MANNU SAOversusSTATE OF BIHAR

                     [2010] 8 S.C.R. 811


                        MANNU SAO                                  A
                               v.
                     STATE OF BIHAR
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1165 of 2009)

                        JULY 22, 2010
                                                                   B
 [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN- AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 201 - Murder- Causing
disappearance of evidence of offence - Accused's case that
he found his wife lying in burnt condition and thereafter, she     C
expired - Conviction and sentence ulss. 302 and 201 by
courts below - Interference with - Held: Not called for- In the
case of circumstantial evidence, besides the entire
prosecution case, the statement made by accused u/s. 313
Cr.P. C. can be important - Accused admitted in clear terms        D
that deceased was his wife and she died of burn injuries -
However, stated that she committed suicide by burning herself
- Accused a/so stated that victim was still alive and her burnt
body was lying outside the cabin - He sought help of a
person to take victim to the doctor but the person was not         E
examined nor his name referred in the statement u/s. 313 -
Medical evidence that death was caused by strangulating and
then the body was burnt - Motive suggested by prosecution
reasonable - Also it is difficult to believe that a person would
commit suicide without any provocation or incident                 F
immediately preceding the occurrence - Circumstances
proved by prosecution are of a conclusive nature - Evidence
- Criminal law - Motive.

     Code of Criminal Procedure, 197"3:s.313 - Essential
features of -Explained.                                            G

    According to the prosecution case, the appellant
lodged a report in the police station that he was living
with his wife-BO in his cabin. On the fateful day, the
                             811                                   H
    812      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A appellant found BO lying in serious burnt condition in
  front of his cabin. The appellant sought help of BB to take
  BO to the doctor. Howev~r, BO expired. PW 3-doctor
  conducted the postmortem. He opined that BO expired
  on account of throttling and ante-mortem injuries and
B thereafter burn injuries were caused. Thereupon a case
  for offences punishable u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC was
  registered. The trial court convicted the appellant u/ss.
  302 and 201 IPC. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment
  for life u/s. 302 IPC and three years rigorous
c imprisonment u/s. 201 IPC. The liigh Court upheld the
  order of the trial court. Therefore, the accused filed the
  instant appeal.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

D      HELD: 1.1. It is a case of circumstantial evidence as
  there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. An accused
  can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of
  circumstantial evidence, provided, the prosecution is able
  to prove beyond reasonable doubt, complete chain of
E events and circumstances which definitely points
  towards the involvement and guilt of the suspect or
  accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be
  entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye-
  witness to the case. An accused can be convicted on the
F basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction
  of accepted principles in that regard. [Para 3) [821-B-C]

          Sharad v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622,
    referred to.

G      1.2. It is not a circumstance or some of the
  circumstances which by itself, would assist the court to
  base a conviction, but all circumstances put forth against
  the accused once are established beyond reasonable
  doubt then conviction must follow and all inordinate
H circumstances would be used for corroborating the case
          MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR                    813


of the prosecution. It is of similar significance for the       A
court to examine whether the requirements to be
established in a case of circumstantial evidence are
satisfied in the case before it or not. The cases of
circumstantial evidence have to be dealt with greater care
and by microscopic examination of the documentary and           8
oral evidence on record. It is then alone that the court will
be in a position to arrive at a conclusion upon proper
analysis of the evidence in relation to the ingredients of
an offence. [Paras 6 and 7] [823-G-H; 824-A-C]

     Anant Lagu v. State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 500;
                                                                c
Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa AIR 2003 SC 3915,
referred to.
     2.1. In the case of circumstantial evidence,
particularly, besides the entire case of the prosecution,       D
even the statement of the accused made under section
313 of Cr.P.C. can be of substantial help. The object of
recording the statement of the accused under section 313
of the Code is to put all incriminating evidence against
the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to              E
explain such incriminating circumstances appearing
against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the
same time, also to permit him to put forward his own
version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his
involvement or otherwise in the crime. The court has
                                                                F
been empowered to examine the accused but only after
the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a
mandatory obligation upon the court and besides
ensuring the compliance thereof the court has to keep in
mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his
conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain           G
silence coupled with simpliciter denial or in the
alternative to explain his version and. reasons, for his
alleged involvement in the commission of crime. This is
the statement which the accused makes without fear or
right of the other party to cross-examine him. However,         H
   814     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [201 OJ 8 S.C.R.


