VADLAKONDA LENINversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                  [2012] 10 S.C.R. 1135


                  VADLAKONDA LENIN                          A
                            v.
             STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
            (Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2009)
                  NOVEMBER 22, 2012
                                                            B
      [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Allegation that appellant
had murdered his wife while she was sleeping and had run
away - Case resting on circumstantial evidence - Conviction C
of appellant by Courts below - Justification - Held: Justified
- Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 (father-in-law and brother-in-law
of appellant) made it clear that appellant had been
persistently demanding additional dowry and ill-treating the
deceased - Deceased was found lying injured in her house D
by PWs 3 and 5 - Nobody except appellant was in the house
immediately before the occurrence - Appellant was seen
fleeing away from the house by PW3 - Thereafter,
whereabouts of appellant were not known until he was arrested
nearly 15 days thereafter - After arrest, appellant made E
statement on the basis of which a knife and a blood stained
shirt of the appellant were recovered - Explanation offered by
appellant for his absence for nearly 15 days following the
death of his wife was unnatural and opposed to all cannons
of acceptable human conduct and behavior - "Five golden F
principles» (five conditions) enunciated by Supreme Court in
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda case must be fulfilled before a
case against an accused vesting on circumstantial evidence
can be said to be fully established - In the instant case,
circumstances proved and established by the prosecution
squarely satisfied the test laid down in Sharad Birdhichand G
Sarcia - Prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt
that it was appellant alone and nobody else who had
committed the offence.
                          1135                              H
    1136    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012) 10 S.C.R.


A      Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of -
  Held: The circumstances on which the prosecution relies must
  be · proved beyond all reasonable doubt and such
  circumstances must be capable of giving rise to an inference
  which is inconsistent with any other hypothesis except the guilt
B of the accused - It is only in such an event that conviction of
  the accused, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence
  brought by the prosecution, would be permissible in law - "Five
  golden principles" enunciated by Supreme Court in Sharad
  Birdhichand Sarda case, recapitulated.
c     The prosecution case was that the accused-appellant
  had murdered his wife while she was sleeping and had
  run away. FIR was lodged by PW1, father-in-law of
  appellant, whereafter charge sheet under Sections 302
  and 498A IPC was submitted against the appellant.
D However in the trial court, charge under section 302 IPC
  alone was framed. The trial ended in the conviction of
  appellant under Section 302 IPC who was sentenced to
  undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction
  and sentence was affirmed by the High Court, and
E therefore the instant appeal.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD:1.1. In the instant case, there is no direct
F evidence of any eye witness to the crime alleged against
  the accused-appellant. However, certain circumstances
  inimical to the accused-appellant have been proved by
  the prosecution. Such circumstances which have been
  culled out by the trial court and also by the High Court
  can be summarised as below: (i) The accused had been
G making demands for dowry and on that account was
  harassing, intimidating and committing atrocities on the
  deceased; (ii) the accused and the deceased alognwith
  PWs 1 and 2 had attended the betrothal function of the
  brother of the deceased in the evening prior to the
H
    VADLAKONDA LENIN v. STATE OF ANDHRA                1137
                 PRADESH

incident. Immediately after the incident, there was a          A
quarrel between the accused and the deceased; (iii) in
the early morning of the next day the deceased was
found by PW 3, lying in a cot in her own house with
injuries on her neck; (iv) the accused was found by PW
3 to be running away from the place; (v) the whereabouts       B
of the accused was not known after the incident and he
could be arrested only around 15 days thereafter; and (vi)
the accused had stated in his examination under section
313 Cr.P .C. that he came to know of the incident only from
the newspapers, whereafter he had explained the whole          c
incident to his sister. The culpability of the accused-
appellant, in the absence of any direct evidence, has to
be judged on the basis of the circumstances enumerated
above. [Paras 10, 11] [1142-D-H; 1143-A-D]

     1.2. The circumstances on which the prosecution           D
relies must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and
such circumstances must be capable of giving rise to an
inference which is inconsistent with any other hypothesis
except the guilt of the accused. It is only in such an event
that the conviction of the accused, on the basis of the        E
circumstantial evidence brought by the prosecution,
would be permissible in law. In this regard reference may
be made to the "five golden principles" (five conditions)
enunciated by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarcia case
which must be fulfilled before a case against an accused       F
vesting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully
established. [Para 11] [1143-E-G]

     1.3. From the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it is crystal
clear that the accused-appellant had been persistently         G
demanding additional dowry from the deceased and had
been ill-treating her and also that immediately before the
incident there was a quarrel between the accused and the
deceased. The deceased was found lying injured on cot
in her house by PW 3 as well as by PW 5. Nobody except         H
    1138   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 10 S C.R.


A the accused was in the house immediately before the
  occurrence. The accused was seen fleeing away from the
  house by PW 3. Thereafter, the whereabouts of the
  accused were not known until he was arrested nearly 15
  days thereafter. After his arrest, the accused had made a
B statement (Exh. P.8) on the basis of which a knife and a
  blood stained shirt of the accused (M.Os. 6 and 7) were
  recovered. The explanation offered by the accused for his
  absence for a period of nearly 15 days following the death
  of his wife is unnatural and opposed to all cannons of
c acceptable human conduct and behaviour. The aforesaid
  circumstances which have been proved and established
  by prosecution squarely satisfies the test laid down by
  this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The principles laid
  down in the aforesaid decision have been consistently
  reiterated by this court and exhaustively considered in a
0
  very recent decision in Sathya Narayanan. [Para 14] [1146-
  B-G]
      Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
  4 SCC 116: 1985 (1) SCR 88 and Sathya Narayanan v. State
E Rep. by Inspector of Police J.T. 2012 (11) SC 57 - relied on.

      2. The prosecution established beyond all
  reasonable doubt that it was the accused-appellant alone
  and nobody else who had committed the offence.
F Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under
  section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment
  imposed on him is affirmed. [Para 15] [1147-A-B]
                       Case Law Reference:

G       1985 (1) SCR 88        relied on         Paras 11,14
        JT 2012 (11) SC 57     relied on         Para 14
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 126 of 2009.
H
    VADLAKONDA LENIN v. STATE OF ANDHRA                    1139
                 PRADESH

    From the Judgment & Order pated 29.9.2006 of the High          A
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
Criminal Appeal No. 2219 of 2004.

    J.M. Sharma, Sandeep Narain for the Appellant.

    Mayur R. Shah, Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Amit K. Nain, M.B.         B
Shivudu, D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 29.9.2006 passed by the High Court        C
of Andhra Pradesh affirming the conviction of the accused-
appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life
imprisonment imposed on him.     -

     2. On 18.4.2003 at about 10.30 a.m. PW 1, Ponnam              D
Pedda Sathaiah, the father of the deceased, filed a FIR in the
Maripeda police station stating that he had given his daughter,
Vadlakonda Radha, in marriage to the accused-appellant in the
year 1999. At the time of marriage a sum of Rs.50,000 was
claimed to have been given by the first informant as dowry,        E
inspite of which, according to the first informant, the accused-
appellant had been demanding more dowry and on that account
committing atrocities on his daughter. In the FIR filed it was
alleged that in the early morning of 18.4.2003 the accused-
appellant had murdered his wife while she was sleeping and         F
had run away. It was further alleged by the first informant that
on coming to know of the incident he rushed to the appellant's
house and saw his daughter taking her last breath. Thereafter,
he had brought her to the Area Hospital at Mahbubabad but
on the way to the hospital she died at about 8.00 a.m.
                                                                   G
     3. On the basis ot the aforesaid FIR, a case under section
302 and 3048 of the IPC was registered. In the course of the
investigation inquest was held on the dead body and the same
was sent for post mortem examination. A large number of
witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded         H
    1140    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A   under section 161 Cr.P.C. Qn 3.5.2003 the accused-appellant
    who was absconding was arrested from his house. On the
    same day at the instance of the accused-appellant PW 15, M.
    Laxminarayana, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer of
    Mahabubabad recovered a tapper knife (M.0.6) and a blood
8   stained shirt of the accused (M.0.7).

