1978

K. Gopal Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (22.11.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0104/1978

Motive would assume considerable importance if the case was one based on circumstantial
evidence. The learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had failed to establish any motive
and that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was 'discrepant, conflicting and improbable.'
He thought that the prosecution had made an attempt to improve its case which was originally
based on circumstantial evidence to make it appear as if P.W. 3 had also seen the stabbing. To
entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of
views the possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that
against him - If the preponderance of probability is all one way a bare possibility of another view
will not entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any doubt.

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Digvijay Singh (10.11.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0177/1978

Respondent told them that when he wanted to go out to the field, his wife Smt. Tulsa Bai
prevented him from going and in the "Jhuma Jhatki" (scuffle) which followed, the gun went off
and his wife was hurt. High Court was in no doubt that the death of Smt. Tulsa Bai was
"homicidal", by gun shot injury. The above facts and circumstances are themselves quite
sufficient to prove, beyond any doubt, that Smt. Tulsa Bai died as a result of gun shot injury
from the gun of the respondent and in no other manner.

It may be that the prosecution was not able to prove the motive for the crime, but that could not
possibly matter when the circumstantial evidence on the record was sufficient to prove, beyond
any doubt, that it was the respondent and no one else who intentionally caused the death

Nathu Garam vs. State of U.P. (17.10.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0141/1978

Not to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the important links in the chain
of circumstantial evidence are missing or have not been proved by the prosecution. It is clear that
the cumulative effect of all the facts and circumstances enumerated above and which have been
established by the prosecution quite satisfactorily would lead to the only inference that it was the
appellant who was responsible for the murder of deceased. conviction and the sentence are
confirmed

Durga Prashad vs. Debi Charan and Ors. (19.09.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0250/1978

High Court relied on the circumstance that in spite of every possible search while the draft Ex.
C-1 was in fact found the will was not found at all. The High Court, therefore, drew presumption
that the testatrix must have revoked the will by destruction or otherwise.
The question as to whether or not a presumption should be drawn in such cases as a rule of law is
extremely doubtful. Moroever, even if any such presumption is drawn the said presumption is
rebuttable and may be rebutted either by direct or circumstantial evidence. The question as to
whether or not a presumption should be drawn in such cases as a rule of law is extremely
doubtful. Moroever, even if any such presumption is drawn the said presumption is rebuttable
and may be rebutted either by direct or circumstantial evidence.

Mahesh Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (15.09.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0121/1978

Doubt the presence of witness at time and place of occurrence who testified participation of
appellant in assault - Injury received by witness coupled with circumstantial evidence showed
that reliance could be placed on testimony of witness.

Tukaram and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra (15.09.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0190/1978

For circumstantial evidence to be used in order to prove an ingredient of an offence, it has to be

such that it leads to no reasonable inference other than that of guilt.

Jaswant Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) (14.09.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0100/1978

Instant case, there is no direct evidence regarding the guilt of the appellant and the prosecution
case rests wholly on the circumstantial evidence and the dying declarations made by the
deceased before S.I. Din Dayal and Roshan (P.W. 1) and Phool Vati (P.W. 2). It is also true that
the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and must be
incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.

Kailash and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (12.09.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0105/1978

Case depended upon circumstantial evidence - Evidence clearly established that deceased was
alone in the room when she was done to death, appellants entered the room armed with weapons,
after appellants entered the room a gurgling noise came from room which apparently was the
result of deceased strangulation, appellants some time later ran away from room and when
villagers entered the room they found X lying dead - The chain of circumstantial was so
complete as to leave no scope for the interference that X had been done to death by some one
other that appellants - Death of X was caused by asphyxia and was inevitable result of deliberate
and intentional injuries caused by appellants

Devendra Prasad Tiwari vs. State of U.P. (29.08.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0076/1978

Purchase of weapon of offence by appellant proved - Medical evidence showed that death of
deceased was caused by weapon similar to which was purchased by appellant - Thus
circumstantial evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt about the guilt of appellant
Chandran vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (16.08.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0068/1978

