Supreme Court of India
JAMNADASversusSTATE OF M.P.
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 464
- Decided
- 29 June 2016
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- PRAFULLA C PANT
Holding
The chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellants was complete, their false defence added to the chain, and they shared common intention, so the conviction was affirmed.
Summary
The case involved the murder of a young bride within six months of her marriage; her body was dismembered and dumped in a park. The prosecution proved that the murder occurred inside the appellants' house, that blood stains were found there, and that the mother‑in‑law was seen discarding the body. The appellants (the father‑in‑law and husband) claimed the bride had gone to a relative’s house and was missing, but their alibi was found false and constituted an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court applied the principles governing circumstantial evidence and held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act imposes a limited burden on house‑inhabitants to explain the crime. It concluded that the chain of circumstances was complete, the accused shared a common intention, and the trial court’s conviction was justified. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the life sentences.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of the circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction for murder.
- Whether Section 106 of the Evidence Act imposes a burden on the accused to explain the manner of the crime in a house‑based murder.
- Whether a false alibi or false statement under Section 313 CrPC can be treated as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
- The applicability of the right to silence and whether adverse inference can be drawn from the accused’s silence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 106
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 304-B, s. 34, s. 498A
Subjects
circumstantial evidencemurdercommon intentionburden of proofSection 106 Evidence Actfalse alibiright to silenceconviction affirmed
Judgment
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 599
JAMNADAS A
v.
STATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 156 of2015)
JUNE29,2016 B
[PRAFULLA C. PANT AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134, 201, 304-B and 498A -
Murder of young bride - Within six months of marriage - Body
chopped off into two pieces and thrown in the Park - Blood stains c
found in the matrimonial house - Pws 1 to 5 had seen one of the
accused (mother-in-law) throwing the dead body in the park -
Charge-sheet against husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and
brother-in-law of the deceased - Defence plea that the deceased
had gone to her relatives place and thereafter, she was missing - D
Brother-in-law discharged - Husband, father-in-law and mother-
in-l<I'.v convicted by trial court - Conviction affirmed by High Court
- Appeal in Supreme Court by mother-in-law withdrawn - Present
appeal by the husband and father-in-law - Held: Present is a case
of circumstantial evidence - The chain of circumstances proved on
record against the appellants-accused are complete - The. defence E
version has also been proved to be false, which is an additional
link in the chain of circumstances - It is proved that the appellants-
accu::ed had common intention with the co-accused (mother-in-law)
in the commission of brutal murder of the deceased - Conviction
con.firmed.
F
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.106 - Burden of proof - -Where an
offence like murder is committed in secracy, inside the house, though
the initial burden is on the prosecution,. but such burden would be
lighter - There is corresponding burden on the accused to explain
as to how the death has occurred.
G
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
•
HELD: 1. The present case is a case of circumstantial
evidence. In a case of circumstantial evidence charge can be
said to hav(l been established, when (i) The circumstances from
H
599
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.
A which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully established.
The accused must be, and not merely may be guilty, before a
' court can convict and the mental distance between "may be" and
"must oe" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure
conclusions; (ii) The facts so established should be consi~tent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, (iii) The
8
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendtncy;
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to "e proved; and (v) There must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that
c iu all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused. [Para 18](614-F-H; 615-A-B]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1985 (1) SCR 88 - relied on.
:!. The rhain of circumstances proved on the record against
D the· app2llants arc (i) that the deceased was living in the house of
lhc appellants, after her marriage; (ii) that her death was homicidal
Ir. nature; (iii) that she was murdered in the house of the
appellants where blood stains were found; (iv) that after murder,
her body was cut into two pieces; (v) that the dead body was
E thrown in the park by hflf'mother-in-law who was seen doing so
by PW 1 to PW 5; (vi) that anti-mortem and post-mortem in.juries
read with statement of doctor e~tahlish that the crime could not
have been committed by one person alone; (vii) that there were
in 'llll five members in the family; (viii) that the appellants have
failed to disclose as to how deceased has died which was espedally
!.
within their knowledge; (ix) that it is nobody's case that any
outsider came in the house; (x) that there was no report lodged
to police by the appellants regarding homicidal death of the
deceased; (xi) and that false explanation was given by the
appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which
G is an additional link on the record against them, in the chain of
circumstances. The chain of circumstances against the appellants
is complete. [Paras 30, 31)(619-G-H; 620-A-H; 621-A-C]
4. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy,
inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would
H undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount
JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. 601
of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of A
the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial
evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter
character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will
be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a
cogent explanation as to bow the crime was committed. The
B
inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet
and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the
burden to establish its case !ies entirely upon the prosecution
and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.
[Para 22)(617-D-F]
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) c
10 SCC 681 : 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 156; Suresh and
another v. State of Haryana (2015) 2 SCC 227 - relied
on
Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC
263 : 2010 (5) SCR 381; Tomaso Bruno and another . D
v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 178 : 2015 (1)
SCR 721- distinguished .
• State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar and others (2000)"
8 SCC 382 : 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 712; Nafendra Singh
and another v. State of MP. (2004) 10 SCC 699 : 2004 E
(3) SCR 1148 - referred to.
5. In a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused
offers an explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue,
then the same offers an additional link in the chain of
circumstances; to complete the chain. In the present casi: the F
deceased was murdered inside the house and her body was thrown
in the park, and was not missing from the house after going to
her relative's place, as pleaded by the appellants in their
statements under Section 313 of the Code of Crimina.1 Procedure.
They have taken a blatant false plea. The defence story that the G
deceased had gone to her relative's place and did not return home,
gets completely belied as prosecution has proved to the hilt that
the deceased was murdered inside the appellants' house. [Paras
25, 26~ 29)(618-D-E; 619-E-F]
Ku/deep Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan (2000)
H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.
A 5 SCC 7 : 2000 (3) SCR 499; Rwni Bora Dutta v. State
of Assam (2013) 7 SCC 417 - relied on.
Rajkumar v. State of MP. 2004 (12) SCC 77 - distinguished.
Case Law Reference
B 1985 (1) SCR 88 relied on Para 18
2010 (5) SCR 381 distinguished Para 19
2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 712 referred to Para 20
2015 (1) SCR 721 distinguished Para 21
c 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR156 relied on Para 22
2004 (3) SCR 1148 referred to Para 23
(2015) 2 sec 221 relied on Para 24
2000 (3) SCR 499 relied on Para 26
D (2013) 1 sec 411 relied on Para 27
2004 (12) sec 11 distinguished Para 28
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
156 of2015
E WITH
CRL. A. No. 155 of2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2012 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 977 of
2007.
F
Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Puneet Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Ms.
Chhaya Kirti, Ms. Ankita Gupta, Ms. Pratibha Jain, P. K. Jain, Ad vs. for
the Appellant.
C. D. Singh, Sandeepan Pathak, Ms. Sylona Mohapatra, Ms.
G Saumay Kalra, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. I. These appeals are directed against
judgment and order dated 23.8.2012 passed by High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Bench Indore, whereby criminal appeal no. 977 of2007 (filed
H
JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. 603
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]
by father-in-law of deceased), criminal appeal no. 993 of2007 (filed by A
husband of deceased), and criminal appeal no. I 000 of 2007 (filed by
mother-in-law of deceased) were dismissed. At the outset, it is relevant
to mention that Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9812 of 2013 filed by
Dhanwantari (mother-in-law of deceased) was dismissed by this Court
as withdrawn on 16.9.2014. The present criminal appeal nos. 156 of
B
2015 and 155 of2015 have arisen out of Special Leave Petition(s) filed
by father-in-law and husband of deceased, respectively.
2. It is a case where a young bride was brutally murdered within
six months of her marriage, her body chopped off in two pieces and
thrown in a park.
c
3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 16.9.2006 at about 19.50
hours (7.50 p.m.) PW 19 Constable Nirmal Kumar Patil received
telephonic information at Police Control Room that a middle aged woman
came on a scooty, and threw two bundles wrapped in bed sheets in
Sewa Ram Zilani Garden, Patel Nagar, Indore, and that some blood
stains were visible from the packets. On the basis of the telephonic D
information, Ext.P.33 was recorded at the Control Room. Within five
minutes at about 19.55 hours (7.55 p.m.) the information was transmitted
to the concerned police station Juni and information Ext. P.34 was
recorded. After Dehati Murg intimation Ext.P.1 entered, PW 17 Head ·
Constable Ashraf Ali left the Police Station Juni along with PW 12 E
Constable Mohd. M. Ahmad towards the spot. Enquiries were made in
the same evening on which PW I Mukesh Jaiswal told that as usual on
that day (16.09.2006) at about 5.30 p.m., he had gone to temple and was
sitting with PW 5 Manohar@ Mannu, PW 4 Udhav Dass and PW 3
Narayana. They sent PW 2 Phugga@ Kamal to bring milk, and after
sometime PW 2 Phugga @ Kamal came back and told them that one F
packet wrapped in colored bed sheet was lying in the park near walking
track, in which blood spots were visible. The above named four persons
with Phugga went towards the place, and saw the bundle with blood
stains. Soon thereafter they saw a woman coming on an Activa who
threw another packet, and went away. On this the telephonic information G
was given to the Control Room. Thereafter Murg inquiry was made by
PW-35 SI Mohan Lal Purohit, who registered crime no. 431 of2006 on
the next day 17.9.2006 against unknown persons. Inquest report Ext.P-
6 was prepared by the police on 17.9.2006 at about noon after dead
body was identified as the one that ofBhoomi @Richa by PW 6 Sanjay
H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.
A Chhabra, cousin of the deceased. The dead body was sent in a sealed
condition for autopsy.
4. Thereafter, house of the appellants i.e. 40, Sarvodaya Nagar
(Indore) was searched. During investigation blood stains were found in
the house of the appellants. Samples of blood stains were taken and,
B search memo Ext.P-54, P-56 and P-57 prepared in the presence of PW
30 Suresh Neema and one Ramesh. Silver colour Activa bearing
registration No. MP 09/JX-7556 was also seized.