       4. Charge sheet under section 302 and 498A IPC was
  submitted against the accused-appellant. However in the trial
  court, charge under section 302 alone was framed. The trial
  ended in the conviction of the accused-appellant who, as
C already noticed, was sentenced to undergo rigorous
  imprisonment for life. The aforesaid conviction and sentence
  having been affirmed by the High Court this apreal, by special
  leave, has been filed.

o        5. We have heard Mr. J.M. Sharma, learned counsel for
    the appellant and Mr. Mayur R. Shah, learned counsel for the
    respondent-State.

       6. Of the 15 witnesses examined by the prosecution, the
  evidence tendered by PWs 1 and 2 (father and brother of the
E deceased); the evidence of PW 3, Ponnam Buchamma, who
  is a neighbour and who had seen the deceased lying on cot in
  her house with bleeding injuries from the neck and the accused
  running away from the place; the evidence of PW 10, who was
  a witness to the seizure of material objects No. 6 and 7 and
F PW 15, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer of Mahabubabad who
  had recovered material objects 6 and 7 on the basis of the
  statement made by the accused (Exh.P8) as well as the
  evidence of PW 12, Dr. Vaidehi, the Medical Officer who had
  performed the post mortem, would be relevant, and therefore,
G must be noticed in some details.

       7. PWs 1and2 have deposed in the same vein. From the
  evidence of the said two witnesses, it transpires that the
  accused, though had received a sum of Rs.50,000 at the time
H of his marriage, had been persistently demanding more dowry
     VADLAKONDA LENIN v. STATE OF ANDHRA                      1141
          PRADESH [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

and harassing and assaulting his wife i.e. the deceased from         A
time to time. It also transpires from the evidence of PW 1 and
2 that in the evening before the occurrence there was a betrothal
ceremony of the brother of the deceased, which was attended,
amongst others, by PWs 1, 2 as well as the accused and the
deceased. A plot of land measuring one and half acres and            B
Rs.30,000 was offered as dowry to the brother of the deceased
which had led to further renewed demands for additional dowry
by the accused. Immediately after the ceremony a quarrel had
taken place between the accused and the deceased as a result
of which the deceased went to her co-sister's place (PW 5) to        c
spend the night. In the early morning, she came to her own
house and was lying in a cot when, according to PWs 1 and 2,
the accused caused knife injuries on the neck of the deceased.
According to the said witnesses though the deceased was
taken to the hospital she died en-route.
                                                                     0
     8. PW 3 had deposed that in the early morning of the day
of the occurrence while she was going to the stools side she
noticed the deceased lying in the cot of her house with injuries
on the neck from which she was bleeding. PW 3 had also
deposed that she saw the accused running away from the               E
house. The co-sister of the deceased to whose house the
deceased had gone after the quarrel with the accused was
examined as PW 5. She, however, did not support the
prosecution case. PW 3 had however admitted that in the early
morning of 18.4.2003 as the deceased had not come out of             F
her house she went to the house of the deceased and found
her lying in the cot with injuries on the neck. PW 10, as already
noticed, had deposed to the recovery of M.O. Nos.6 and 7 on
the basis of the statement made by the accused (Ex.P .8) before
PW 15, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. PW 12 is the Doctor        G
who had performed the post mortem on the deceased. He had
deposed that he found incised wound involving the whole of the
neck of the deceased and also cut wounds of the hyoid bone
and the trachea. Corresponding to the said external injuries,
PW 12 found the carotid vessels (the major vital blood vessels       H
                                                         '·
    1142          SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012) 10 S.C.R.


