relied on. Para 6
1996 (10) sec 193 Relied on. Para 7
AIR 1990 SC 79 Relied on. Para 8
1992 Crl. l.J. 1104 Relied on. Para 9
H
11111 ••

NARAYAN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1203

AIR 1952 SC 343 Relied qn. Para 12 A
-4
AIR 1984 SC 1622 Relied on. Para 13
2003 (8) sec 180 Relied on. Para 14
2003 (11) sec 261 . Relied on. Para 14
B
2008 (10) SCR 89 Relied on. Para 14
2008 (9) JT 31 Relied on. Para 14
2009 (3) JT 183 Relied on. Para 14
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal -C
No. 386 of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 31.01.2007 of the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Crl.
(Jail) Appeal No ..853 of 2002. D
Rajiv Talwar, Parmanand, for the Appellant.
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, for the Respondents.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
E
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur upholding the F
conviction of the appellant for offenc~s punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal C<;>de, 1860 (in short
the 'IPC') and confirmed the judgment and order of coriviction-
and sentence passed by learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Fast Track,· Udaipur.
G
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
An unknown dead body was found in an iron barrel drum
at bus-stand, Unjha. It is alleged that on 16.10.1995 at the bus-
stand, Unjha some unknown person hired handcart of one Malla
and instructed the cart man to cari-Y the barrel drum to Railway H
1204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A Station and, in the meantime, he assured to reach there. But,
the said unknown person did not reach at the railway station
and, ultimately, the cart owner Malla brought back the said barrel
drum to bus-stand. In the evening the barrel drum began to emit
bad smell and, therefore, information was given at the police
B post. The police opened the barrel drum and found therein the
corpse of Mst. Hunji. Whereabouts of the dead body was not
known and a photo was published in the newspaper in pursuance
of which Babu Meena (PW6) and Chandulal (PW20) came and
identified the dead body to be of their sister Hunji, who was
c living with appellant Narayan as his wife at Kotara. The Unjha
police registered the case and since information was given by
way of statements of Babu Meena and Chandulal and other
relatives of the deceased that the incident took place at Kotara,
through the Superintendent of police, the file of the cas·e was
0 sent for investigation to the Police Station, Kotara where regular
FIR was registered at No.136/95 under Sections 302 and 201
IPC. Thereafter the investigation commenced. Charge sheet
was filed after investigation.
As the accused pleaded innocence trial was held. As the
E prosecution version rested on circumstantial evidence the trial
court referred to various circumstances· to come to the·
conclusion that the accused was guilty of the charged offences.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were recorded. The
appeal as noted above was preferred before the High Court.
F The primary stand was that the circumstances highlighted by
. the prosecution do not lead unerringly to the guilt of the accused.
The High Court did not find any substance in the plea and as
noted above the same was dismissed.
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
G submitted that there is no evidence worth the name to connect
the appellant with the crime and the circumstances highlighted
by the trial court and the High Co.urt do not lead unerringly to the
guilt of the accused appellant.
5. Learned .counsel for the respondent-State on the other
NARAYAN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1205
/ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

hand supported the judgment of the High Court affirming that qf A
the trial court.
6. 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
B
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); Ba/winder c
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
circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must
be such as to negative the innocence ofthe accused and bring E
the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
7. 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
I
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 .... ".
I

\
8. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. (AIR H
'
'
r
f
1206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. ,; .
..__
.,
A .. ..
1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following
tests:
t"
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
B
established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency ~

unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumsta_nces, 1aken 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
).c
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain I
~

D conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation r
...
of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused
and such evidence should not only be consistent with the ~
l
guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his
innocence.
E 9. In State of U.P v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ
1104), 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
the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the
F 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 th,e hypothesis of guilt.
10. Sir 'Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills'
Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following
G rules specially to. be observed in the case of circumstantial
.i.
evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference -
must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected
with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on -
'--
the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal ;
~
'H accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial 1--
f
NARAYAN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1207
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
..._
evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature A
of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt,
the inculpatory facts must be 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 B
right to be acquitted".

.J 11. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely
on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-
stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by
the this Court as far back as in 1952.
c
12. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr V State of
Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed
thus:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence
D
is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first
instance be fully established and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should E
....,, be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should
be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the F
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."

13. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad G
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC
1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence. it has
been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain
is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be
cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the H
1208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A words of this Court, before conviction could be based on ,._
circumsta.ntial 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
.B be' established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that. is to I,.

say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
c 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
D 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 probability the act must have been
E done by the accused.
·14. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan
y. Raja Ram (2003 (8) sec 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir
Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 26.1), Kusuma AnkamaRao v -~
F State. of A. P. (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of on
7. 7.20,08) , Manive/ and Ors. v. State of Tami Nadu (2008(9)
JT 31-)and Raju v. State by Inspector of Police (SLP(Crl)
Nq.4467 of 2008 decided on 4.2.2009)
15. Circumstances highlighted by the trial court and the
G .High Court are as follows: ·
1. Accused was living with Hunji as a couple before the
occurrence.
2. Death of Hunji was committed by strangulation, and
dead body was recovery in a trunk at Unjha.
NARAYAN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1209
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

,(
3. Accused was absconding after selling his all A
belongings cow, buffalo etc. Accused disappeared
for a long period 4-5 years ..
4. Accused had hired a Jeep on rent in which loaded
his all goods and had gone to Unjha in which a trunk
B
also containeci the dead body of deceased which
was recovered from such trunk in Unjha. Identification
of such trunk has also been proved by witnesses.
5. Motive of crime has been also proved by evidence
of prosecution that he was keen to take other women, c
. and he has killed his wife Hunji from removing him
... - .
from the scene.
16. In our considered opinion the circumstances highlighted
by the trial court and the High Court clearly establish the guilt of
the accused appellant. There is no scope for interference in D
this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.

. ,: