Supreme Court of India
STATE OF WEST BENGALversusDIPAK HALDER & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 749
- Decided
- 8 May 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence is permissible when the circumstances form a complete, unbroken chain that is wholly inconsistent with the accused’s innocence; the facts in this case satisfy that test, so the conviction stands.
Summary
The deceased, Rimu, was burnt to death in a fire allegedly set by her husband Dipak Halder and his in‑laws after a dowry dispute. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, showing that the husband abused the victim, did not attempt to rescue her, and that there was no evidence of a kerosene stove burst. The trial court convicted Dipak under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC; the Calcutta High Court later acquitted him, holding that the circumstances did not form a complete chain. On appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that conviction on circumstantial evidence is permissible only when the facts constitute an unbroken chain wholly inconsistent with innocence. Applying this test, the Court found the totality of circumstances pointed unequivocally to the husband’s guilt and set aside the High Court’s acquittal, restoring the trial court’s conviction. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the circumstantial evidence in the case forms a complete chain sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the absence of any evidence of a stove burst and the husband's failure to assist the victim create reasonable doubt.
- Whether a conviction under Section 498A IPC for dowry death can be based on the same circumstantial evidence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 302, s. 34, s. 498A
Subjects
circumstantial evidencedowry deathmurderIPC 302IPC 498Achain of circumstancesfire accidentconviction
Judgment
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 530
A STATE OF WEST BENGAL
v.
OIPAK HALDER & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2004)
MAY 08, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND DR.
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 498A - Married woman
C burnt to death - Husband and in-laws of deceased allegedly
ill-treated her due to non-payment of dowry by her father -
Case based on circumstantial evidence - Defence plea that
the incident occurretl due to bursting of kerosene stove -
Conviction of respondent-husband by trial Court - Reversed
O by High Court - On appeal, held: Conviction can be based
on circumstantiai evidence if it is of such a character that the
same is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused
and is consistent only with his guilt - In the instant case, apart
from the fact that the respondent-husband did not make an
E effort to save the deceased and was shown to have been
abusing the deceased and his relatives, he tried to prove his
innocence by manipulating records of a nursing home -
Obvious attempt on part of accused-husband was to show that
he could not have looked after treatment of the wife as he
F himself was undergoing treatment - There was no material
to show that a stove had burst as pleaded by defence - High
Court did not even analyse the circumstances and came to
an abrupt conclusion that the circumstances did not constitute
a complete chain - Circumstances point to only one
G conclusion, i.e. guilt pf the respondent-husband - Judgment
of High Court set aside and that of trial Court restored - •
· Evidence - Circumstantial 9vidence - Appreciation of.
PW1's daughter was allegedty burnt to death by her
H 530
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DIPAK HALDER & 531
ANR.
husband and in-laws. It was alleged that the accused A
persons ill-treated ttie deceased due to non-payment of
d9WI)' ~y tu~r fattier. The prosecution case was based on
circrnrnstijnti;;il eyidenc~. The defence plea was that the
incident Qccurred due to bursting of kerosene stove. The
tri<il co4rt pqnvicted respon~ent no.1-husband under B
s.49QA IPC .and s.302 IPC. On appeal, the High Court
acquitted respondent no.1. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, C
the Court is required to consider whether the cumulative
effect of all the circumstances, lead to a cQnclusion that
the $ame was a case of murder and the accused was
responsible for such murder. A conviction can be based
on circumstantial evidence if it is of such a character that D
the same is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the
accused and is consistent. only with his guilt. The
incriminating circumstances that are being used against
the accused must be such as to lead only to a hypothesis
to reasonably exclude every possibility of his innocence. E
·· To put it differently, the Court should find out whether the
crime was committed by the accused and the
circumstances proved formed themselves into a complete
chain, which clearly points to the guilt of the accused. If
on the other hand, the circumstances proved against the F
accused are consistent either with the innocence of the
accused or raise a reasonable doubt about the way the
prosecution has alleged the offence is committed, the
accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. [Para
5] [539-G-H; 540-A-C]
G
2. In the instant case, apart from the fact that the
accused did not make an effort to save the deceased but
was shown to have been abusing the deceased and ·his
relatives, tried to prove his innocence by manipulating
H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 8 S.C.R.
A records of a nursing home. The obvious attempt was to
f
-
show that he could not have looked after the treatment
of the wife as he himself was undergoing treatment.
Several other factors throw considerable light relating to
the absence of any material to show that a stove had
B burst which resulted in causing injuries on the body of
the deceased. The High Court did not even analyse the
circumstances but came to an abrupt conclusion that the
circumstances do not constitute a complete chain. The
circumstances point to only one conclusion, i.e. guilt of
c the accused-respondent no.1. The judgment of the High
Court impugned in this appeal is set aside and that of the
trial Court is restored. [Paras 6 and 7] [540-C-G]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 543 of 2004.