5. The investigation revealed that marriage ofBhoomi@ Richa
(deceased), daughter of PW-22 Rajesh Kumar Nachani, was solemnized
c with appellant Manoj on 22.4.2006 at Indore, whereafter she started
residing in 40, Sarvodaya Nagar with her husband (Manoj), father-in-
law (Jamnadas), Mother-in-law (Dhanwantari), brother-in-law (Vishal)
and minor sister-in-law (Heena@ Madhuri).
6. On 19.9.2006, appellants Manoj and Jamnadas along with
D Dhanwantari (mother-in-law) were arrested. After their arrest, accused
were medically examined by PW 27 Dr. G.L. Sodhi, who found marks
of simple injuries on the person of Dhanwantari, and medical report
Ext.P-50 was prepared. On 23.9.2016, Vishal (brother-in~Iaw of
deceased) was also arrested.
E 7. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against four accused
namely - Manoj (husband), Jamnadas (father-in-law), Dhanwantari
(mother-in-law) and Vishal (brother-in-law) for their trial in respect of
offences punishable under Sections 302 (read with Section 34) 201, 304-
B and 498-A IPC. The case appears to have been committed by the
Magistrate to the Court of Sessions where the trial court framed charge
F in respect of all the above offences against the first three accused. As
against accused Vishal, charge only relating to offence punishable under
Section 20 I IPC was framed. All the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
8. Prosecution got examined PW I Mukesh Jaiswal (who saw
G Dhanwantari disposing of body of the deceased), PW 2 Phugga@Kamal
(who first noticed the thrown l" packet), PW 3 Narayana (who was
with PW 1), PW 4 Udhav Dass (who was also with PW!), PW 5
Manohar@ Mannu (who was also with 'above four, and informed the
Police Control Room), PW 6 Sanjay Chhabra (cousin of the deceased,
who identified the dead body), PW 7 Dinesh (Parking Stand wallah),
H
JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. 605
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]
PW 8 Yogendra (Hostile witness), PW 9 Rajesh Agrawal (Contractor A
of boundary wall of the park), PW I 0 Constable Ram Babu Sharma
(who received ten sealed packets from M.Y.Hospital for being sent to
F.S.L.), PW 11 Head Constable Radhey Shyam Sharma (who prepared
Ext.P-25 Murg/ intimation), PW 12 Constable Mohd. M. Ahmad, PW
13 Constable Smt. Savitri, PW 14 Constable Mahabal Singh Chauhan,
B
PW 15 Dr. N.M. Unda (who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the
deceased), PW 16 .Dr. Anil Kapoor, PW 17 Head Constable Ashraf Ali,
PW 18 Dr. Bharti Dwivedi, PW 19 Constable N irmal Kumar Patil
(posted in PCR, Indore who informed the Duty officer), PW 20 Manoj
Chauhan (Wireless Operato.r who received message from PW 19), PW
21 P'ankaj Nagpal, PW 22 Rajesh Kumar Nachani (father of the c
deceased), PW 23 Rajendra Kumar, PW 24 Keshav Kumar, PW 25
Sonam, PW 26 Umesh Nara (uncle of deceased), PW 27 Dr. G.L.Sodhi
(who examined injuries on person of Dhanwantari), PW 28 Jeevan
Lotani, PW 29 Harish, PW 30 Suresh Neema, PW 31 Yogesh Gupta.
PW 32 Madhuri (minor sister-in-law of deceased), PW 33 Padvilochan
D
Shukla (Investigating Officer), PW 34 Raksh Pal Singh (Incharge P.S.
Juni), PW 35 Mohan Lal Purohit and PW 36 Sub Inspector K. L. Pandey.
9. The prosecution evidence was put to each one of the accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C to which they replied that the same is false. It
is pleaded by the accused that Bhoomi @ Richa was missing after she
went to her relative's place. It is further pleaded by the appellants that E
they were in the shop during the day time when Bhoomi@ Richa went
missing. In defence, DW I Pannanand Sharma, (servant in the shop)
was got examined in support of plea of alibi of the appellants.
l 0. The trial court after hearing the parties found that charge
framed against accused Vishal (brother-in-law of the deceased) regarding F
his involvement in the crime, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt
as such he was acquitted. The trial court found rest of the three accused,
namely, Dhanwantari, Jamna das and Manoj guilty ofoffence of murder
with common intention punishable under Section 302 read with Section
34 IPC, and convicted them accordingly. Accused Dhanwantari was G
further convicted under Section 201 !PC for causing disappearance of
evidence of murder. After hearing on sentence, 6'11 Additional Sessions
Judge, (Indore), vide his order dated 24.8.2009, sentenced each of the
convicts under Section 302/34 IPC imprisonment for life and directed to
pay fine ofRs.5000/-. It was further directed that in default of payment
H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 5 S.C.R.
A of fine, the defaulter shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year. Convict Dhanvantari was further sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- in respect of offence punishable under Section 20 I
IPC and in default of payment of fine she was directed to undergo three
months rigorous imprisonment. On other heads, the accused stood
B
acquitted from the charge.