The High Court has listed 11 pieces of evidence, out of which the first ten are of circumstantial
evidence and the last is A-1's confession, Circumstances 1 to 8 were not of a clinching character,
and even in their totality, they were too insufficient to bring home the Capital Charge to the
appellant, beyond doubt. Circumstance 8, by itself, could at best, lead to the inference that the
appellant was a receiver of the stolen property or the thief. In the light of all that has been said
above, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant i

Mohan Lal and Ors. vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. (02.05.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0127/1978

Possession of the incriminating articles was held proved, the circumstantial evidence against him
would be sufficient to justify the trial court's finding that he was guilty

Nand Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (19.04.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0138/1978

Court further observed that "the mere fact that the Commissioner has not discussed in detail the
circumstantial evidence against the petitioner, was not a sufficient ground for setting aside the
impugned order

Sivan vs. State of Kerala (03.03.1978 - SC) : MANU/SC/0168/1978

Circumstantial evidence proved common intention beyond doubt - common intention to cause
death of deceased along with accused established to the satisfaction of Court
 1979

State of Maharashtra vs. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni (04.12.1979 - SC) :

MANU/SC/0518/1979

Respondent prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 135 (a) read with Section 135 (1)
- respondent preferred appeal against his conviction to High Court - appeal allowed by High
Court - appeal by State against acquittal - sufficient evidence on record to establish that gold in
question was smuggled gold - it was for accused-respondent to show that gold had been brought
into India with permission of Reserve Bank

These circumstances are: (a) the gold biscuits in question bore foreign markings which
proclaimed their foreign origin. (b) This gold was of 24 carat purity which was not available in
India at the material time. This circumstance reinforce the inference of its being smuggled gold.
(c) These fold biscuits were found concealed and stitched in the folds of a jacket specially
prepared for this purpose. (d) The gold, was in the shape of gold biscuits and was of huge value,
which at the then prevailing market rate was Rs. 1,85,000. (e) After the seizure of this gold the
accused absconded and continued to be a fugitive from justice till March 14, 1962.

The circumstances catalogued above irresistibly read to the conclusion that the gold in question
is smuggled gold, having been recently brought into India from a foreign country without
payment of duty, and further it had been brought into India in contravention of the Notification
dated March 25, 1947 issued by the Central Government under Section 8(1) of Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 prohibiting the import into India gold without the permission of
the Reserve Bank.

Murarilal vs. State of M.P. (21.11.1979 - SC) : MANU/SC/0189/1979

The two vital circumstances against Murari Lal were: (1) the recovery of a wrist-watch which
belonged to the deceased Sonawala and (2) the writing in Hindi at page 6 of Ex. P-9 which was
found to be in his handwriting indicating his presence in the house of the deceased on the night
of the murder and his participation in the commission of the offences.

They have the other vital circumstance that a writing made by the Appellant was left on the
deceased's table that night. That circumstance coupled with the recovery of the dead man's watch
at the instance of the Appellant, are sufficient, in our opinion, in the absence of any acceptable
explanation, to hold the Appellant guilty of the offences.

Syad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka (25.07.1979 - SC) : MANU/SC/0275/1979

A simplified and pragmatic application of the notion of res ipsa loquitur, as a part of the general
mode of inferring a fact in issue from another circumstantial fact, is subject to all the principles,
the satisfaction of which is essential before an accused can be convicted of the basis
circumstantial evidence alone. Those are : Firstly, all the circumstances, including the objective
circumstances constituting the accident, from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, must be
firmly established. Secondly, those circumstances must be of a determinative tendency pointing
unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, the circumstances should make a chain so
complete that they cannot reasonably raise any other hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt.
That is to say, they should be incompatible with his innocence, and inferentially exclude all
reasonable doubt about his guilt.