A if the statements made are false, the court is entitled to
  draw adverse inferences and pass consequential orders,
  as may be called for, in accordance with law. The primary
  purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the
  court and the accused and to put to the accused every
B important incriminating piece of evidence and grant him
  an opportunity to answer and explain. [Paras 7 and 8]
  [824-A-H; 825-A-B]
       2.2. The statement of the accused can be used to test
  the veracity of the exculpatory nature of the admission,
C if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into
  consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not
  strictly evidence in the case. The provisions of Section
  313 (4) explicitly provide that the answers given by the
  accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry
D or trial and put as evidence against the accused in any
  other enquiry or trial for any other offence for which such
  answers may tend to show he has committed. In other
  words, the use is permissible as per the provisions of the
  Code but has its own limitations. Courts may rely on a
E portion of the statement of the accused and find him
  guilty in consideration of the other evidence .against him
   led by the prosecution; however, such statements made
  under this Section should not be considered in isolation
   but in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the
F prosecution. Another important caution that courts have
   declared in the pronouncements is that conviction of the
   accused cannot be based merely on the statement made
   under Section 313 of the Code as it cannot be regarded
   as a substantive piece of evidence. The statement made
G by the accused is capable of being used in the trial
   though to a limited extent. But the law also places an
   obligation upon the court to take into consideration the
   stand of the accused in his statement and consider the
   same objectively and in its entirety. [Paras 8 and 10] [825-
H 8-F; 827-D-E]
          MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR                    815

    Vijendrajit Ayodhya Prasad Goel v State of Bombay AIR       A
1953 SC 247; Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12
SCC 341; Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya
Bharat AIR 1953 SC 468, referred to.

     3.1. It is clear that the appellant did not dispute the
                                                                B
factum of the deceased being his wife and she had died
because of burn injuries. However, his version was that
she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her and
burning herself. While according to the prosecution
primarily relying upon the statement of PW3-doctor, it          C
was a case of causing death of the deceased by
strangulating and then burning the body of the
deceased. Even the trial court noticed and discussed
these facts. The findings of facts and appreciation of
evidence by the trial court was not interfered by the High
Court and, in fact, it recorded its concurrence by              D
reiterating these findings. [Paras 12 and 15] [828-C~E;
831-G]

     3.2. Some emphasis was placed on the fact that PW-
2 a co-villager, in his evidence, stated that he did not know   E
about the occurrence and had signed on the report at the
behest of the Investigating Officer. The accused could
hardly derive any advantage from this because this
witness was to primarily prove the death of the deceased
after she had been burnt. Even according to the                 F
prosecution he was not an eye-witness and there was
nothing much which he woltld contradict, as the
prosecution had mainly relied upon the statement of PW3
and PW4. [Para 16] [831-H; 832-A-B]

     3.3. PW3-doctor, who had performed the postmort~m          G
upon the deceased's body, wrote that deceased was
killed by throttling or strangulating and thereafter she
suffered the burn injuries. In the cross-examination of
PW-3, nothing material could be pointed out which would
                                                                H
    816    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A help the case of the accused. The accused admitted that
  the deceased was his wife and was living with him in the
  cabin. On the basis of the record, the High Court also
  noticed the fact that deceased had separated from her
  earlier husband and was living with the accused who
B was also staying away from his family. The villagers
  objected to the accused living with the deceased in that
  manner. In these circumstances, the onus to explain the
  cause of death of the deceased was upon the husband.
  He offered an explanation that she had committed suicide
c by burning herself but this explanation has been
  disbelieved. The husband on his own stated that when
  he noticed that the deceased was still alive and her burnt
  body was lying just outside their cabin in the chilly
  plantation, he took the help of BB. He neither referred the
  name of BB in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC.
0
  nor did he examine him as a witness. In the normal
  course, thus, it will have to be presumed that if this
  witness was produced and examined in court, he might
  have spoken the truth which was not suitable or
  favourable to the accused. For reasons best known and
E which remained unexplained, BB was not examined
  though the accused, in his statement under section 313
  of Cr.P.C. in answer to the last question, stated that he
  was innocent and would give in writing wflatever he
  wanted to say. Despite this, no defence was led by the
F appellant. [Para 16] [831-H; 832-A-H]

