Holding

The High Court correctly altered the conviction from s.302 IPC to s.341 IPC; the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The appellant Raju was convicted by the trial court for murder (s.302 IPC) of a money‑lender, Virupachi Gounder, based largely on circumstantial evidence and a confessional statement. The Madras High Court altered the conviction to voluntarily causing hurt (s.341 IPC) and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. Raju appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the evidence did not form a complete chain and that the High Court erred in reducing the charge. The Supreme Court examined the established principles governing circumstantial evidence, noting that the facts – the witness PW‑7’s testimony, the recovered weapon, the short time gap between the last sighting and the discovery of the body, and the motive of a commission dispute – satisfied the tests for a conclusive chain pointing to the appellant’s guilt. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court’s alteration of the conviction was correct and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the circumstantial evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder under s.302 IPC.
Whether the conviction should be altered from s.302 IPC to s.341 IPC.
Whether the High Court's findings and the alteration of conviction are legally sustainable.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34, s. 341

Subjects

circumstantial evidencemurderconviction alterationIndian Penal CodeSection 302Section 341criminal appealproof beyond reasonable doubt

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 783

RAJU A
-=-"' v
THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2009
FEBRUARY 19, 2009
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.)
(

{ Penal Code, 1860:
S.302, 341 Part I - Trial Court convicting the appellant- c
accused under s.302 /PC- High Court altering it to one under
s.341 Part I /PC- Correctness of- Held: Trial Court and High
Court rightly held the appellant to be the author of the crime -
High Court rightly altered the conviction from s. 302 to s. 341
/PC - Hence no interference called for - Circumstantial
\'" D
evidence.
The appellant-accused was convicted under s.302
IPC by the trial court. High Court altered the conviction to
I
one under s.341 Part I IPC. Hence the appeal.
E
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It has been consistently laid down by this
,.i
Court that 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 F
to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or
the guilt of any other person. [Para 7] [ 789-H; 780-A]
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 Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State G
,;.
~ of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. 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 - relied on.

783 H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A 2. 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 7] [ 790-C]
B Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 -relied on.
3.1 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 ·
c evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in
1952. [Para 12] [ 792-B]
3.2 In the instant case, PW-7's evidence is clear and
cogent. His presence at the spot has been established.
He used to have business transactions with the
D deceased. He stated about the present appellant holding ~-
,
a handle of soil cutter. Though the deceased and the .......
present appellant were engaged in exchange of hot
words, that could not have given an impression to PW-7
that accused would take the life of the deceased.
E Therefore, the fact that he left the place on being told by
the deceased to do so cannot be a ground to dis-believe
his evidence. According to him he had seen the deceased
and the accused engaged in wordy tussle around 9.00
,l.
p.m. The wife of the deceased PW-1 found his dead body .., .

F at about 9.30 p.m. The time gap when the deceased was
last seen alive in the company of the accused _and when
his dead body was seen is not very large. Admittedly, the
bone of contention between the deceased and the
accused was non payment of the commission on account
of which they were quarreling. The trial Court and the High
G
Court have rightly held the appellant to be the author of
the crime. No infirmity is found in the conclusion of the + ......'
High Court to warrant interference. [Para 16] [ 793-F-H;
794-A-B]
H C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P (1996) 10 SCC
RAJU V. THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 785

193; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. AIR 1990 A
--l. SC 79; State of U. P v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 Cr/. LJ
1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Haryana B
v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003 (11) SCC 261; Kusuma Ankama
Rao v State of A. P (Criminal Appeal No. 18512005 disposed
, of by S. C. on 7. 7.2008) and Manivel and Ors. v. State of Tami
~ Nadu (Criminal Appeal No.473 of 2001 disposed of by S.C.
on 8.8.2008) - relied on. c
Sir Alfred Wills: "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter
VI) - referred to.
Case Law Reference
AIR 1977 SC 1063 relied on Para 7
D
" AIR 1956 SC 316 relied on Para 7
AIR 1983 SC 446 relied on Para 7
AIR 1985 SC 1224 relied on Para 7
AIR 1987 SC 350 relied on Para 7 E
AIR 1989 SC 1890 relied on Para 7
AIR 1954 SC 621 relied on Para 7
.J.
... (1996) 10 sec 193 relied on Para 8
AIR 1990 SC 79
F
relied on Para 9
1992 Crl.LJ 1104 relied on Para 10
AIR 1952 SC 343 relied on Para 13
AIR 1984 SC 1622 relied on Para 14
G
2003 (8) sec 100 relied on Para 15
~ f
2003 (11) sec 261 relied on Para 15
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 334 of 2009 H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A From the final Judgement and Order dated 12.02.2008 of
the Madruai Bench of Mardas High Court in Criminal Appeal
(MD) No. 625 of 2007.
K.K. Mani, CKR Lenin Sekar, Mayur R. Shah, for the
Appellants.
B
V. Kamagaraj, S. Thananjayan for the Respondents.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. f·