D •
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.8.2003 of the High
Court of Calcutta in C.R.A. No. 446 of 1990.
Tara Chandra Sharma and Neelam Sharma for the
Appellant.
E
V.K. Sidharthan for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ,
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is "
F to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
directing acquittal of the three appellants before it who are
described hereinafter as accused no. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
Respondent No.1-Dipak Halder was married to one Rimu
(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). Alleging that
G deceased Rimu was killed by respondent No.1 and that she
was tortured, for non-fulfillment of dowry on demand, prosecution
was launched. Carge under Section 498A read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Code') was framed against all the three accused persons.
H Charge under Section 302, IPC was framed against respondent
- ,,
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DIPAK HALDER &
ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
No.1, Dipak Halder while charge under Section 302 read with
533
A
.. Section 109, IPC was framed against other two accused
·-- persons.
2. Prosecution version in an outset is as follows :
The deceased Rimu, daughter of Bimalendu Ganguly, was B
married to accused Dipak Halder on 18.2.1986. Bimalendu
failed to pay the agreed dowry amount of Rs.10,000/- on the
date of marriage. Although the other articles which he agreed
to give by way of marriage gift were duly given. Due to non-
payment of dowry money of Rs.10,000/-, the bride Rimu had c
to face ill treatment and torture at the hands of her husband
Dipak, her mother - in-law Dipali and also her brother-in-law
Pradip. It is alleged that after the marriage Rimu was physically
tortured and she was often denied food. The ill treatment and
torture, within a short time of marriage compelled the victim girl D
to return to her father's place along with her husband. On that
occasion, the victim Rimu with her husband Dipak stayed for
3 weeks in the-house of Bimalendu Ganguly (P.W.1), the father
of the victim. After 3 weeks Rimu was taken back to her in-laws
place by her husband. At that time Dipak assured her that there E
would be no further torture. Again Rimu had to take shelter in
her father's place. On that occasion a diary was lodged at the
-I local P.S. by her husband who also accompanied Rimu, to her
- father's place, and stayed there for sometime with the Victim.
----3
This time, she and her husband, started living in the house of F
Tejendra Nath Bose (P.W. 12), a well wisher of the family, till
they got an accommodation, at a nearby place. In this way after
3 months they shifted to a flat of Nazir Bagan Lane within Kasba
P.S. At the time Rimu was pregnant and subsequently she gave
birth to a daughter on 10th of December 1986. After she
' G
returned home, mental torture on her which gradually took
shape ot physical torture started. It is further alleged that
accusedDlpak was seen agitated, some times became violent
w)1eneve_r he used to go to his own house at Tanu Pukur and
met his tnother. The matter ,reached its climax on 25th October,
1987 when the victim wanted money for Bhratri Ditia. It was H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009~ 8 S.C.R.
A reported by the maid servant that both the victim and her
f
-
husband were quarrelling with each other. Half an hour after that
some young boys of the locality came running and reported that
Rimu had been burnt. Getting this information, the wife of the
informant rushed to the spot. Even at that time she was abused
B and insulted by her husband Dipak before the local people.
Rimu was t~ken to the hospital by the local people in the car
of Mrs. Binita Dhar. In spite of request, her husband Dipak
c
refused to accompany the victim when she was taken to the
hospital. On the next day, the victim succumbed to her injuries.
Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against
•
..
accused Dipak Haldar for causing the death of the victim Rimu.
The other two, Dipali, the mother of the principal accused Dipak
and his brother Prodip were charged under Section 302 read
with Section 109 IPC for abetting the murder. All the three
D accused were also charged under Section 498-A read with
Section 34 IPC. The trial proceeded when the accused
pleaded not guilty to such charge.
In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution in all
E examined 46 witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge indicated
that there were as many as 6 witnesses who were relatives of
the deceased, there were 14 witnesses whom the learned
Judge described as eye witnesses of the incident, besides 6
F
seizures list witnesses, 4 medical and scientific witnesses and
8 police witnesses. Regarding the offence punishable under
Section 498A IPC, the learned Judge relied on the evidence
-
of the parents and brother of the victim who have been
examined as PWs. 1 to 3. Besides, he heavily relied on a G.D.
Entry Ext.30 stated to the lodged by the accused Dipak Halder
and also Ext.4 a counter part of pay in slip of Indian Bank which
G the learned Judge in the judgment has described as bank draft.
He also relied on the evidence of Soma Ganguly (PW.4), the
sister of the deceased and Dipti Dutta Roy (PW 19) a resident
of Nazir Began and a close neighbour of the place where the
-
deceased used to reside with her husband before her death.