       3.4. PW1 stated in his examination-in-chief that the
  tube well of the accused was located north of his 'khalian'
  in village M and that the deceased was living with the
G accused and when about 10.00 A.M. on the date of
  occurrence, he had gone there, he saw the deceased in
  a burnt condition. According to him, the police came and
  prepared an inquest report which was signed by him. The
  statement of PW 1 is that of the truthful witness and he
H
          MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR                    817


did not try to add or subtract anything in his statement        A
what he stated before the police during investigation. In
face of his statement, the relevancy of PW2 being
declared hostile is hardly of any consequence. Strangely,
even to PW 1 a question was not posed in his cross
examination that one BB was present at the site from            B
whom the accused had sought help to take the deceased
to the hospital. [Para 16] [832-H; 833-A-C]

    3.5. The evidence of PW 3-doctor that death was due
to xphyxia, shock and hemorrhage as a result of                 C
throttling and the injuries stated, clearly satisfies the
conditions in a case of circumstantial evidence. The
circumstances proved by the prosecution are of a
conclusive nature and they do exclude the possibility of
any other view which could be taken rationally and
reasonably. The fact of the matter is that the deceased         D
died while living with the appellant and he ought to
explain his conduct and he was expected to render some
explanation which was reasonably possible in the facts
and circumstances of the case in regard to cause of her
death. [Paras 17 and 18] [833-G-H]                              E

     4. The motive is not absolutely essential to be
established for securing conviction of an accused who
committed the offence, provided the prosecution was
able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. In
the instant case, the deceased left her earlier husband
and was living with the appellant, who was also staying
away from his family in the cabin in his agricultural fields,
where that incident occurred. There was definite protest
raised by the villagers to their living together. The           G
statement of PW4 is relevant. Even the medical evidence
showed that the deceased was strangulated or throttled
before her body was burnt. The social embarrassment
could be a plausible motive for the appellant to commit
the crime. Furthermore, the appellant took an incorrect,
                                                                H
    818      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 8 S.C.R..


A if not a false stand before the court that the incident
  occurred in his absence. His conduct in naming BB from
  whom he sought help to take the deceased to the
  hospital also does not appear to be correct. The appellant
  made no effort whatsoever to examine any witness to
B establish the fact. He admitted that the deceased died in
  front of his eyes and he did nothing except reporting the
  matter to the police at a subsequent stage. The motive
  suggested by the prosecution appears to be reasonable
  and is in consonance with the behaviour of a person
c placed in a situation like the appellant and it is also
  difficult to believe that a person would commit suicide
  without any provocation or incident i~mediately
  preceding the occurrence. Both the courts rightly
  disbelieved the explanation rendered by .the appellant
  and there is no reason to take a different view. [Para 19)
0
  [834-D-H; 835-B-H]

          Bhimapa Chandappa Hosamani v. State of Karnataka
    (2006) 1.1 sec 323, referred to.

E       5. There is no infirmity in law or otherwise in the
    judgment. The finding of guilt as well as the order of
    sentence also does ·not call for any interference. [Para 20)
    [835-D]
                        Case Law Reference:
F
          AIR 1984 SC 1622       Referred to.         Para 5

          AIR 1960 SC 500        Referred to.         Para 5
          AIR 2003 SC 3915       Referred to.         Para 6
G                                Referred to.         Para 8
          AIR 1953 SC 247
          c2001) 12 sec 341      Referred to.         Para 9

          AIR 1953 SC 468        Referred to.         Para 10

H         c2006) 11 sec 323      Referred to.         Para 18
           MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR                        819


    CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal               A
No. 1165 of 2009.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2008 of the
High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 62
of 1988.
                                                                     B
    A.K. Srivastav and Sanjay Verma (for Ambhoj Kumar
Sinha) for the Appellant.

     Chandan Kumar (for Gopal Singh) for the Respondent

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                     c
     SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. On 14th December, 1985
at about 11.00 A.M. a fardbeyan was recorded by Sub-
Inspector of the Police Station, Nalanda at the behest of Manu
Sao who informed that he is living with his wife Bimla Devi in       D
his cabin at his agricultural lands in village Mohanpur. He was
carrying on agricultural activity as he was possessed of
agricultural land. On that very date at about 9.00 A.M., he had
gone over to Nalanda for some personal work and after he
returned to his cabin at about 10.00 A.M., he found his wife         E
Bimla Devi lying in burnt condition in amidst chilly plantation in
front of his cabin. There were serious burn injuries on her body,
however, Manu Sau found her somewhat alive at that time and
he asked one Bhola Babu for help to take her to a doctor for
treatment. By the time, she could be lifted to be taken for          F
treatment, she died. In tf!lese circumstances, while he was
planning to go to the police station, the Sub-Inspector Hirdya
Narain Singh came there who was subsequently examined as
PW4. The Investigating Officer started the inquest proceedings
and the dead body was sent for postmortem to Sadar Hospital,         G
Biharsharif. The postmortem was conducted and the report
Ex.4 was prepared on 14th December, 1985. It was noticed
that she had suffered from burn injuries, both her eyes were
closed and the tongue was protruding. Keeping in view the
postmortem report, the Investigating Officer had a suspicion in      H
   820      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 8 ~.C.R.