c 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Madras High Court altering the conviction of the
appellant from offence punishable under Section 302 of the
D Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') to Section 341 Part
I IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
seven years.
3. By the common judgment two Criminal Appeals were
disposed of. Appeal filed by K. Periyapandian, the co-accused,
E was allowed and he was acquitted.
4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
PW-1 is the wife of Virupachi Gounder@ Palanichami
Gounder (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and PWs 3
F and 4 are the sons of the deceased. PWs 3 and 4 were living in
Virupachi. PW-1 and the deceased were living in
Balassamudhram. The deceased was doing money lending
business and accused Nos. 1 and 2 were actually working as
brokers for commission under the deceased and they were
G aggrieved that proper commission was not paid to them. The
accused complained to P.Ws.3 and 4 about the conduct of the
deceased and in turn P.Ws.3 and 4 have informed P.W.1 that
their father should take care since both the accused might do
mischief.
H While the matter stood thus, P.W. 7, who had got financial
..'
,1-
RAJU V. THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 787
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

transactions with the deceased, on the date of occurrence, i.e. A
~
05.04.2005, went to Balasamudhram to get some amount from
the deceased, got down from the bus, went to the nearby tea
shop and enquired about the deceased. He was informed that
the deceased, along with both the accused, was proceeding to
his place and when P.W.7 went over there he found accused B
Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased were quarreling over the payment
of commission and at that time P.W. 7 was asked by the
--.
,,.
deceased what was the reason for his visit. P.W. 7 answered
,+
that he had come to get some money and P.W.7 was informed
by the deceased that he had no money and he. was asked to c
come after four days and P.W.7 in turn returned leaving the
. deceased and accused 1 and 2 there. ·
Till 9.00 p.m. on 05.04.2005 the deceased did not return
home and hence at about 9.30 p.m. P.W.1 went in search of her
husband and she found at the place of occurrence the dead D
.I(

._,;. body of her husband. Immediately she informed to P.W.2, who
in turn informed to P.Ws.3 and 4 who, also came there and saw
the dead body. Thereafter, P.W.1 proceeded to the Police
Station, gave a complaint, (which is marked as Ex.P-1) to P.W.13,
the Head Constable, at about 4.00 a.m. on 06.04.2005. On the E
strength of Ex.P-1, P.W.13 registered a case in Crime No.293/
""' 2005 under Section 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P-12, the First
..J. Information Report and the same was despatched to the Court
• through PW-11, the Head Constable.
F
The Inspector of Police (PW-15) received the copy of the
FIR, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an
observation in the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P-
5, the observation mahazar and also drew Ex.P-17, the rough
sketch. He caused the place of occurrence to be photographed G
·1' in different angles by P.W.8, the photographer and Ex.P-2 series
- .;. are the photographs and their negatives. He recovered M.0.1,
the torch light, M.0.2, the umbrella, M.0.3, the bloodstained dhoti,
M.0.4, the bloodstained Shawl, M.0.5, the bloodstained earth
and M.0.6, the sample earth from the place of occurrence under H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

,.._·
A a cover of mahazar, attested by P.W.10 and another, marked
as Ex.P-6. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the body of the f-
deceased between 7.30 am. and 9.30 am. in the presence of
panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P-18, the
inquest report. Thereafter, he sent the body for the purpose of
B autopsy through P.W.12, the Head Constable.
The doctor (PW-9) attached to Government Hospital,
Palani, on receipt of Ex.P-3, the requisition, from the Investigator ,.;-1.-
"'-.~
conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and gave
~
Ex.P-4, the postmortem certificate, opining that the deceased
c appeared to ha:ve died of shock and haemorrhage due to head
injury, 14to18 hours prior to autopsy.After postmortem, PW.12,
the Head Constable, recovered M.Os. 10 to 13, the personal
wearing apparels and ornaments of the deceased, from the ,'
~
dead body and handed them over to the Inspector of Police. I

D
j.
Pending investigation, P.W.15, the Investigator, arrested
both the accused on 07.04.2005 and at that time both the ~

accused came forward to give voluntary confessional statements
and the same were recorded in the presence of witnesses.
E Ex.P-7 is the admissible portion of the confessional statement
given by accused No.1, pursuant to which accused No.1
produced M.0.7, the spade handle, which was recovered under
Ex.P-9, the mahazar. Accused No.1 also produced M.0.9 the