Pohalya Motya Valvi vs. State of Maharashtra (30.04.1979 - SC) : MANU/SC/0204/1979

Case depended upon circumstantial evidence - Appellant, another accused and deceased last seen
together - Appellant and another accused failed to explain disappearance of deceased but
acquittal of another accused would cease to make the circumstance of incriminating character -
Appellant not knowing the whereabouts of the deceased cannot be said to be false explanation as
he was intoxicated under the influence of alcohol - Appellant had knowledge where the weapon
was hidden but to make such a circumstance incriminating it must be shown that he himself had
concealed the blood stained spear -Small blood stains found on dhoti of appellant does not
provide evidence of conclusive nature against appellant - Circumstantial evidence does not lead
to conclusive proof against appellant

Suryamani Dei and Ors. vs. State of Orissa (04.04.1979 - SC) : MANU/SC/0273/1979

The case against the accused rests purely on circumstantial evidence which has been accepted by
the High Court as a result of which the appellants were convicted. Thus, the circumstances
proved against her are: (1) She had a motive; (2) There was scope and opportunity to murder; (3)
She had guilty knowledge of the place and time of murder which she suppressed; (4) She had
washed the floor with cow-dung to obliterate blood marks ; (5) She knew the route by which the
dead body was carried out of the house for disposal; (6) Her own Bala, M.O. II had been used in
murdering the deceased, and that was stained with human blood; (7) She had kept it concealed in
her kitchen: (8) Her conduct of silence and in refraining from informing the police about the
missing of the deceased; and (9) Her giving deliberately false explanation about the
incriminating circumstances, and at times giving no explanation.

Taking these circumstances ex facie, there is nothing to indicate that the appellants shared the
common intention to murder the deceased or took any active part in the murder officer has also
found that the place where the deceased was killed contained lot of bloodstain, namely on the
floor, wall and the stool. In these circumstances, therefore, we are not able to find any reliable
evidence to connect the appellant directly with the crime of actual murder of the deceased.
Lakhanpal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (23.02.1979 - SC) : MANU/SC/0156/1979

The entire evidence against the appellant consists of circumstantial evidence. The two
circumstances relied upon by the courts below against the appellant are the following:

1. That the appellant was last seen with the deceased in the field after the parents of the appellant
returned to the house.

2. That soon after the occurrence when the appellant was returned to the house, he met PW
Sukhlal and confessed before him that he had a quarrel with his brother and he had committed a
mistake by killing him.

Court was of view that the prosecution has not proved the case against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.

State of Maharashtra vs. Annappa Bandu Kavatage (06.02.1979 - SC) : MANU/SC/0255/1979

Trial Court convicted accused for offence under Sections 302 and 364 for murder of child - High
Court opined that circumstantial evidence relied upon by prosecution was not sufficient to raise
irreversible inference that respondent had committed murder of child - Apex Court observed that
evidences were not of conclusive nature - there was sufficient interval between death of boy and
recovery of body - link in chain of circumstantial evidence did not appear to be complete - held,
respondent was entitled to benefit of doubt.

State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ashok Kumar and Ors. (02.02.1979 - SC) : MANU/SC/0263/1979

It is manifest that whereas witness may lie circumstances never lie. The evidence of the doctor is
based on conclusive circumstantial evidence which cannot be belied, and therefore an attempt
has been made by the prosecution to introduce improvements in explaining the lacuna present in
the case. Apart from this we have gone through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 and their evidence
also is full of discrepancies as pointed out by the High Court. Respondent No. 1 who is in jail is
directed to be released forthwith.