A mind and thereafter an FIR was recorded with reference to the
  postmortem report, it was found that Simla Devi had died on
  account of throttling and ante-mortem injuries and, with an
  intention to cause disappearance of evidence, the body was
  burnt. The F.l.R. was Ext.5 and a case under Section 302 and
B 201 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC')
  was registered. The suspect of commission of this crime was
  found to be Mannu Sao himself, the appellant herein. The
  Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses
  including that of the doctor and presented the charge-sheet
c before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The appellant was
  charged with both the afore-stated offences. He pleaded
  innocence and was subjected to trial. The prosecution only
  examined four witnesses PW1 and PW2 co-villagers, PW3 Dr.
   Sidhu Bhushan Singh and PW4 Hirdya Narain Singh,
D Investigating Officer. The learned Trial Court, vide its judgment
  dated 21st December, 1987, convicted the accused for both
  the offences and awarded the punishment rigorous
   imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC and three years
   rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC. Both the
   sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This judgment of
E the Trial Court was challenged before the High Court of Patna,
   though unsuccessfully. The High Court concurred with the
   finding of facts recorded by the Court and it sustained the
   finding of guilt as well as order of sentence awarded by the Trail
   Court. Vide judgment of the High Court dated 11th September,
F 2008 thus giving rise to the present appeal.

       2. While impugning the judgment under appeal, the
  contention raised before us is that the case being that of
  circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has not established
G complete chain of events and circumstances leading to the
  commission of the crime and involvement of the appellant. It
  was further contended that there was no motive as to why the
  appellant should have committed the crime and lastly, that it was
  a clear case of suicide by the deceased and there was no
H material evidence on record to arrive at the conclusion stated
            MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR                         821
               [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
 in the judgments under appeal.                                        A

        3. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case
  of circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness to the
  occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that an accused can
· be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial    B
  evidence, provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond
  reasonable doubt, complete chain of events and circumstances
  which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the
  suspect or aGcused, as the case may be. The accused will not
  be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye-witness      C
  to the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be
  convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to
  satisfaction of accepted principles in that regard.

    4. Three Judge Bench in the case of Sharad v. State of
 Maharashtra, [AIR 1984 SC 1622] held as under:                        D

     "152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High
     Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature,
     character and essential proof required in a criminal case
     which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most            E
     fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant
     v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1 • This case has been
     uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large
     number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the
     cases of Tufai/ (alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
     and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra. It may be useful
                                                                       F
     to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant
     case:

     "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence
     is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which       G
     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            H
    822       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A         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
B         that within all human probability the act must have been
          done by the accused."

          153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
          following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against
          an accused can be said to be fully established:
c
          ( 1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
          to be drawn should be fully established.

          It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
D         circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may
          be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
          distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or
          should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji
          Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the
          observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC
E
          (Cri) p. 1047]

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

          (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
          the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
G         they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
          except that the accused is guilty, ·

          (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
          tendency,

H         (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
           MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR                        823
              [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
     the one to be proved, and                                       A

     (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
     to leave any reasonable ground for the conclus.ion
     consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
     show that in all human probability the act must have been
                                                                     B
     done by the accused.

     154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
     constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
     circumstantial evidence."
                                                                     c
      5. In the cases of circumstantial evidence, this Court has
even held accused guilty where the medical evidence did not
support the case of the prosecution. In Anant Lagu v. State of
Bombay [AIR 1960 SC 500] where the deceased died of
poisoning, the Court held that as there were various factors         D
which militate against a successful isolation of the poison and
its recognition. It further noticed that while circumstances often
speak with unerring certainty, the autopsy and the chemical
analysis taken by them may be most misleading. No doubt, due
weightage must be given to the negative findings at such
                                                                     E
examination which .the man of medicine performs and the
limitations under which he works, his failure should not be taken
as an end of the case, for on good and probative circumstances
an irresistible inference of guilt can be drawn.