F
bloodstained full shirt and the same was recovered under Ex. P-
11, the mahazar. Ex.P-8 is the admissible portion of the
)...
., '

statement given by A-2 pursuant to which A-2 produced M.0.8
the bloodstained shirt and the same was recovered under Ex.P-
10, the Mahazar attested by witnesses. Thereafter, both the
accused were sent for judicial remand. P.W.15 continued the ·
G investigation, examined some witnesses and recorded their
statements. He gave Ex.P-13, the requisition, to the Court to
r
~
subject the material objects for chemical analysis. .._ I

P.W.14 is the Magisterial Clerk and on receipt of Ex.P-13
requisition, the material objects were sent to Forensic
H
RAJU V. THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 789
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

Department for chemical analysis under Ex.P-14, the letter of A
-""'"t the Court, which resulted in two reports, namely Ex.P-15, the
Chemical Examiner's report and Ex.P-16, the Serologist's
Report.
On completion of the investigation, P.W. 15, the Investigator,
filed the charge sheet against both the accused under Section B
302 read with Section 34 IPC before the concerned Magistrate's
Court. As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was
held.
+
Fi"'."teen witnesses were examined to further the c
prosecution version. The trial Court found that the evidence
adduced by the prosecution was substantial in nature. Placing
reliance on the evidence of PW-1, the widow and PW-7 the trial
Court held the appellant guilty of offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC. The co-accused was found guilty of offence
D
·~ punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and
Section 341 IPC. In appeal, it was submitted that the
circumstances highlighted do not form a complete chain of
circumstances and in any event PW-Ts evidence is not
acceptable. The High Court did not find any substance in the
appeal filed by the appellant and found him guilty but the E
conviction as noted above was altered.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
,J, submitted that the occurrence allegedly took place at 10'o clock
in the night and the complaint was filed on 6.4.2005 around 4.00 F
a.m. The presence of PW-7 according to him is highly doubtful.
It is submitted that it is unusual that if he had found the accused
persons in angry mood and appellant No.1 was holding a
weapon he should have waited to see whether there was any
further trouble.
G
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
~
.. hand supported the judgment of the High Court.
7. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that
where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

~
~I
A inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the r
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);
B Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (Al R 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. (Al R 1989 SC 1890). The ~

circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the -t
c accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt r
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 cumulative effect of the circumstances must
D
be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring f-
the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. .....
8. 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
E sec 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
"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 ...
F 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 .... ".
G
9. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. (AIR
1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon ~ 4 ..
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following
tests:

H "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
RAJU V. THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 791
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly A
established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumu.latively should.form a B
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
conviction must be complete and incapable of explanatiori
c
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.
D
W''
10. In State of UP 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 E
circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully
established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
.., .J established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

11. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills'
Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following
F
rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial
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
G
' J. J the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal
accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial
evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature
of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt,
the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence
H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

..,_-
A 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 of
the right to be acquitted".
· 12. There is no doubtthat conviction can be based solely
B
on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-
stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by Y'

the this Court as far back as in 1952. + '
13. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V State of t-
c Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed
thus:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence
is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which
-.)_
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first
D
instance be fully established and all the facts so .....
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should
be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should
be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one ~
E
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evid~nce so far complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the· ~
w<,
innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must have been
F done by the accused."
14. 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
G 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 words of this Court, before conviction could be
based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.
H They are:
RAJU V. THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 793
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt A
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
B
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; c
(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 D
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.
15. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan
v. Raja Ram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir E
Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261), Kusuma Ankama Rao v
,J._ State of A.P (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of on
....,..,
7.7.2008) and Manivel and Ors. v. State of Tami Nadu (Criminal
Appeal No.473 of 2001 disposed of on 8.8.2008).
F
16. PW-7's evidence is clear and cogent. His presence at
the spot has been established. He used to have business
transactions with the deceased. He stated about the present
appellant holding a handle of soil cutter. Though the deceased
and the present appellant were engaged in exchange of hot G
f ~
words, that could not have given an impression to PW-7 that
accused would take the life of the deceased. Therefore, the fact
that he left the place on being told by the deceased to do so
cannot be a ground to dis-believe his evidence. According to
him he had seen the deceased and the accused engaged in H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 2 S.C.R.
J
I

A wordy tussle around 9.00 p.m. The wife of the deceased PW-1 -r-~,
found his dead body at about 9.30 p.m. The time gap when the
deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused
and when his dead body was seen is not very large. Admittedly,
the bone of contention between the deceased and the accused
B was non payment of the commission on account of which they
were quarreling. The trial Court and the High Court have rightly
held the appellant to be the author of the crime. We find no
infirmity in the conclusion of the High Court to warrant +
interference.
17. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

GN. Appeal dismissed.