Rukumanand Bairoliya v.

State of Bihar, 19711

Here the finding is based on circumstantial evidence as the order of the Commissioner clearly
shows. The revenue authorities were fully entitled to take into consideration the circumstances
and features of the settlement for the purpose of determining the object with which it had been
made. Besides, they also took into account the potential and the present value of the land which
had been settled at a rate which, in the circumstances, was a very low rate, having regard to the
situation of the land.

The circumstances of the settlement and certain features of the settlement itself may disclose
the intention of the party The land has been settled at a very low rate of Rs. 3/-per katha. But
the amount of compensation has been calculated at Rs. 12,689/2/-It is, therefore, obvious that
the rate mentioned in the Patta did not disclose the real value of a plot of land situated in an
important part of the city close to the Darbhanga Medical College Hospital. By acquiring such
a valuable piece of land on a low rate, the intention of Smt. Mohini Devi was obviously to
appropriate the profits which would have accrued to the State on vesting of the Zamindari. Had
there been any intention of using this land for the construction of a house, the construction
would have been taken in hand after obtaining the settlement. This was not done. The expansion
of the Darbhanga Medical College "Hospital was a well known, and the possibility of obtaining
advantage out of that expansion obviously attracted the purchaser.

Hypothesis of Guilt
Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab, 19712

The prosecution tried to establish the case against the accused on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. The circumstances put forward against the accused are :

1
2
(a) motive;

(b) quarrel on June 12, 1968;

(c) the accused persons carrying some person on a cot at about II or 11-30 on the night about
the time of occurrence and when questioned by P.Ws. 6 and 7 giving out a story that the
deceased was suffering from cholera and they were taking him for treatment;

(d) signs of blood found in the yard of Tara Singh which had been covered by cowdung;

(e) some human hair sticking to a cot placed in the house of Tara Singh as well as some marks
of struggle at that place and

(f) discovery of some parts of the body of the deceased as well as a scythe on the information
given by the appellant when he was in police custody.

The law relating to circumstantial evidence has been stated by this Court in numerous
decisions. It is needless to refer to them as the law on the point is well settled. In a case resting
on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved and
those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Again those 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.

Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra3

The High Court which substantially agreed with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge,
found the following circumstances established:

1. That the deceased had a grievance against the appellant because he had paid the
consideration for the sale deed and while the deceased was pressing him for the money the
appellant was merely giving him empty promises.

2. That the appellant had called him that morning for the purpose of collecting money.

3. That the deceased was hale and hearty and had not taken any food or drink bf fore he left his
house and reached the house of the appellant at about 8.00 A.M. or sometime later.

3
(29.11.1971 - SC) : MANU/SC/0168/1971
4. That about 8.30 A.M. the appellant offered the deceased a cup with a saucer the contents of
which were swallowed by the deceased.

5. After the deceased drank the contents from the cup, the deceased became restless arid started
rolling on the cot. Soon thereafter be became unconscious.

6. According to medical evidence an organo Chloro compound may cause death from between
20 minutes to four hours. The deceased had died on the way to the Mayo Hospital a little after
9.30 A.M.

7. The contents of the viscera showed that it contained organo chloro compound which is a
deadly poison.

"It is well to remember that 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 & 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.''

Udaipal Singh v. The State of U.P.4

There could be no eye-witness of the occurrence of this case and the prosecution had, therefore,
necessarily to rely on circumstantial evidence only. In cases where only circumstantial
evidence is available at the outset one normally starts looking for the motive and the
opportunity to commit the crime. If the evidence shows that the accused having a strong enough
motive had the opportunity of committing the crime and the established circumstances on the
record considered along with the explanation if any of the accused, exclude the reasonable
possibility of anyone also being the real culprit then the chain of evidence can be considered
to be complete as to show that within all human probability the crime must have been

4
(07.09.1971 - SC) : MANU/SC/0206/1971
committed by the accused. He may, in that event, safely be held guilty on such circumstantial
evidence.

The circumstances which induced the High Court to uphold the appellant's conviction have
already been reproduced earlier. These circumstances, were, in our opinion, rightly held by the
High Court to be inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant and incapable of any other
hypothesis then that of the appellant's guilt. Whether or not his parents were also guilty along
with him need not be considered because they have been acquitted of the charge of murder and
there is no appeal against their acquittal. The appellant's culpability on the facts and
circumstances of this case is unaffected by the acquittal of his parents. This appeal fails and is
accordingly dismissed.

Rahman v. The State of U.P.5

There was no direct evidence on the question as to who killed the girl except of course the oral
statement said to have been made by Zaibun at the house of the village Sabhapati. Except for
that, the prosecution case depended on circumstantial evidence which according to the
prosecution consisted of the following:

(i) that at about 3 P.M., as deposed to by Bhagwati, the girl Jasoda was playing outside the
Appellant's house with Zaibun's daughter,

(ii) that she had on her feet twelve silver chharhas,

(iii) that wit. Dhansiria had seen the Appellant and his wife lifting and carrying the child inside,

(iv) that in response to the enquiry made by Bhagwati that evening both the Appellant and
Zaibun falsely replied that they did not know the child's whereabouts,

(v) that a warning was given by the Appellant to his wife when Bhagwati and others went to
search his house to enable her to be on her guard,

(vi) the discovery of the dead body in the condition aforesaid in the Appellant's house,

(vii) the fact that at that time the silver chharhas were missing, and

5
(27.08.1971 - SC) : MANU/SC/0790/1971
(viii) the fact that the Appellant had slipped away and disappeared until he was arrested.