H The learned Judge also considered the statement made by the
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DIPAK HALDER & 535
ANR, [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
I
accused Dipak on being examined under Section 313 Cr.P~C. A
admitting that often he created pressure upon the deceased
for cooking various items of food. Regarding the charge of
murder against the principal accused Dipak Halder, the learned
Judge first of all relied on the background of the incident, as
revealed through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that B
in the morning of 25.10.1987, the deceased Rimu paid Rs.100/
- towards the cost of Bhaiphota by going to her father's house
without the consent of her husband. For this purpose, he has
placed his reliance on the evidence of her parents and brother
and sisters and also on the evidence of the maid servant of the c
house Shibani Shee (PW?). He also placed reliance on the
evidence of Rita Bose (PW 27), a resident of Nazir Bagan who
met victim Rimu in the morning of 25.10.1987 at the sweet meat
shop where Rimu reported to her that she made a contribution
of Rs.100/- without the knowledge of her husband for which she
0
might punished. Coupled with this, the learned Judge also
considered some other circumstances like (i) the wearing
apparels of the victim contained smell of kerosene oil and the
stove of the house did not burst, (ii) there was quarrel between
the couple in the night previous to the incident. Even the quarrel E
was going on immediately before the fire, (iii) the doors and
windows of the house were closed at the time of the fire, (iv)
the post mortem report suggested that Rimu had been
assaulted previous to the fire, (v) deceased Rimu tried to save
herself from the hands of the accused Dipak and for the reason
came out of the house and took shelter in the house of Tejender F
Narayan Bose (vi) there was no evidence that accused Dipak
tried to save deceased deceased Rimu or raised any alarm,
(vii) when the neighbours to put off the fire accused Dipak was
seen hurling abuses to the deceased and her parents.
Considering all these came to a final conclusion that charge G
under Section 302 levelled against the principal accused Dipak
had been proved beyond doubt. But at the same time he also
came to a further finding that charge under Section 302 read
with Section 109 IPC against the other two accused persons
was not proved as there was no evidence that the other two H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
,.
A acc'used aided or abetted the accused Dipak to commit the
murder. He, however, held that charge under Section 498A
stood proved against all the three accused and passed the
order of conviction and sentence.
An appeal was preferred by the respondents herein
8
questioning correctness of the judgment of the trial Court
holding accused persons guilty. By the impugned judgment, the
High Court accepted the appeal and directed acquittal. The
same is in challenge by the State in the present appeal.
C It is to be noted that in the meantime, accused No.3, Smt.
Rupali Halder, has expired. The High Court held that there was
no material to sustain the charge under Section 302 IPC, but
held that the circumstances on which prosecution placed
reliance did not present complete chain of circumstances and,
o therefore, the accused persons are entitled to acquittal. State's •
stand in this appeal is that the circumstances which were
highlighted wee clearly established. Without even analyzing the
circumstances, the High Court came to an abrupt conclusion
that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the allegations.
E 3. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the
judgment.
-
4. The circumstances which were highlighted by the
prosecution and on which the trial Court placed reliance are as
F follows:
(a) There is nothing on record or even reply to question
put to Respondent No.1 in examination under Section 313,
Cr.P.C. that he tried to put off the fire and that he made
any inquiry in the hospital as to the condition of his burnt
G wife. The fact remains that he was in a position to make
appropriate arrangement of treatment of his wife but he did
not do so. No reason has been assigned as to why he did
not accompany his deceased wife in the hospital alongwith
neighbours.
H
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DIPAK HALDER & 537
ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
.,
(b) There is nothing on record that accused Dipak Halder A
did anything to save the life of his wife from the fire. There
• is also nothing that he called the neighbours for help in
such great danger.
(c) Fact remains that the doors and windows were closed
B
during the fire. Does it not indicate that the victim Rimu was
not allowed to go out of the house during incident which
t was also accompanied by physical assault. The reason of
closing the doors and windows of the house at the time of
the incident may only be that the assailant wanted to assault
behind the back of others who might be the witness of the
c
assault and that the victim could not go out of the house
to avoid assault.
(d) The condition of the burning was so severe that the
. flashes came out of the bone and such a position in normal D
fire is absolutely impossible unless a combustible
substance like kerosene is given to the body at the time
of fire.
(e) After a careful consideration of the facts, circumstantial
evidence on record and the attitude and conduct of the E
accused persons, it can be held without any hesitation that
the deceased was physically assaulted before fire.
(f) It is apparent from the report Ext. 19 that there was a
smell of kerosene oil on the burnt saree and blouse of the F
deceased and that the kerosene stove was in good
condition and there was no sign of busting or any other
damage to the kerosene stove.
(g) Besides, the burnt injury on the person of the victim-
deceased there was no other markings of busting of the G
t stove on any other article in the room even the Dekchi
:--
which contained water was also intact. In the
circumstances, the plea of busting, of stove absolutely fails.