S.P. Bhatnagar and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (04.01.1979 - SC) : MANU/SC/0230/1979

To bear in mind the fundamental rule relating to the proof of guilt based on circumstantial
evidence which has been settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. The rule is to the effect
that in cases depending on circumstantial evidence there is always the danger that conjecture or
suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In such cases the mind is apt to take a pleasure in
adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force
them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual,
the more likely it is, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some
little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and
necessary to render them complete. In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should 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 should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
and they should be such as to exclude every 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 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.
 1980

Joga Gola vs. State of Gujarat (18.01.1980 - SC) : MANU/SC/0136/1980

It is well settled that before a court can act on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must
exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. In the instant case,
even if the appellant was found with the buffaloes belonging to the deceased, it is quite possible
that he may have got hold of the buffaloes from some field and tried to steal them away. For
these reasons therefore, the evidence in this case is not conclusive to prove the participation of
the appellant in the crime alleged against him. However, that the buffaloes did belong to the
deceased and there is sufficient evidence to show that the two deceased had gone to the fields
with the buffaloes and did not return. It is also found from the evidence that buffaloes also did
not return but were seized from the possession . of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It has also been proved
from the evidence of PWs 15 and 17 that the buffaloes belonged to the deceased persons. In
these circumstances, therefore, although there is no evidence to support the conviction of the
appellant Under Sections 302/34, 396 and 412 of Indian Penal Code, but the prosecution has
undoubtedly proved that the appellant was in possession of stolen property namely the buffaloes
belonging to the deceased persons. In these circumstances, therefore, the appellant cannot escape
conviction Under Section 411 of I.P.C.

Naresh Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra (01.02.1980 - SC) : MANU/SC/0177/1980

It was submitted that since the appellant was a party to the dragging of the deceased he must be
presumed to have committed the murder. In the case of circumstantial evidence no such
presumption can be drawn unless the circumstances proved are completely incompatible with the
innocence of the accused. The appellant therefore cannot be convicted of murder, For these
reasons therefore we allow the appeal to this extent that we set aside the conviction and sentence
of the appellant under Sections 302/34 and acquit him of these charges.

Shah Guman Mal vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (06.02.1980 - SC) : MANU/SC/0265/1980

Facts are that gold with foreign marking in the shape of biscuits without indicating any change
was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Secondly, the appellant admitted that the
gold was brought from outside the country. The appellant further admitted that he did not hold
any permit for importing the gold and the plea taken by him was that some unknown person had
delivered the gold to him. In view of these circumstances and the fact as to how the accused
came into possession of the gold and whether it was imported or not being within the special
knowledge of the accused, if he failed to disclose the identity of the person who gave him the
gold, then it was open to the Court to presume under Section 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act
that the appellant knew that the gold in his possession was smuggled and imported without
permit. Court held that the appellant knew as to who was the person who had given him the gold
and if he also knew, as he says, that the gold was smuggled, he must have known whether the
person who delivered the gold to him brought it under a permit or without any permit because at
the time of the occurrence the import of gold was banned excepting under special circumstances.
Having regard to the totality of the situation, there is no reason why the prosecution would not be
entitled to call into aid the combined effect of the presumptions under Section 106 and 114 of the
Evidence Act. We are, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has clearly proved the charge
under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act.

Prabhakar Jasappa Kanguni vs. State of Maharashtra (15.02.1980 - SC) :

MANU/SC/0189/1980

The conviction of the appellant mainly rests upon circumstantial evidence. The conviction of the
appellant for murder of his wife, rests on an inference drawn from these facts and circumstances:

(a) Malti met a homicidal death. She was throttled to death, and did not die of poisoning,

(b) The accused was addicted to heavy drinking and he did not leave this habit in spite of the
repeated protests of his wife and the reprimands and advice of his father. As a result, the
relations of the accused with his wife were not happy and on the morning of 7th Sept., 1969, she
attempted to commit. suicide by taking Baygon poison, but she did not die of poisoning because
of the saline emetic first given to her by the accused and later by Dr. Kulkarni.

(c) During his first visit which lasted for about one hour, Dr. Kulkarni found Malti lying on the
cot. He found her quite conscious. Her pulse. and blood- pressure and chest were normal. He
gave her injections. Malti at that time sat up in the bed and took tea. She asked for a towel and
wiped her face. Dr. Kulkarni had examined her throat and finding Malti alright left the house
around 9 or 9-45 A, M.