A supplying blood to the brain) as well as the wind pipe of the
  deceased to have been cut. PW 15 is the Sub-Divisional Police
  Officer before whom the accused had made the statement
  (Exh.P8) leading to the recovery of material object No. 6 (knife)
  and material object No. 7 (blood stained shirt). PW 15 had also
B deposed that the whereabouts of the accused after the incident
  were not known and he could be arrested only on 3.5.2003.

       9. Coupled with the above, from the examination of the
  accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., it transpires that the
  accused was not available after the incident. The absence of
C the accused has been sought to be explained by him by stating
  that he could come to know of the news of the death of his wife
  from the newspapers after which he had reported the incident
  to his sister.

D      10. A careful consideration of the evidence adduced by
  the prosecution would go to show that there is no direct
  evidence of any eye witness to the crime alleged against the
  accused. However, it transpires from the depositions of the
  prosecution witnesses that certain circumstances inimical to the
E accused have been proved by the prosecution in the present
  case. Such circumstances which have been culled out by the
  learned trial court and also by the High Court can be
  summarised as below:

           (i)     The accused had been making demands for dowry
F                  and on that account was harassing, intimidating and
                   committing atrocities on the deceased;
           (ii)    the accused and the deceased alognwith PWs 1
                   and 2 had attended the betrothal function of the
G                  brother of the deceased in the evening prior to the
                   incident. Immediately after the incident, there was
                   a quarrel between the accused and the deceased;

           (iii)    in the early morning of the next day the deceased
H
    VADLAKONDA LENIN v. STATE OF ANDHRA                     1143
         PRADESH [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

             was found by PW 3, lying in a cot in her own house     A
             with injuries on her neck;

      (iv)   the accused was found by PW 3 to be running away
             from the place.

      (v)    the whereabouts of the accused was not known           B
             after the incident and he could be arrested only on
             3.5.2003; and

      (vi)   the accused had stated in his examination under
             section 313 Cr.P.C. that he came to know of the        c
             incident only from the newspapers, whereafter he
             had explained the whole incident to his sister.

     11. The culpability of the accused-appellant, in the
 absence of any direct evidence, has to be judged on the basis
 of the circumstances enumerated above. The principles of law       D
governing proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence
would hardly require any reiteration save and except that the
circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be proved
 beyond all reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be
capable of giving rise to an inference which is inconsistent with   E
 any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It is only
in such an event that the conviction of the accused, on the basis
of the circumstantial evidence brought by the prosecution, would
be permissible in law. In this regard a reference to the "five
golden principles" enunciated by this Court in Sharad               F
Birdhichand Sarcia v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
may be recapitulated for which purpose para 153 of the
judgment in the above case may be usefully extracted below:

     "153. A close analysis of this decision would sho~ that the    G
     following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against
     an accused can be said to be fully established:

     (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
     to be drawn should be fully established.
                                                                    H
    1144    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A       It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
        circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be'
        established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
        distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should
        be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao
B       Bobade v. State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 793
        where the following observations were made:

        certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be
        and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict,
        and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be'
c       is long and divides vague conjectures from sure
        conclusions.

        (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
        the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
D       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.

E       (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
F       consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
        show that in afl human probability the act must have been
        done by the accused.
       12. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently
  argued that in the present case the prosecution has failed to
G prove the most vital circumstance of the case, namely, motive
  of the accused for committing the alleged crime. lnfact,
  according to the learned counsel, no charge against the
  accused having been framed under section 498A IPC inspite
  of specific allegations of demand of dowry and harassment etc.
H
    VADLAKONDA LENIN v. STATE OF ANDHRA                      1145
         PRADESH [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
of the deceased by the accused the motive for commission of           A
the alleged offence remain unsubstantiated. Learned counsel
has also pointed out that the prosecution case to the effect that
the deceased had left her house in the evening prior to the
incident and has spent the night in the house of co-sister, PW
5, has not been established. It is also urged that, in any case,      B
if the deceased had spent night in the house of the co-sister,
as claimed by the prosecution, no explanation has been
forthcoming as to how she could be seen by PW 3 lying injured
in the cot in her own house in the morning. Learned counsel
has further submitted that PW 3 has contradicted herself on a         c
vital part of the prosecution story, namely, the point of time when
she had seen the deceased lying in the cot and the accused
fleeing away from the place. While at one place PW 3 had
claimed to have seen the above sequence of events while
going to the stools side, in her cross-examination she had            0
stated that she saw the same while returning.

