Holding

The prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction under Section 302 IPC stands.

Summary

Shaik Mastan Vali was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Nagandla Pichamma, with whom he had an illicit relationship. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence: the appellant was seen beating the deceased and dragging her to a hut, a towel belonging to him was found tied around her waist, a rope lay nearby, and the autopsy confirmed death by strangulation. The trial court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court reiterated the established principles governing convictions on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that all five conditions must be satisfied and that the evidence must exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Finding that the prosecution had met these requirements, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution established the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt solely on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the five conditions for conviction on circumstantial evidence, as laid down by Supreme Court jurisprudence, were satisfied in this case.

Legislation cited

Subjects

circumstantial evidencemurderSection 302 IPCconvictionburden of proofchain of evidenceasphyxiationstrangulationSC/ST Actappellate review

Judgment

SHAIK MASTAN VALI A
v.
STA TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AUGUST 3, 2007

[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860-s.302-Accused had illicit relations with the
daughter of PWJ-He beat and dragged her out of the house of PW3 at
night-Next morning PWsl and 2 found her lying dead on a cot-Police C
found a towel of accused tied around the waist of deceased and a rope lying
near the cot-Autopsy surgeon opined that the cause of death was due to
asphyxia caused by strangulation with ligature-Conviction on basis of
circumstantial evidence-Challenge to-On facts, held: Prosecution has
established its accusations-Courts below rightly relied upon the
circumstances to hold accused-Appellant guilty. D
Evidence-Circumstantial evidence-Appreciation of-Law elucidated.

Appellant had illicit relations with the daughter of PWl and frequently
visited her house. According to the prosecution, at night while PWl 's
daughter was watching T. V. in the house of PW 3, Appellant came there and E
started beating her and thereafter dragged her out. The next morning PWs.
I& 2 found her lying dead on a cot. PW2 is brother of the deceased. The
police found one towel of Appellant, which was tied around the waist of the
dec~sed and a rope; which was lying near the cot The Autopsy Surgeon opined
that the cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation with
ligature. Placing reliance upon the evidence of PWsl & 2 and the several F
circumstances of the case, Trial Court convicted Appellant under s.302 IPC.
High Court upheld the conviction. Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, G
the inference of guilt' an 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. The circumstances from which an
inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond
779 H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the
principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
(Para 5) (783-A, B, CJ

1.2. The conditions precedent, before conviction could be based on
circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (1) the
B 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 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
C circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they shoul.d
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 with the innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(Para 12) (785-D, E, F, GI
D
1.3. When the evidence on record is analysed in the background of
principles highlighted above, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution
has established its accusations. [Para 14) (786-A)

Hukam Singh v. State ofRajasthan, AIR [1977) SC 1063; Eradu v. State
E of Hyderabad, AIR (1956) SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka,
AIR (1983) SC 446; State of UP. v. Sukhbasi, AIR (1985) SC 1224; Ba/winder
Singh v. State ofPunjab AIR (1987) SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State
of MP., AIR (1989) SC 1890; C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P., [1996) 10
SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR (1990) SC 79; State of
UP. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) Crl. LJl 104; Hanumant Govind
F Nargundkar v. State of MP., AIR (1952) SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) SC 1622 and State of UP. v. Satish, (2005)
3 sec 114, relied on.

Circumstantial Evidence (Chapter VJ) by Alfred Wills, referred to.

G 2. In the instant case the deceased has intimacy with the accused-
Appellant and used to live in a hut and the accused frequently visited the house
of the deceased and lived there as husband and wife; During night time on the
previous day of the occurrence while the deceased was watching T.V. in the
house of PW 3, the accused came to the house of PW 3 and started beating
the deceased and dragged her to hut. On the next day morning PWs. l& 2
H found her dead. The police found one towel of the accused which was tied
SHAIK MASTAN VALI v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [PASA YAT, J. ] 781

around the waist of the deceased and the rope was lying near the cot. The A
Trial Court and the High Court have rightly relied upon the circumstances
to hold the accused guilty. (Para 15] (786-B, CJ

CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 003
of 2007
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.11.2005 of the High Court of
Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.580 of2003

Chander Shekhar Ashri for theAppellant.
j
D.Bharthi Reddy for thr Respodent. c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. l. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of D
the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning
1-- his conviction or offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment of life and fine
of Rs.30,000/- with default stipulation.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: E
Adivamma (PW-I) is the mother and Mandapate Rullaiah (PW-2) is
brother of Nagandla Pichamma (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased')
brother of the deceased. The deceased, the accused and the other material
witnesses lived in Martur. The deceased belonged to Byneedi Madiga by
caste, whereas the accused belongs to Muslim community. The deceased was F
a deserted lady and she developed illicit intimacy with the accused and gave
birth to a female child. She was residing in a thatched house situated adjacent
to her parents' house. During the life time of deceased, the accused used to
harass and beat the deceased suspecting her fidelity. On 31. I 0.1998 at about
9 p.m., while the deceased was watching the T.V. programme in the house of G
Venkata (PW3), the accused came there and on seeing her the accused
became wild and brought the deceased by beating with hands and took up
to his house. On the next day morning, PWI went to the house of the
deceased and found that the deceased dead and she was lying on the cot.
PW I found· ligature marks on her throat and around the neck of the deceased.
On hearing the hue ·and cry of PW I, the neighbours gathered at the scene H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 8 S.C.R.