The question is whether the circumstances relied on by the High Court against the Appellant
could be said to have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, and if held to be proved,
whether they formed so complete a chain of evidence that it showed not only his guilt but ruled
out any reasonable possibility of his innocence.

The case against the Appellant cannot be said to have proved beyond reasonable doubt, and
the Appellant must obtain the benefit of that doubt. This means, in view of Zaibun's acquittal
by the High Court and the absence of any appeal by the State against her acquittal, that a
heinous crime of a dastardly character has to go unpunished. That is obviously regrettable but
a conviction of the Appellant on the evidence as it stands on the record would not be, in our
view, in conformity with the well-settled principle regarding circumstantial evidence that the
circumstances forming that evidence must be conclusively established and even when so
established, they must form such a complete chain that it is not only consistent with his guilt
but is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence.

Matru v. The State of Uttar Pradesh6

It can scarcely be held as a determining link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence
which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. In the
present case the appellant was with Ram Chandra till the F.I.R. was lodged. If thereafter he felt
that he was being wrongly suspected and he tried to keep out of the way we do not think this
circumstance can be considered to be necessarily evidence of a guilty mind attempting to evade
justice. It is not inconsistent with his innocence.

One other circumstance which on the facts of this case also deserves notice is the non-recovery
of the weapon of offence and the fact that no stains of blood were noticed by any one on the
appellant's clothes even though he was with Ram Chandra right upto the lodging of the F.IR.
and even accompanied him for that purpose. The courts below seem to us to have failed to take
into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. As proof of the
appellant's guilt depended solely on circumstantial evidence it was incumbent on the courts
below. to properly consider and scrutinise all the material factors and circumstances for

6
(03.03.1971 - SC): MANU/SC/0141/1971
determining whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete as to lead to the only
conclusion of the appellant's guilt. In our view, the cumulative effect of the circumstantial
evidence in this case falls far short of the test required for sustaining conviction. Therefore,
appeal allowed, set aside the appellant's conviction and acquit him.

Beyond reasonable doubt

Bharvad Bhikha Valu and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat7

The High Court referred to the three Panchnamas Exhibits 20, 21 and 23 as pieces of
circumstantial evidence. Exhibit 20 is the deposition of the Panch witness Nanubhai who spoke
of injuries on the different portions of the dead body, a piece of Dharia blade to be found lying
at a short distance from the dead body and a cap and a piece of cloth used as a head gear found
lying there. The spear was also found lying at some distance from the dead body. The
Panchnama Exhibit 21 was recorded in connection with the scene of offence. Panch witness
Nanubhai spoke of the piece of apparel Pachhedi of the nature of a short dhoti worn by accused
No. 3 and taken charge by the police on 21 February, 1965. Accused No. 3 put on the pachhedi.
It appeared to have a blood-stain and the police took charge of it under Panchnama Exhibit 23.
Exhibit 21 also spoke of the piece of blade of Dharia found lying at a distance of one pace to
the south of the dead body and the spear was found lying at a distance of about 7 paces to the
west of the dead body. The Panchnama Ex. 23 mentioned that there was one blood spot on the
right side on the "thigh portion" of that Pachhedi and accused No. 3 was allowed to change the
pachhedi by wearing another pachhedi which he had with him and the spot of blood which was
noticed on the pachhedi of accused No. 3 was encircled under the signature of Panch witnesses.

The High Court rightly found that the prosecution case against the three accused had been
established beyond reasonable doubt from the circumstantial evidence and from the
corroboration which Khengar's evidence received.

7
(03.03.1971 - SC) : MANU/SC/0739/1971
Relied on Circumstantial Evidence
Kanda Padayachi v. State of Tamil Nadu8

There was no direct evidence to establish as to who was the assailant of Natesa. But the
prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, namely, (1) that the appellant had a motive to
do away with the deceased as the deceased had come in the way between him and P.W. 1, (2)
that the appellant knew that P.W. 1 and her children had left the village that morning and the
deceased would be alone in the house, (3) that the appellant had made enquiries that night to
find out if the deceased had returned home from the rice mill. (4) that the towel M.O. 6
belonging to him was found lying near the dead body of Natesa which was identified by the
washerman as belonging to him, (5) that when the appellant surrendered at the police station
his clothes M.O. 7 and 9 were found to have stains of human blood, (6) discovery by the
appellant of the aruval M.O. 1, (7) injuries on the appellant, namely, an abrasion on his toe and
multiple linear abrasions on his right arm and chest and (8) his statement to the Doctor (P.W.
8), to whom the police took the appellant after his arrest, to the effect that it was the deceased
Natesa who at about mid-night on July 10, 1969 had caused the injury on his toe by biting him.

Both the Sessions Court and the High Court accepted the evidence as to these circumstances
and found that that evidence clearly pointed out the appellant as the person who had caused
Natesa's death and on that basis found the appellant guilty under Section 302.

8
(27.08.1971 - SC) : MANU/SC/0126/1971