11. The three convicts filed separate appeals before the High
Court and the same were heard together and disposed of by the common
judgment and order dated 23.8.2012, impugned in these appeals.
c 12. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention
the ante mortem injuries and post mortem injuries found on the body of
the deceased (Bhoomi@ Richa), recorded by PW-15 Dr. N.M. Unda,
Demonstrator, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department, M. G.
M. Medical College & M. Y. Hospital, Indore on 17.09.2006 at 2:00
p.m. recorded in Exhibit P-27. The observations in the autopsy report
D are reproduced below:-
··nead body received in sealed condition, in two
separated pieces in the two bed sheets stained with
blood. Body appears cleaned and washed. Faint blood
stained marks on the body, no clotting present. Dorsal
E part and the skin of the hands and fingers showing
very slight shrinking effect and all the wound part small
sizes show very scanty amount of blood at deeper level
while upper part shows clean. Body separated with hard
and sharp object at just above the umbilicus shows
F multiple inflictions by moving body all around and
_vertebral column cut at inter vertebral disc with multiple
inflictions over the cartilogenous part and on vertebrae.
Some part ofthe intestinal loops small and large missing,
and faecal soiling present and lower part of abdomen
where vertical present right to umbilicus to pubic
G symphysis indicating cut mark on the bony and soft
tis.sue part. Body separation exposing abdominal and
Pefric cavity part are post-mortem in nature with
separated intesti11al opening (available). Some part of
the kidney blood vessel and soft tissue missing.
H
JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. 607
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]
Multiple post mortem wounds present on the different A
parts of the body over the foot, leg and wrist shows the
intention with post mortem nature to convert body in
small pieces for disposal.
Multiple defence wound present in the both hands and
palmer side over the metacarpo phalangeal joint and B
proximal phalaxin part in a plane with fist closed. Cut
mark manner (pattern) shows an object moved ·within
closed fist. Other three deep cut marks present in the
palm of left hand also present. Total number given on
other page with other small wounds present on both
hands. c
Lower half part 96 cm and upper part 63 cni. adjusted
length.
Body average built, eyes closed. Partly, mouth closed
and lip approximated. Rigor Mortis present all over D
body stiffi1ess present. Hypostasis present on the back
side of the body and fixed and faint. Cut part
circumference 73 cm and 23 cm at chest upper part.
Lower part circumference and diameter 27 cm into 20
cm both part matching each other shows the multiple
cut marks. Scalp hairs present at places over the body. E
Other hairs also present.
Stomach some watery fluid light brown in colour about
190 ml with slight altered smell and mucosa healthy.
Small intestine - co11tai11s little slight digested food.
Large intestine - contains little faecal in the lower F
available part. Liver and Spleen pale and healthy.
Kidney - dorceline lower part missing. Genitals -
available but shows stabwound in the lower part
laterally in the broad ligature. Uterus small size. Slide
from cervice opening and uterine cavity made along G
with vaginal smear slide and swab - pubic hair shaved
and preserved for any foreign hair and other evidences.
Uterus measured in formation for liistopathological
examination.
H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.
A Anal opening dilated and shows an funnel pattern with
multiple superficial indepth heal scar 111arks ... with
mostly healed too.
Both lungs pale and healthy
Trachea pale and healthy injury present described in
B injury at serial 3.
Heart practically completely empty.
External injury on scalp described on Injury section.
Superficial cut marks present 011 the skull, Rest healthy
c Brain extremely congested and non specific smell
present. Preserved for chemical analysis and sent to
pathological examination 110 subdual or extradual
collection found.
Death was due to shock and hemorrhage as result of
D
(ante mortem) multiple injuries to the body.
Death homicidal in nature.
Along with ante mortem injuries, post mortem injuries
present i.e. post mortem separation of body into two
E halves and trying (effect of cutting) to into multiple
pieces lfith missing of intestinal parts (loops) and kidney
lower part, mesentery and blood vessels.
Evidence of defence wounds present and effect of
leaning i.e. removing stains present.
F Preservation
I. Viscera preserved for che111ical analysis.
2. Vaginal smear slides swab preserved along with
cervical smear, uterine cavity fluid slide preserved.
G 3. Anal swab slide preserved
4. Brain 111aterial preserved separateZv for chemical
anaZvsis.
5. Pubic hair preserved with other material after shaving.
H
JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. 609
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]
6. Trimming of nails all fingers with its cont<:nt A
7. Scalp hair with skin pieces.
8. Other hair present
9. Both bed sheets
Brain and uterus preserved.for histopaiho/ogy B
examination in formation.
All articles sealed and handed over to P.S.
Duration of death within 12 to 36 hours since post
mortem examination. "
c
(Emphasis supplied)
Wound marks as recorded in separate sheet annexed with
autopsy report are reproduced below:-
1.Four incised wounds present on the left side
face including lateral part eye lid to the ear D
sizes (1) 11 x I Yi (2) JO x Yi (3) 9 x 0. 75 (4)
(7 x 2) cm all are vertically placed extending
up to forehead left side.