A of offence. Thereafter, late M. Polaiah, father of the deceased, went to the
police station and gave an oral report to the S.l. of Police at about 3.30 p.m.,
which was reduced in writing under Ex. PS. On the basis of Ex. P-5, PW6
registered a case in Cr. No. 102 of 1998 under Section 302 IPC and issued FIR
Ex.P6. Thereafter, PW6 visited the scene of offence, prepared scene~f
B observation report Ex. P2 and seized MO. I to M0.3 in the presence,: of PW~
and another. Then PW6 examined PWs 1 to 3, 5 and others and recorded their "'
statement. On 02.11.1998 at about 8 AM, PW8 C.I of Police conducted the \
inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW4 and \

another. Ex, P-3 is the inquest report. On 02.11.1998 itself, Civil Assistant f \

Surgeon at Government Hospital, Addanki (PW 7) conducted the autopsy \.

C over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was
due to asphyxia caused by strangulation with ligature. Ex. _P-8 is the post
mortem report. On 11.11.1998, the accused surrendered before the court. After
completion of investigation, PW 8 filed the charge sheet.

On receipt of the committal order by the learned Additional Judicial
D Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, the learned Special Sessions Judge for
Cases under SCs and STs (P.A.) Act, 1989, Ongole took the case on file in
SC No.71/99 on its file and ultimately the accused was put up for trial before
the learned Sessions Judge, charged of the offence under section 302 I.P.C.
or alternatively under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
E Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( in short the SCST Act).

The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined PW l to
PW 8 and marked Exs. Pl to PS and MOs. l to 8. No oral or documentary
evidence was adduced on behalf of defence. Accused pleaded innocence.

F Placing reliance on the evidence of PWs. l& 2 i.e. mother and the
brother of the deceased respectively, the trial court recorded his conviction.
Since it was a case which was based on circumstantial evidence, the trial court
took note of several circumstances to fasten the guilt on the accused. Though
he was fourid not guilty of offence under Section 3, he was acquitted of
charges for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(2)(5) of the
G SCST Act. In appeal the High Court affi~ed the conclusions. The High Court
took note of the fact that the witnesses have seen accused dragging the
deceased to the hut in the night. Next day morning the deceased was found
dead. This, according to the prosecution version, is sufficient to fasten the
guilt in the absence of any explanation by the accused at about his absence
H thereafter. This stand was accepted by the trial court.
SHAIK MASTAN VALI v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [PASAYA T, J. ] 783

4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted A
that this being a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has not
established. its accusations. Learned coun.sel for the respondent-State
supported the order of the trial court and the High Court.

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 B :
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, Eradu
v. State of Hyderabad, AIR (1956) SC 316, Earabhadrappa v. State of
Karnataka, AIR(1983)SC446,Stateofl!.P. v.Sukhbasi, AIR(l985)SC 1224, C
Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 350 and Ashok Kumar
Chatterjee v. State ofMP., 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 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 D
depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect
of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the
accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.

6. 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, wherein it has been E
observed thus:

"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. F
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 innocence."

7. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State ofA.P., AIR (1990) SC 79 it was laid G
down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence
must satisfy the following tests:

( l) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be
drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly
pointing towards guilt of the accused; .

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should fonn 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
B else; and

(4) the circumstantial evMence in order to sustain conviction must be
complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than
that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be
consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent
C with his innocence."

8. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) Cr!. LJ 1104 it was
pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence
and ifthe 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
D 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.

9. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book 'Wilis; Circumstantial Evidence'
E (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the
case of circumstantial evidence: (I) 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 ~he existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3)
in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence. the best evidence
F 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 of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other
reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; and (5) ifthere be any reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted.

G IO. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on
circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touchstone of law
relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court as far back as in
1952.

11. In Hanumant Gov ind Nargundkar v. State of MP., AIR ( 1952) SC
H
SHAIKMASTANVALlv. STATEOFANDHRAPRADESH[PASAYAT,J.] 785

343 it was observed thus: A
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a
circumstantial na<;ure, 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 B
should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be
such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be
1. 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 C
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 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 D
prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna
in t~e prosecution cannot be cured by a 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:

(I) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be E
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 with the i
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 F
guilty;

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to
be proved; and
G
(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.

H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A 13. The above position was highlighted in State of U.P. v. Salish, [2005]
3SCC114.

14. When the evidence on record is analysed in the .background of
principles highlighted above, the., inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution
has established its accusations. ·
B
15. In the instant case the deceased has intimacy with the accused and
used to live in a h.ut and the accused frequently visited the house of the
deceased and lived there as husband and wife. During night time on the -+
'previous day of the occurrence while the deceased was watching T.V. in the
house of PW 3, the accused came to the house of PW 3 and started beating
C the deceased and dragged her to hut. On the next day morning PWs. I& 2
found her dead. The police found one towel of the accused which was tied
around the waist of the deceased and the rope was lying near the cot. The
trial Court and the High Court ~ave rightly relied upon the cii"cumstances to
hold the accused guilty. We find no substance in the appeal.
D
16. Appeal fails and is dismissed.

B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.

·,