(d) At about 10-45 A. M. when Dr. Kulkarni visited the house of the accused second time and
tried to enter the room in Which Malti was, the accused came in the doorway and turned back
Dr. Kulkarni with the representation that Malti was alright and he himself would manage.

(e) At about 11-15 or 11-30 A. M" when Dr. Kulkarni, Dr. Mali and Prof. Chan dake were on
their way to the house of the accused, gardener Markat (P.W. 4) told them that Malti had
expired.

(f) On going into Malti's room at about 11-30 A.M. or 12 noon, Dr. Kulkarni found her lying
dead on the floor, without any saree or blouse over her body, while during his first visit Malti
was on the cot with the clothes on her person and was practically alright.

(g) (Inferentially) Malti died some time between 9 A. M. and 11 A. M. Probably, she had already
died a homicidal death when Dr. Kulkarni, on his second visit at 10-30 A. M. tried to enter
Malti's room but was prevented by the accused on the false representation that she was feeling
better and he would himself manage.

(h) At the time of Malti's death no other person excepting the accused, was in the house. In fact,
Surekha was sent away by the accused to Mrs. Rajadhye's house. In morning of the day of
occurrence, when the maid-servant, Akkatai came to work in the house, the accused sent her
back saying that there was no work of cleansing pots in the house.

Taken in conjunction with the other circumstances, particularly the undisputed fact that at or
about the time of Malti's death, no third person excepting the accused and the deceased, was
present in the house, it will inescapably lead to the conclusion that in all human probability, it
was the accused-appellant and none else, who had murdered the deceased by strangulating her to
death. For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant under
Section 302, Penal Code

Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration) (15.02.1980 - SC) : MANU/SC/0131/1980

The events which followed in quick succession in the present case lead to the only inference that
the money was obtained by the accused from P.W.3. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act the
Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard
being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private
business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. taken as established was the recovery of
certain money from the person of the accused and it was held that mere recovery of money was
not enough to entitle the drawing of the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The Court did not consider the further question whether recovery of the money
alongwith other circumstances could establish that the accused had obtained gratification from
any person. In the present case we have found that the circumstances established by the
prosecution entitled the Court to hold that the accused received the gratification from P.W.3

The recovery of the money coupled with other circumstances leads to the conclusion that the
accused received gratification from some person the Court would certainly be entitled to draw
the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Bhimrao, Anna Ingawale and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (02.04.1980 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0116/1980

There is no reliable evidence whatsoever to support the prosecution case that the accused were
the aggressOrs. On the other hand, the following five circumstances point to the contrary :
(a) The concoction of that part of the" prosecution story according to which the deceased were
dragged out of their house by the appellants.

(b) During the incident in which abuses were exchanged, appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were merely
sitting on the door steps of their house while the two deceased had gone there armed with sticks
in an attempt to assault their adversaries.

(c) "Immediately after" that incident came to a close on the intervention of Bhimrao Kadam PW-
20, the deceased were reinforced by their three brothers and the occurrence commenced
"immediately thereafter".

(d) Bodies of the persons injured on the side of the deceased were found lying nearer the house
of the accused than that of their opponents.

(e) Appellants Nos. 1 to 3 also received injuries which were sufficiently serious and numerous.

A) Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the party of the appellants were the
aggressors and that it is not made out on the record that the latter may well have acted in exercise
of the right of private defence?