II.Multiple incised wound present on the right
face 11 in (Eleven) number with muscle deep E
size J.5cm x l.Ocm to lxl cm size on upper
lip. Rest on cheek and zygomatic area.
JILContusion present on the right zygomatic part
between 2 incised wound 3.5 x 1.3 cm size
transversely placed. F
IV.Stab wound present on the right side cheek ·
;ust lateral to angle of mouth 3xl. 5cm into
deep tongue skin deep 3.2 cm other smaller
incised on its medical and size 2 x Jcm size
this also deep skin. G
V.In;uries as on the neck. Anterioly 3 x J.0 cm
sizes 2 ·wounds present just lateral to med in
a right side and 2 wounds later mid line on
left side. Wound deep to neck tissue structure
H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 5 S.C.R.
A but anteriorly no large vessel cut of wound
deep to the sub cut to neck tissue all the soft
tissue structure attached to the trachea on
right side shows cut marks. Back of the neck.
Chop wound present on the back mid line
part size 6.9cm x 2.5cm x deep to the vertebral
B
column transversely placed with 2 infliction
overlapping each other mid line size
measured 4.5 c111 wound all the 111uscles and
deep structure injury show cut marks.
VI.2 incised wounds present on the chest 4.0cm
c medical to the left nipple size 3.0 x 1.2cm at
6'" rib other on right side 3. Oc111 lateral to
mid line at 7'" rib size 2.8 x 1.0cm depth to
the bone. Multiple ve1y small and fine linear
large marking wound present on the chest
D O. lcm deep present with varying length.
Vil. Wound on right side upper limb (on the arm)
measuring deep wound 15 x 6 cm size deep
to muscle up to bone but no cut mark (on the
bone) seen. Muscles deep with two other
E injuries 5 x 2 cm and measuring with 3
superficial injury mark.
VJ!lForearm multiple superficial injury longer
size obliquely placed and fine linear type.
(Size not mentioned). At right wrist obliquely
F placed 2 injury 6 x 2 cm deep to bone on
dorsal part 6 x 0.3 cm this also present ...
medial to it. Defence type wound. 3 incised
wound present on right forearm posterior
medial border measuring I x04cm at upper
113"1 part second at lower 113''" part 3.0 x
G 1.0cm and 2.7 x 1.3 cm with oblique slashing
effect. One wound on the dorsal of the thumb
right side 1.2 cm x 0.2 cm skin deep. 5
wounds present 011 the right four finger lOcm
to l.4cm and size width 0.2 to 0.3 cm deep to
H bone and to knuckle contusion also prese/1f.
JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. 611
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]
IX Injurv on le(t upper limb 4 incised wounds A
present on the left upper limb (1) 4x2cm (2)
3.5 x 2.0cm (3)1.5 x l.Ocm and (4) 1 x lcm
size. All are muscle deep. 3 injury present on
the back of the arm (1) 6 x. 3cm (2) 3 x lcm
(3) 2.5 x J.Ocm all deep to muscle. Left
B
forearm anterior middle part 4 x 2cmsize
deep to muscle.
Practically 3.4 amputated part size of the wound
6 x 4. 0 cm. Post mortem On
nature) ........ (illegible)
c
X One stab wound present on the abdomen deep
to cavity 3. 9cm x 2. Ocm and other 6 incised
wounds present on the abdomen varying size
small deep to subcutaneous tissue.
XI.Four incised wounds present on the buttock D
(1) 2 x 1 (2) 3 x 1 !!, (3) 2 x 1 !!, (4) 3 x 1 !!,
cm on right side buttock and below buttock
all deep to muscle.
XII. Two stab wounds present on the thigh femoral
triangle 213 part size of the wound 9.2 x 3.5 E
cm deep to the bone part with slight extension
effect total depth ~f the wound 8. 5 cm all the
tissues and vertical part structure cut wound
... .. in nature object is very sharp. There is
very less and very slight contusion. Direction
of wound is anterior posterior. 2 wounds F
incised measuring 5.2cm meet each other with
overlapping.
XIII.Anteriorly Right thigh post mortem nature
wound 5 x 1 cm deep muscle. An injury of
9.2 cm on right leg at L/3 and middle 113 part G
of leg.
Cutting of both feet with ......... marks of injury
present at foot lower and medial part and left
foot lateral part. Right foot 6 wounds of 11. 00
x 0.5 cm to 1.2 cm size depending upon the depth H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.
A maximum upto 2 ems with cutting of bones.
(Emphasis supplied)
13. PW-15 Dr. N.M. Unda has stated that injury No. IX (in para)
and injmy No. XIII were post mortem in nature. He further opined that
except contusion marks ante mortem and post mortem injuries were
B caused by hard and sharp object. From the autopsy report, quoted above,
read with statement of PW-15 Dr. N .M. Unda, it is clear that the deceased
died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries to the
body. Death of Bhoomi @ Richa was homicidal in nature with twelve
ante mortem injuries mentioned above. PW 15 Dr. Unda has further
c proved reports (Exhibit P-30, P-30A, P-30B, P-30B, P-30C, P-30D and
P-30E) regarding examination made on 25-09-2006 of weapons (knives
and scissors) sent to the M. G. M. Medical College and M. Y. Hospital,
Indore.
