Supreme Court of India
RAMESH BHAI & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 606
- Decided
- 24 April 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The convictions under sections 302, 120B and 201 IPC were quashed because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Summary
The appellants, Ramesh Bhai and another, were convicted under IPC sections 302, 120B and 201 for allegedly administering poisonous injections that caused the death of Purshottam Bhai after giving him coffee laced with sleeping pills. The prosecution's case rested solely on circumstantial evidence, chiefly that the injections were recovered from a lane near the accused's house and the timeline of events. The trial court and the Rajasthan High Court upheld the convictions, but the Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence was shaky, the cause of death could not be medically established, and the chain of circumstances did not satisfy the stringent tests for conviction. Consequently, the Court quashed the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The decision reiterates the high standard required for convictions based on circumstantial evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the prosecution established the cause of death as due to poison administered by the accused.
- Whether the chain of circumstances satisfied the legal tests for conviction on circumstantial evidence.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 201, s. 302
Subjects
circumstantial evidencemurderconvictionacquittalIPC 302IPC 120BIPC 201burden of proofchain of evidenceforensic evidencepoison
Judgment
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 949
RAMESH BHAI & ANR. A
V.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 868-869 of 2004)
APRIL 24, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 1208 and 201 - Death
allegedly caused due to poisonous injections administered C
into body of deceased by accused-appellants - Prosecution
case resting on circumstantial evidence - Trial court
convicted the appellants - High Court upheld conviction -
Justification of - Held: Not justified - Where a case rests
squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be o
justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances
are incompatible with innocence of the accused or guilt of any
other person - Circumstances from which inference as to guilt
of accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the E
principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances
- On facts, the only evidence pressed into service by
prosecution was that the injections were recovered from a lane
near the house of the accused - Evidence adduced was of a
shaky nature - Appellants acquitted - Evidence -
Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of. F
According to the prosecution, the accused-
appellants took PW9 and her husband on an outstation
visit and made them drink coffee containing sleeping pills
and when PW9's husband became unconscious after G
drinking the same, the appellants administered
poisonous injections into his body which caused his
death. The trial court held that though the prosecution
case rested on circumstantial evidence, the.
949 H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 6 S.C.R.
A circumstances clearly established the accusations and
accordingly convicted the appellants under ss .302, 1208
and 201 IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction.
In appeals to this Court, the question which arose
for consideration was whether the circumstances
8 highlighted by the prosecution did not establish the
accusations against the appellants and they were liable
to be acquitted.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
c
HELD: 1. 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
0
person. 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 5) [954-E; 954-
E G]
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;
F 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; Chenga Reddy
and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193; Padala Veera
G Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; State of
U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 Crl.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
H v. Rajaram 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Haryana v. Jagbir
RAMESH BHAI & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 951
Singh and Anr. 2003 (11) sec 261 and State of UP. v. Ram A
Balak & Anr. 2008 (13) SCALE 541, relied on.
Wills' Circumstantial Evidence by Alfred Wills (Chapter
VI), referred to.
8
2.1. In the present case, the dead body was found on
20th January, 1996 whereas accused persons were
stated to have been seen in the company of the deceased
on 8th and 9th January, 1996. The missing person's
report was lodged on 12th January, 1996 by PW 11 the
nephew of the deceased. The only evidence which was C
pressed into service by the prosecution was that the
injections were recovered from a lane near the house of
the accused. [Paras 14 & 15] [958:.C-E]
2.2. The High Court recorded a finding as if it was o
proved through the prosecution evidence and medical
evidence and the report of Doctor that the cause of death
of the deceased was 'Organo Phosphorous' which was
administered to him. This finding is apparently wrong.
The doctor's opinion as is evident from Exh.P15-1 was E
that the cause of death was not possible to be noted
because the body was decomposed. [Para 16] [958-E-G]
2.3. According to the FSL report Exh.P4 medicine
called Diazepam "Tranquilizer" was found in the stomach
intestine, liver, heart, kidney and lungs etc. In view of the F
shaky nature of the evidence adduced, it would be unsafe
to convict the appellants. The conviction as recorded by
the trial court and upheld by the High Court stand
quashed. [Para 17] [958-G-H; 959-A]
G
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1977 SC 1063 relied on Para 5
AIR 1956 SC 316 relied on Para 5
H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R.
A AIR 1983 SC 446 relied on Para 5
AIR 1985 SC 1224 relied on Para 5
AIR 1987 SC 350 relied on Para 5
AIR 1989 SC 1890 r01ied on Para 5
B
AIR 1954 SC 621 relied on Para 5
(1996) 10 sec 193 relied on Para 6 ,)..
'
AIR 1990 SC 79 relied on Para 7
c
1992 Crl.LJ 1104 relied on Para 8
AIR 1952 SC 343 relied on Para 11
AIR 1984 SC 1622 relied on Para 12
D 2003 (8) sec 180 relied on Para 13
--1-
2003 (11) sec 261 relied on Para 13
2008 (13) SCALE 541 relied on Para 13
E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 868-869 of 2004.
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.04.2003 of the High
Court of the Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DBCRL Nos. 233 and 234 't- ......
of 2000.
F
Shiv Kumar Suri for the Appellants.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Milind Kumar, Sandeep Bajaj •
and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Respondent.