     6. Similar view was taken by a Bench of this Court in the       F
case of Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa, [AIR 2003 SC
3915], where in a case of circumstantial evidence the Court
even confirmed the death sentence as being rarest of rare
cases. The Court clearly held that it is not a circumstance or
some of the circumstances which by itself, would assist the          G
Court to base a conviction but all circumstances put forth against
the accused once are established beyond reasonable doubt
then conviction must follow and all the inordinate circumstances
would be used for corroborating the case of the prosecution.
                                                                     H
    824     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A        7. It is of similar significance for the Court to examine
    whether the requirements to be established in a case of
    circumstantial evidence are satisfied in the case before it or
    not. The cases of circumstantial evidence have to be dealt with
    greater care and by microscopic examination of the
s   documentary and oral evidence on record. It is then alone that
    the Court will be in a position to arrive at a conclusion upon
    proper analysis of the evidence in relation to the ingredients of
    an offence. In the case of circumstantial evidence, particularly,
    besides the entire case of the prosecution, even the statement
c   of the accused made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. can be of
    substantial help.

         8. Let us examine the essential features of this Section 313
    Cr.P.C. and the principles of law as enunciated by judgments,
    which are the guiding factors for proper application and
D   consequences which shall flow from the provisions of Section
    313 of the Code. As already noticed, the object of recording
    the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code
    is to put all incriminating evidence against the accused so as
    to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating
E   circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the
    prosecution. At the same time, also to permit him to put forward
    his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his
    involvement or otherwise in the crime. The Court has been           1



    empowered to examine the accused but only after the
F   prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory
    obligation upon the Court and besides ensuring the compliance
    thereof the Cour1 has to keep in mind that the accused gets a
    fair chance to explain his conduct. The option lies with the
    accused to maintain silence coupled with simplicitor denial or
G   in the alternative to explain his version and reasons, for his
    alleged involvement in the commission of crime. This is the
    statement which the accused makes without fear or right of the
    other party to cross-examine him. However, if the statements
    made are false, the Court is entitled to draw adverse inferences
H   and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in
           MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR                          825
              [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
accordance with law. The primary purpose is to establish a              A
direct dialogue between the Court and the accused and to put
to the accused every important incriminating piece of evidence
and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain. Once such
a statement is recorded, the next question that has to be
considered by the Court is to what extent and consequences              B
such statement can be used during the enquiry and the trial.
Over the period of time, the Courts have explained this concept
and now it has attained, more or Jess, certainty in the field of
criminal jurisprudence. The statement of the accused can be
used to test the veracity of the exculpatory nature of the              c
admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into
consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not strictly
evidence in the case. The provisions of Section 313 (4)
explicitly provides that the answers given by the accused may
be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial and put as
                                                                        0
evidence against the accused in any other enquiry or trial for
any other offence for which such answers may tend to show he
has committed. In other words, the use is permissible as per
the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations. The
Courts may rely on a portion of the statement of the accused
                                                                        E
and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against
him led by the prosecution, however, such statements made
under this Section should not be considered in isolation but in
conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution. Another
important caution that Courts have declared in the
pronouncements is that conviction of the accused cannot be              F
based merely on the statement made under Section 313 of the
Code as it cannot be regarded as a substantive piece of
evidence. In the case of Vijendrajit Ayodhya Prasad Goel v
State of Bombay, [AIR 1953 SC 247], the Court held as under:
                                                                        G
    "3 ........ As the appellant admitted that he was in charge
    of the godown, further evidence was not led on the point.
    The Magistrate was in this situation fully justified in referring
    to the statement of the accused under Section 342 as
    supporting the prosecution case concerning the                      H
    826       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A         possession of the godown. The contention that the
          Magistrate made use of the inculpatory part of the
          accused's statement and excluded the exculpatory part
          does not seem to be correct. The statement under Section
          342 did not consist of two portions, part inculpatory and
s         part exculpatory. It concerned itself with two facts. The
          accused admitted that he was in charge of the godown,
          he denied that the rectified spirit was found in that godown.
          He alleged that the rectified spirit was found outside it. This
          part of his statement was proved untrue by the prosecution
c         evidence and had no intimate connection with the
          statement concerning the possession of the godown."

      9. On similar lines reference can be made in quite a recent
  judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay Singh v. State of
  Maharashtra, [(2007) 12 SCC 341] where the Court held as
D under:

          "11. So far as the prosecution case that kerosene was
          found on the accused's dress is concerned, it is to be
          noted that no question in this regard was put to the
E         accused while he was examined under Section 313 of the
          Code.