     13. In reply, the learned State Counsel has contended that
prosecution case cannot fail merely on account of the absence
of proof of any motive on the part of the accused to commit the
crime. Learned counsel has submitted that the evidence of             E
PWs 1 and 2 amply demonstrates that demand for dowry was
made by the accused from time to time and also the ill-
treatment meted out by the accused to the deceased. The
incident had taken place in the house of the accused to which
the deceased had returned in the early morning. It is pointed         F
out that PW 3, who had seen the accused fleeing away from
the place of occurrence. is related to both the sides and,
therefore, is eminently reliable. The absence of accused for a
period of nearly 15 days after the incident and the recoveries
made on the basis of the statement of the accused has been            G
pointed out by the learned counsel as sufficient proof of the
involvement of the accused in the crime alleged against him.
The contradictions in the evidence of PW 3, according to the
learned counsel, are minor and insignificant. Learned counsel
has also pointed out that though PW 5 was declared hostile,           H
    1146    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012) 10 S.C.R.

A she had, intact, supported the prosecution case to the extent
  that in the early morning of the day of the incident, as the
  deceased had not come out from her house, PW 5 had gone
  to the house of the deceased and found her lying on the cot
  with injuries on the neck.
B
         14. We have considered the submissions advanced on
  behalf of the parties and the entire evidence on record. Upon
  such consideration we find that from the evidence of PWs 1
  and 2 it is crystal clear that the accused had been persistently
  demanding additional dowry from the deceased and had been
C ill-treating her. From the evidence tendered by the said two
  witnesses it is also clear that immediately before the incident
  there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.
  In the early morning of 18.4.2003 the deceased was found lying
  injured in the cot in her own house by PW 3 as well as by PW
D 5. Nobody except the accused was in the house immediately
  befor~ the occurrence. The accused was seen fleeing away
  from the house by PW 3. Thereafter, the whereabouts of the
  accused were not known until he was arrested on 3.5.2003.
  After his arrest, the accused had made a statement (Exh. P.8)
E on the basis of which a knife and a blood stained shirt of the
  accused (M.Os. 6 and 7) were recovered. The explanation
  offered by the accused for his absence for a period of nearly
  15 days following the death of his wife is unnatural and
  opposed to all cannons of acceptable human conduct and
F behaviour. The aforesaid circumstances which have been
  proved and established by prosecution, in our considered view,
  squarely satisfies the test laid down by this Court in Sharad
  Birdhichand Sarda (supra). The principles laid down in the
  aforesaid decision have been consistently reiterated by this
G court and exhaustively considered in a very recent decision in
  Sathya Narayanan v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
  (decided on November 2, 2012). (Reported in J.T. 2012 (11)
  SC 57).

      15. Having considered the totality of the facts of the
H present case and the principles of law as above, we are left
    VADLAKONDA LENIN v. STATE OF ANDHRA                   1147
         PRADESH [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

with no doubt whatsoever that in the present case the             A
prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that
it is the accused alone and nobody who had committed the
offence. Accordingly, we are of the view that the conviction of
the accused and the sentence imposed on him by the learned
trial court as affirmed by the High Court will not justify any    8
interference. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and affirm the
conviction of the accused under section 302 IPC and the
sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him.

8.8.8.                                     Appeal dismissed.