14. Antemortem injuries narrated by PW-15 Dr. N .M. Unda clearly
D suggest that the deceased attempted to save herself and resisted the
assault with all her might before her death, and she appears to have
been overpowered by the assailants, and killed brutally.
15. Now we would like to examine the injuries stated to have
been suffered in the incident by co-accused Dhanwantari. PW-27 Dr.
E G. L. Sodhi, CMO, M. Y. Hospital, Indore, has examined the injuries
found on the person ofDhanwantari (co-accused, mother-in-law of the
deceased) on 20.9.2006 and the same are quoted below from Exhibit.P-
50:-
"(i) Healing wound of right thumb pretends of size 1.5
F x 0.2 cm x brownish scab. Transversally placed.
(ii) healing wound over righr index finger over middle
3n1 posterior aspect transversally placed of size 1 x
0.5 cm with brownish scab and palmer aspect
transversally oblique of size . 75 x .5 cm x healing
scab.
G
(iii) Linear healing wound over right ring finger dorsum
aspect middle 3nt of size . 75 x 0.2 cm x brownish
scab.
(iv) Linear healing wound 2 in number parallel
H
JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. 613
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]
obliquely placed of size viz 2 x 0.2 cm and 1. 75 x A
0.2 cm over right cubital region with brownish scab.
(v) Linear healing wound right cubital region 1.5 cm
lateral to injury No. (iv) of size 1 x 0.2 cm with
brownish scab
(vi) Abrasion over back of right shoulder of size 0.5 x
0.2 cm with brownish scab. -
Cause of the injuries could not be opined due to healing
and brownish scab found. Injuries may be caused within
3 to 6 days since examination and injuries are simple in
nature." c
16. There is also report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory,
Rau (Indore) on record. The relevant extract from the report dated 3 1-
10-2006 (Exhibit P-73) regarding presence of blood on the nails of the
three accused is reproduced below:-
D
No.I Packet Found inside here From D'etails of
Mark Exhibit/detail whom/whose tins No .•
Mark seizure dated size,
colour,
distri-
bution
35_ V HB) Nails (04 VJ Memo of
NOS.) accused
.E
Accused
Dhanwanti
from MGM.
Indore
20.09.2016
Swab
(08
V2 -do- ---------
Nails
V3 -do- --------- F
NOS.)
Swab
V4 -do- ----·----
3 6. w Nails (08 w A cc used
Nos.) M anoj.
20,09.2016
---------
37_ WI Nails (08 WI -do-
NOS.) G
---------
38. x Nails (08 x Accused
NOS.) Jam nadas
---------
20.09.2016
39_ XI Nails (08 XI -do- ---------
NOS.)
H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 5 S.C.R.
A It is reported on Ex. P-73 that after Benzedrine/Phenaphthelene
and crystal test on exhibits were done, it was found that on Exhibits VI,
V2, V3 and V4 (i.e. on nails of co-accused Dhanwantari, mother-in-law
of the deceased) blood was found and examination of category and
group of the blood found on these exhibits was done; and on Exhibits W,
WI, X, and X 1 (i.e. on nails of the appellants) blood was not found.
8
17. On the basis of above finding, learned counsel for the appellants
argued that unlike the finding against Dhanwantari (mother-in-law of
the deceased), it is clear that there is no adverse finqing as against the
present appellants. It is also pointed out that from the post mortem
report Ex. P-27, the incident appears to have taken place sometime
c during the day, and natural presence of the appellants at that point of
time was at the place of their work, which also reflects from the statement
of DW-1 Parmanand Sharma, who told that the appellants were in. the
shop on 16-09-2006 from 9:30 a.m. till 7:30 p.m. It is further submitted
that witnesses PW-I Mukesh Jayswal, PW-3 Narayana, PW-4 Udhvdass
D and PW-5 Manohar alias Mannu have stated that it was a woman who
was seen taking a bundle and threw the same near Sevaram Gilani Garden,
situated near Patel nagar, Indore, but there is nothing in their evidence
as against the present appellants.
18. We have considered the above submissions in the light of
E evidence on the record, and the law laid down by this Court appiica':>le to
such cases. Undoubtedly, it is a case of circumstantial evidence. In
Sh~rad Bitdhic/1and Sarda v. State of Maliaraslitra1, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court has laid down the law as to when in a case of
circumstantial evidence charge can be said to have been established.
Five points enumerated in said case are summarized as under: -
F
(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
drawn should be fully established. 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"
is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions;
G
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty;
1 (1984) 4 sec 116
H
JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. 615
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.)
(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature A
and tendency;
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved; and
(v) There must be a chain of eyidence so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent B
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in
all human proba~ility the act must have been do~e by the
accused.