Consideration of the ocular evidence coupled with the testimony of Bhimrao Kadam PW-20 and
the circumstantial evidence, especially the medical part of it, lead us to an answer in the
affirmative

V.C. Shukla and Ors. vs. State (Delhi Administration) (11.04.1980 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0545/1980

In most case it will be difficult to get direct evidence of an agreement to conspire but a
conspiracy can be inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible
inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. For
circumstantial evidence to furnish evidence of guilt it has to be such as it cannot be explained on
any other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused which is not the case here
because appellants A-1 and A-2 could not be said to be the only persons interested in the
destruction of the film if it was as obnoxious to the then Prime Minister or as critical of the
functioning of the then Union Government as the prosecution would have us believe. The film
and all the material relating to it no doubt appear to have vanished into thin air but then neither
A-1 nor A-2 can be held responsible therefor, in the absence of proof in that behalf-proof which
would exclude all reasonable doubt. The prosecution having thus failed to prove the case against
the appellants

Nagappa Dondiba Kalal vs. State of Karnataka (29.07.1980 - SC) : MANU/SC/0173/1980

The conviction of the appellant rests entirely on circumstantial evidence consisting of the
recovery of some gold ornaments at the instance of the appellant. P.Ws. 7,8, 16 and 17 who are
close relations of the deceased and who had full opportunity to see her wearing these ornaments
have identified the ornaments. Their evidence is further corroborated by two gold smiths P.Ws. 9
& 10 who had prepared these ornaments. there is nothing to connect the appellant with the
murder of the deceased or even with any assault the accused may have committed on the
deceased or having robbed her of her ornaments. The accused can thus be convicted on the basis
of presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and under Section 411 of Indian Penal
Code as a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to be stolen and not under 302 and 394.

Shripad Shivram Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra (31.07.1980 - SC) : MANU/SC/0221/1980

The circumstances from which the Courts below have drawn an inference of common intention
and criminal conspiracy between the appellant and accused 2, are as follows:

(i) On August 18, 1971, the appellant asked the complainant to go to the table of accused 2 who
was sitting in the same room and that the latter ; would tell the complainant what to do.
Accordingly, the complainant went to accused 2 who demanded Rs. 200 as a bribe from him for
himself and others.

(ii) On October 22, 1971, when Madhav again came to enquire about the progress of his
application, the appellant asked him as to what he had done to do that which accused 2 had
suggested to him. When the complainant said that he could pay only Rs. 5 to Rs. 15 and not the
big amount of Rs. 200, the appellant remarked that the complainant's case also would be taken
up in its serial order, like other cases which were pending for two or three years.

(iii) On November 5, 1971, when accused 2 scaled down the demand to Rs. 125 and asked
Madhav to pay this reduced amount at least, the appellant was sitting at his own table from
where he could overhear the talk between the complainant and accused 2.

the conclusion was irresistible that the circumstantial evidence on the basis of which the
appellant has been convict ed was replete with vital contradictions and material infirmities, and
therefore, could not be safely acted upon to convict the appellant for the commission of the
offences in question.

State of Haryana vs. Tej Ram (04.08.1980 - SC) : MANU/SC/0235/1980

The circumstances which point to the participation of Tej Ram in the assault on the deceased in
pursuance of a pre-arranged plan, and his having a common intention with Rattan Lal, to murder
the deceased may be set out as under:
(1) Tej Ram also, in common with his brother Rattan Lal, was nursing a grudge against the
deceased. During the period of some months preceding the occurrence both the brothers several
times visited the deceased and attempted to persuade him to send Mahindri back with them. The
deceased, however, persistently and obstinately rebuffed there efforts, in cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses the defence tried establish that the deceased had repeatedly given his
daughter Mahindri "in marriage" to different persons after receiving monetary consideration on
each occasion and with Rattan Lal also he played the same ruse. If that be a fact, then Rattan Lal
and Tej Ram also had been cheated by the deceased of money as well as "wife". The deceased
was, therefore, an anathema to them. The deceased was the person who had thwarted the
repeated attempts made by the two accused to take Mahindri back with them. When all
persuasive attempts failed, the accused planned to abduct and bring Mahindri by killing the
deceased who was an obdurate stumbling block in their way.

(2) The time chosen was dead of night, The occurrence took place at about 1 or 2 A.M.