(h) From the evidence on record both oral and H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
!
A documentary and also the circumstantial evidence and in
consideration of all the probability of the case it appears
that deceased Rimu was in a jolly mood in the morning of
the incident. She went to his parents house and to the
sweet meet-shop to purchase sweet, prepared breakfast
B and immediately before the incicent she took her breakfast
so there is scarcely an possibility of setting fire to herself.
(i) A little fire on the cover of the T.V. set and also the
screen of the doors goes to show that immediately after
the fire deceased Rimu ran here and there and for this fire
c set in the cover of the T.V. set and all the screen of the
door. Deceased Rimu tried to save herseif from the hands
of accused Dipak Haldar and that led her to go out of the
house and take shelter at the house of Tajendra Narayan
Bose. I
D •
U) Accused Dipak Halder sustained minor burnt injuries
and that might be considered as he tried to put out the fire
on the cover of the T.V. set.
(k) There is substantial evidence that when the neighbours
E were trying to put out the fire, accused Dipak Halder was
then calling names to burnt Rimu Halder and her parents.
Accused Dipak Halder was still inside his room when the
neighbours were making arrangements to take the
F
deceased Rimu at the hospital.
(I) There is no evidence that the accused Dipak Halder
-
performed any of his duties for the treatment of his burnt
wife. Rather he tried to go underground. All the facts and
circumstances only led to the inevitable conclusion that
G kerosene oil was pour down on her body and fire was set
to her.
(m) After a careful consideration of .the evidence of the
..
witness and after perusal of admission register it appears
that the admission register commenced from 1st
H November, 1987 and it has not been made clear how the
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DIPAK HALDER & 539
ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
J
'\ name of accused Dipak Halder who was alleged to have A
been admitted on 25.10.1987 entered into admission
register of 1.11.1987. This is absolutely absurd. And that
the defence has not been able to prove as to how this
irregularity occurred.
B
(n) The alleged admission of accused Dipak Halder at the
Nursing Home, on 25.10.1987 is not beyond suspicion and
,. that there is nothing as to the nature of treatment, given to
him. The admission has not been proved. The doctor who
made the alleged treatment has not been examined. In the
result, the plea that the accused Dipak Halder could not c
make arrangement of treatment of the deceased due to
his admission in the Nursing Home of his own injuries fails.
(o) No reason has been assigned as to why accused
Dipak Halder did not explain in his examination under D
?
Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to how fire occurred. No reason
has been explained as to what led the deceased to come
out of the house and seek shelter at the varandah of others.
"i (p) There is not a single evidence that accused Dipak
Halder made any attempt to put off the fire of his wife. Even E
in the examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. he does not
say that he tried to put off the fire. On the contrary there is
sufficient circumstantial evidence that accused Dipak
, "' Halder resisted the deceased from going out of the house
~' F
to save her life. The subsequent conduct of the accused
Dipak Halder by calling names to the deceased and her
parents was sufficient substantive evidence to prove the
charge under S~ction 302 IPC, beyond all reasonable
doubt against accused Dipak Halder.
G
5. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court
is required to consider whether the cumulative effect of all the
circumstances, lead to a conclusion that the same was a case
of murder and the accused was responsible for such murder.
A conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if it is
H
-1
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 8 S.C.R.
A of such a character that the same is wholly inconsistent with the t ...
innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt.
The incriminating circumstances that are being used against
the accused must be such as to lead only to a hypothesis to
reasonably exclude every possibility of his innocence. To put it
B differently, the Court should find out whether the crime was
committed by the accused and the circumstances proved
formed themselves into a complete chain, which clearly points
to the guilt of the accused. If on the other hand, the •
circumstances proved against the accused are consistent either
c with the innocence of the accused or raise a reasonable doubt
about the way the prosecution has alleged the offence is
committed, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of
doubt.
6. In the instant case, apart from the fact that the accused
D did not make an effort to save the deceased but was shown to
have been abusing the deceased and his relatives, tried to
prove his innocence by manipulating records of a nursing home.
The obvious attempt was to show that he could not have looked
after the treatment of the wife as he himself was undergoing
E treatment. Several other factors throw considerable light relating
to the absence of any material to show that a stove had burst
which resulted in causing injuries on the body of the deceased.
Unfortunately, the High Court did not even analyse the
circumstances but came to an abrupt conclusion that the
•
'•
F circumstances do not constitute a complete chain.
7. As noted above, the circumstances point to only one
conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused-respondent no.1. The
judgment of the High Court impugned in.this appeal is set aside
and that of the trial Court is restored. The respondent no.1 shall
G surrender to custody forthwith to serve remainder of sentence
if any.
8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
8.8.8. Appeal allowed.
H
...
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