G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ~ '
DR. ARIJIT PASAVAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court
upholding the conviction of the appellants for offences
H
RAMESH BHAI & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 953
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
',/'" punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 201 of the Indian A
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Two appeals filed by the
appellants were disposed of by a common judgment. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road, Sirohi had convicted
the appellant as aforenoted.
B
2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
On 12.01.1996 a missing person report about Purshottam
.... Bhai was submitted by Smt. Jashoda Ben to the Police
'
Inspector, Police Station, Nadiad. On this application, Inspector
Arvindbhai Patel (PW 21) started investigation on 16.1.1996. c
Since in the application the name of Jasbhai r/o Nadiar was
mentioned so he reached Nadiad and started investigation of
the case. Jasbhai was not found at his home. His son's wife
Rekha met him there and she was interrogated. On 18.1.1996,
Jasbhai was found at home and he was interrogated. The·· D
-> statement of Jasbhai was recorded. Jasbhai said that Ramesh
Patel and Narvar Singh both have cheated him jointly in·
purchasing his house. On 18.1.1996 the statements of
Jashodaben were recorded and copy of the agreement of sale
of the house of Jashodaben was submitted. Thereafter the· E
statements of Rameshbhai and Narpat Singh were recorded.
Both the accused persons Narvar Singh and Ramesh accepted
that they had taken Purshottam Bhai and his wife on a visit to
Ambaji at Abu Parvat and in Abu Parvat at sunset point they
made them drink coffee by pouring sleeping pills in it. After F
drinking coffee, Purshottam Bhai became unconscious and he
was given five injections of poison. Jashoda Ben was not
unconscious therefore they could not give her injections. After
giving him injections of poison, Purshottambhai died and they
wrapped his dead body in a sheet and placed it in the room. G
This room was hired at Raghunath Dharamshala. Therefore
+• Narvat Singh left Dharamshala and Ramesh told Jashoda that
Purshottam Bhai had gone to Ambaji alongwith Narvar Singh
and he asked her to go to Ambaji. Taking Jashoda with him,
Ramesh came to Ambaji. Leaving Jashoda alone at Ambaji,
H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20091 6 S.C.R.
A both the accused persons fled away. On 19.01.1996 Inspector ~
Arvind Bhai Patel reached Abu Parvat Police Station taking
Jasbhai, Ramesh and Narvar Singh with him and in the morning
all the three accused persons were handed over to the Abu
Parvat Police.
B
After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
Since accused persons abjured guilt, trial was held.
The trial court found that though the case of the prosecution '
_I.
rested on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances clearly
c established the accusations.
In appeal the High Court upheld the conviction as recorded.
3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the '
appellants submitted that the circumstances highlighted do not
D establish the accusations.
~-
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
hand supported the judgment.
E 5. 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
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);
F
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316);
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (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). The
G 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. In Bhagat
Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down
H
RAMESH BHAI & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 955
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
::~ that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from A
circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must
be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring
the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
6. We may also make a reference to a decision of this
B
Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996)
10 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 c
circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all
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 D
->- innocence .... ".
7. 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
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the
E
following tests:
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
-t
established;
F
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(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 G
...• committed by the accused and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation
H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A 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.
8. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992
B
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 circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully
c established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
9. Sir Alfred Wills in his ·admirable book "Wills'
Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following
. D rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial
_,(-
evider.ce: (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,
E 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 inculpato:y facts must be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable
F 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 right to be acquitted".
10. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely
on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-
G 3tone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by .
t
the this Court as far back as in 1952.
11. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State
of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was
H observed thus:
RAMESH BHAI & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 957
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
t._~
"It is well to remember that in cases where the A
evidence 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 B
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
J.,
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 c
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."
12. A reference may be made to a later decision in
--1-- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 D
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 words of this Court, before conviction could E
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 F
concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
(2) the facts so 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; G
--+
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
·~
A 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
B
done by the accused.
13. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan .~
v. Rajaram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir
Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261) and in State of U.P. v.
·C Ram Balak & Anr. [2008 (13) SCALE 541.]
14. The admitted position is that the dead body was found
on 20th January, 1996 whereas accused persons were stated
to have been seen in the company of the deceased on 8th and
D 9th January, 1996. PW 9, the wife of the deceased admitted ~ ..
that the parties separated on 9th January, 1996. The missing
person's report was lodged on 12th January, 1996 by PW 11
the nephew of the deceased.
15. The only evidence which appears to have been
E pressed into service by the prosecution was that the injections
were recovered from a lane near the house of the accused.
16. It is to be noted that the High Court recorded a finding t-
as if it was proved through the prosecution evidence and
F medical evidence and the report of Doctor that the cause of
death of the deceased was 'Organo Phosphorous' which was
administered to him. This finding is apparently wrong. The
doctor's opinion as is evident from Exh.P15-1 tha! the cause
of death was not possible to be noted because the body was
G decomposed. •
i""
17. According to the FSL report Exh.P4 medicine called
Diazepam "Tranquilizer'' was found in the stomach intestine,
lever, heart, kidney and lungs etc. In view of the shaky nature
of the evidence adduced it would be unsafe to convict the
H
RAMESH 8HAI & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 959
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
appellants. The conviction as recorded by the trial court and A
upheld by the High Court stand quashed. The appellants be set
at liberty forthwith unless required to be in custody in connection
with in any other case. We place our appreciation for the able
manner in which Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri, learned Amicus Curiae
assisted the court. B
18. The appeals are allowed.
B.8.8. Appeals allowed.·
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "circumstantial evidence"Sign in to search