(3) They came armed, Rattan Lal with a Pharsa and Tej Ram with a lathi

(4) Both the accused made a determined, concerted attack, causing no less than 14-15 injuries
and killing the deceased almost at the spot,

(5) All the injuries were collectively sufficient to cause immediate death in the ordinary course
of nature. One of the incised wounds on the head (attributed to the co-accused Rattan Lal) was
also individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course.

The above circumstances unerringly lead to the conclusion that both Rattan Lal and Tej Ram had
a common intention to cause the death of Harbans deceased and in pursuance of such intention
both belaboured the deceased to death at the spot.

Basant Singh vs. State of Punjab (23.09.1980 - SC) : MANU/SC/0113/1980

The conviction of the appellant rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The main
circumstances which have been accepted, as established, by the Courts below are as follows :

(1) The first circumstances is three folds,

(a) At about 8 or 9 p.m. on 22nd August, 1970, the appellant called and took away the
deceased from the latter's house to the Jagrata (a religious vigil) which was being held in the
house of Pandit Amar Nath (PW 8) in the village :
 (b) Thereafter, up to about 3 a.m., the appellant and the deceased were seen together in
the congregation at the house of Amar Nath till about 3 a.m. when it started dizzying and the
gathering started dispersing :

(c) At about 3 or 3.30 a.m. the appellant asked the deceased to accompany him to his tube
well for spending the night there and then both of them proceeded towards the tube-well of the
appellant.

Evidence in regard to (a) was given by Puran Singh (PW 3) who was joint in residence with the
deceased. Regarding fact (b), the evidence was furnished by Amar Nath (PW 8) and Teja Singh
(PW 12) Evidence regarding (c) was rendered by PW 12, Sadhu Singh (PW 10) deposed to this
fact but his evidence has not been relied upon by the High Court :

(2) The dead body of the deceased was found buried in a pit adjacent to the tube well of the
appellant, on the 25th August, 1970 by Police Sub-Inspector, (PW 15) in the presence of PWs
Teja Singh, Puran Singh, and one Mohan Singh. The memorandum Ex. P.G, was prepared in this
behalf.

(3) Recovery of blood-stained dagger Ex. P4 at the instance of the appellant from the sugar-cane
field where it lay buried, According to the report of the Serologist there was human blood on this
dagger (Ex. P4).Labh Singh (PW 6) who attested the memo Ex. P.G, and the Sub-Inspector (PW
15) deposed to this fact.

(4) Blood was noticed on the bean (warp and woof) of a charpai found lying in the shutterless
Kothe of the appellant's tube-well on the 24th August by Head Constable Jagdish Chander, (PW
14). Blood stained earth was also seized from the ground underneath that charpai. The Chemical
Examiner and Serologist has reported that the bean and the earth sent to him were stained with
human blood.

(5) The appellant absconded after the occurrence and remained in ascendance till his arrest on
29th August, 1970. When this circumstance was put to the accused during his examination under
Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. He gave a false explanation that he had gone away to his
sister's village Hirampur on the 20th August, 1970 and returned to village on the 26th August,
1970.

We have examined carefully the evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the above-
enumerated circumstances. We are of opinion that the courts below were right in holding that the
evidence of the witnesses was creditworthy and these circumstances had been fully established.
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs. State of Maharashtra (17.12.1980 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0211/1980

Appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 376 and 302 for committing rape and murder
of a five year old girl - No eye witnesses to the incident and thus case depended upon
circumstantial evidence - Appellant was living by himself on the date of incident - He was
allegedly present in room when dead body of deceased was found in the bath room - None of the
four person who entered the appellant room exchanged a word with appellant - In the FIR it was
also not mentioned that appellant was present when the dead body of child was recovered and
when FIR was recorded no one thought that it was appellant who committed murder - No attempt
to arrest appellant after lodging of FIR and there was no evidence as to who arrested appellant –

When the case depends upon circumstantial evidence the circumstances on which prosecution
lies must be consistent with sole hypothesis of the guilt of accused - Cumulative effect of
circumstances failed to establish guilt of accused beyond shadow of doubt.