19. On behalf of the appellants, it is submitted that the accused
has a right to silence and no adverse inference can be drawn from his c
silence as to the cause of death of the deceased. In this connection,
reliance is placed on paragraph 141 of Se/vi anti otlters v. State of
Karnataka 1, which reads as under: -
"141. At th is juncture, it must be reiterated that Indian law
incorporates the "rule against adverse inferences from D
silence" which is operative at the trial stage. As mentioned
earlier, this position is embodied in a conjunctive reading of
Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Sections 161(2),313(3)
and proviso (b) of Section 315(1) CrPC. The gist of this
position is that even though an accused is a competent E
witness in his/her own trial, he/she cannot be compelled to
answer questions that could expose him/her to incrimination
and the trial Judge cannot draw adverse inferences from
the refusal to do so. This position is cemented by prohibiting
any of the parties from commenting on the failure of the
accused to give evidence. This rule was lucidly explained F
in the English case of Wool111i11gto11 v. Director of Public
Prosecutions (1935 AC 462 : 1935 All ER Rep I (HL)),
AC at p. 481:
"The 'right to silence' is a principle of common law and it
means that normally courts or tribunals of fact should not G
be invited or encouraged to conclude, by parties or
prosecutors, that a suspect or an accused is guilty merely
because he has refused to respond to questions put to him
'(2010) 1 sec 263
H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.
A by the police or by the Court."
Above observations are made by this Court in an answer to the
legal question raised in the batch of criminal appeals relating to the
involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques, namely,
narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation
B Profile (BEAP) test for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in
criminal cases. In the present case facts and circumstances are different.
The above referred case, in our opinion, is of little help to the appellants
in the present case.
20. In State of W.B. v. Mir Mollammad Omar and otllers-1, this
c Court, while interpreting the burden of extent of proof on prosecution,
observed as under: -
"31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be
taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process
D of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not
alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of
the rule. On the other hand, ifthe traditional rule relating to
burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped
in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences
would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be
E the casualty.
xxx xxx xxx
36. In this context we may profitably utilise the legal principle
embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act which reads
as follows: "When any fact is especially within the
knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is
upon him."
37. The section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of
its burden to prove the guilt ofthe accused beyond reasonable
doubt. But the section would apply to cases where the
G
prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a
·reasonable inference can be draWll regarding the existence
of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his ·--
special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any
' <2000) s sec 382
H
JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. 617
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]
explanation which might drive the court to draw a different A
inference."
21. Shri S.K. Jain, learned senior counsel, on behalf of the appellants
drew our attention to the case of Tomaso Bruno and another v. State
ofUttar Pradesh 4, and argued that to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence
Act the prosecution must have proved presence of the appellants in B
their house at the time of the incident. We have carefully gone through
the case cited before us. It was a case where CCTV footage of the
hotel was available but not produced to show the presence of the accused
in the hotel and, as such, the plea of alibi that the accused had gone to
witness "Subah-e-Bararas" from the hotel was accepted. The present
case relates to a different kind of incident where a bride has been brutally c
murdered inside the house and her body, after cutting into pieces, was
thrown in the park.
22. In Trimuk/1 Maroti Kirkan v. State ofMaliaras/1tra-', which
is a case similar in nature to the present one, this Court has held as
under:- D
"15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy
inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would
undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and
amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge
cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases E
of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a
comparatively lighter character. In view of Section I 06 of
the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on
the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to
how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house
cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no F
explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to
establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there
is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation."
23. Now we come to the plea of alibi taken by the appellants that
they were in the shop at the time of the incident. On behalf of the G
appellants reliance has been placed on the case of Narendra Singh
and another v. State of M.P. 6, in which it has been held that even in a -
• (2015) 1 sec 178
'(2006) 10 sec 681
• (2004) 10 sec 699 H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.
A case where a plea of alibi is raised, the burden of proof remains on the
prosecution, and it has been further observed that presumption of
innocence is a human right.
24. In response to above Shri C.D. Singh, learned counsel for the
State of Madhya Pradesh has referred to the case of Sureslt and another
B v. State ofHaryana 7, wherein, discussing the issue in paragraph 19,
this Court observed: -
"9 ............ No doubt, the burden of proof is on the
prosecution and Section l 06 is not meant to relieve it of
that duty but the said provision is attracted when it is
c impossible or it is proportionately difficult for the prosecution
to establish facts which are strictly within the knowledge
of the accused ...... "
25. Undoubtedly, as proved on the record in the present case the
deceaseci was murdered inside the house and her body was thrown in
D the park, and was not missing from the house after going to her relative's
place, as pleaded by the appellants in their statements under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They have taken a blatant false
plea.
26. In Ku/deep Singlt and-otlters v. State of Rajastlian", in
paragraph 18 a three-Judge Bench of th is Court has held that in a case
E
of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and
that explanation is found to be untrue, then the same offers an additional
link in the chain of circumstances, to complete the chain.
27. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Rumi Bora Dutta
v. State of Assam9 , wherein it has been accepted that a false answer.
F
offered by the accused when his attention is drawn to the circumstances,
it renders a circumstance to be of inculpating nature, i.e. in such a situation
a false answer can also be counted as providing a missing link for
completing the chain.
28. In an answer to above, the appellants have placed reliance on
G
Rajkumar v. State of M.P. 10, wherein it has been held that mere false
plea does not absolve the prosecution of burden to connect the accused
'<2015) 2 sec 221
' (2000J s sec 1
'(2013) 1sec417
10
(2004) 12 sec 11
H
JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. 619
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]
with the crime. On careful reading of the case referred to above, we A
find that it was a case where two views were possible, and the trial
· court took the view that charge cannot be said to have been proved, but
the High Court reversed it. In the case at hand there is consistent view
taken by both the courts below that the appellants had acted in common
intention with co-accused Dhanwantari in commission of murder of the
B
deceased.
29. Defence version of the appellants in the present case is that
appellant Jamnadas is a businessman having his shop at 5/2, Murai
Mohalla, Sanyogitaganj, Indore. His working hours at the shop were
from 9 a.m. till 8-9 p.m. It is contended that it is the usual practice for
the sl.opkeepers in parts of Northern India to have lunch at their shops
c
and that the appellants did not come to their residence for lunch. It is
further pleaded that on the date of incident, i.e. 16.9.2006, at about 7.30
p.m. appellant Jamnadas was in his shop along with appellant Manoj and
younger son Vishal when he got a .telephone call from his wife
(Dhanwantari) who was at home and got information that Richa @ D
Bhoomi (deceased) had gone to her relative's place and did not return
home. On hearing this, Jamnadas with both his sons came home and
launched a search for his daughter-in-law. It is further pleaded that on
16.9.2006 till 9 p.m., when Richa@ Bhoomi did not return home,
Jamnadas along with his two sons went to the police station for lodging
missing report. At about 10 p.m. Jamnadas 's wife Dhanwantari and E
their minor daughter Reena@ Madhuri also came to the police station
and that thereafter, the police illegally detained them for 3 days without
formnlly arresting them. But this defence story get completely belied as
prosecution has proved to the hilt that Bhoomi@ Richa was murdered
inside the appellants' house, and there was no question of her going to F
her relative's place or missing.
30. The chain of circumstances proved on the record against the
appellants is as under: -
(i) It is established that Bhoomi@ Richa (deceased) was
living in the house of the appellants, after her marriage G
on 16.04.2006 with appellant Manoj.
(ii) It is also established beyond reasonable doubt that death
of the deceased was homicidal in nature which occurred
on 16.09.2006.
H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.
A (iii) It is also established that the deceased was murdered
in the house of the appellants where blood stains were
found.
(iv) It is also conclusively established that after commission ·
of murder, the body of the deceased was cut into two
B pieces.
(v) It is further proved that the dead body was thrown in
the park by Dhanwantari (mother-in-law of deceased)
who was seen doing so by PW I to PW 5.
(vi) Perusal of the number of anti mortem and post mortem
c injuries mentioned in autopsy report read with statement
of PW 15 Dr. N.M. Unda establish beyond reasonable
doubt that the crime could not have been committed by
one person alone.
(vii) There were in all five members in the family excluding
D the deceased - three male members (Jamnadas father-
in-law, Manoj - Husband and Vishal brother-in-law of
the deceased) and two female members (Dhanwantari
mother-in-law and Heena @ Madhuri minor sister-in-
., law).
E (viii) PW 32 Heena@Madhuri (minor daughter of appellant
no. I) was too young. She was a student of class VIII
when her statement was recorded during trial and she
has stated that she had gone to school on the day of
incident and after her return she slept. (This witness
F was declared hostile as she did not fully support the
prosecution case). It is nobody's case that she had any
role in commission ofthe crime. This leaves four accused
named in the chargesheet, out of whom Vishal, brother-
in-law, was acquitted by the trial court (Rather discharged
in respect of offence of murder). His acquittal is upheld
G by the High Cow:t, and nobody has challenged the same.
The remaining three in the field are Dhanwantari
(mother-in-law) and the appellants.
(ix) The appellants have failed to disclose as to how deceased
has died which was especially within their knowledge.
H
JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. 621
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]
(x) It is nobody's case that any outsider came in the house. A
(xi) There is no report lodged to police by the appellants
regarding homicidal death of the deceased who was wife
of appellant Manoj and daughter-in-law of appellant
Jamnadas as discussed above.
(xii) False explanation has been given by the appellants in B
their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the
deceased had gone to her relative's place and that she
was missing which is an additional link on the record
against them, in the chain of circumstances.
31. The above chain of circumstances against the appellants is c
complete, and the defence theory that they were in the shop cannot be
accepted. Therefore, having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record,
we concur with the courts below that appellants Jamnadas and Manoj
had common intention with Dhanwantari in commission of brutal murder
of Bhoomi @ Richa. It is not a fit case where impugned order requires D
any interference.
.-·
32. For the reasons, as discussed above, th!'lse appeals are liable
to be dismissed, and the same are accordingly dismissed.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed. E
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