          12. The purpose of Section 313 of the Code is set out in
          its opening words - "for the purpose of enabling the
          accused personally to explain any circumstances
F         appearing in the evidence against him". In Hate Singh
          Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat it has been laid
          down by Bose, J. (AIR p. 469, para 8) that the statements
          of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the
          Code "are among the most important matters to be
G         considered at the trial". It was pointed out that:

          "8 ... The statements of the accused recorded by the
          committing Magistrates and the Sessions Judge are
          intended in India to take the place of what in England and
H         in America he would be free to state in his own way in the
           MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR                       827
              [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
     witness box [and that] they have to be received in             A
     evidence and treated as evidence and be duly considered
     at the trial."

     This position remains unaltered even after the insertion of
     Section 315 in the Code and any statement under Section
                                                                    B
     313 has to be considered in the same way as if Section
     315 is not there.

    13. The object of examination under this section is to give
    the accused an opportunity to explain the case made
    against him. This statement can be taken into                   c
    consideration in judging his innocence or guilt. Where there
    is an onus on the accused to discharge, it depends on the
    facts and circumstances of the case if such statement
    discharges the onus."
                                                                    D
     10. The statement made by the accused is capable of
being used in the trial though to a limited extent. But the law
also places an obligation upon the Court to take into
consideration the stand of the accused in his statement and
consider the same objectively and in its entirety. This principle
                                                                    E
of law has been stated by this Court in the case of Hate Singh
Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat [AIR 1953 SC 468].

      11. Let us now examine the relevant part of the statement
made by the accused under Section 313 of the Code as it
would to some extent narrow the controversy before the Court.       F
The appellant had clearly and in unambiguous terms admitted
that the deceased was his wife and she died of burn injuries.
The questions put to the accused were very few and the two
important questions which were put to the accused by the Court
and his answers read as under:                                      G

    "Question:- It is the case of the prosecution that after
    committing murder you in order to disappear the evidence
    of the murder set the dead body on fire and also tried to
    disappear the same to screen yourself from punishment.
                                                                    H
    828      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A         Ans:- No.

          Question:- You had stated in the information that your wife
          Bimla Devi had died being burnt due to fire. In postmortem
          examination it has beeri found that her death has been
          caused by throttling her neck. What have you to say?
B
          Ans:- I had given information to the police regarding
          burning. She has not been murdered. Her death has been
          caused due to throttling her neck is wrong."

c       12. As already noticed from the above answers, it is clear
  that the appellant does not dispute the factum of the deceased
  being his wife and had died because of burn injuries. However,
  his version is that she committed a suicide by pouring kerosene
  on her and burning herself. While according to the prosecution
D primarily relying upon the statement of PW3, it was a case of
  causing death of the deceased by strangulating and then
  burning the body of the deceased. Even the learned Trial Court
  had noticed and discussed these facts and as well as noticed
  the admission and argument of the learned Counsel appearing
E for the accused before that Court. It will be useful to refer to
  those findings in paragraph 8 and 9 of the Trial Court
  Judgment:-

          "8. This case is based on circumstantial evidence as there
          is no eye witness of the occurrence, which had taken place
F         in the cabin belonging to the accused. So far the
          occurrence is concerned, the stand of the accused had
          been in the beginning that his wife Bimla Devi had
          committed suicide during his absence by sprinkling K.Oil.
          Before I proceed to discuss the evidence brought on the
G         record by the prosecution as well as the circumstances, I
          find it necessary in the outset to mention some of the facts
          which are not denied nor disputed in this case. The learned
          defence counsel has not disputed the fact that the
          deceased, Bimla Devi was the wife (concubine) of the
H
           MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR                        829
              [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
     accused, Manu Sao, and that the accused was living with         A
     her in his cabin at village Mohanpur. It is also not disputed
     that the woman had died and had burnt injury on her
     person. U.D. case on the statement of Manu Sao as
     informant, was institute which was converted into a case
     under section 302/301 l.P.C. on the written. report of the      B
     officer-in-charge on the receipt of the post-mortem report
     (Ext.2) on the dead body of Bimla Devi.

     9. From Ext.6, it appears that the officer-in-charge, P.W.4,
     had gone to the place of occurrence on hearing rumour           C
     after making station diary entry regarding a woman lying
     burnt at village Mohanpur near the cabin of the accused.
     P.W.4 Hirdya Narain Singh, the officer-in-charge, who had
     gone to the place of occurrence had found the dead body
     of a woman lying in a chilly field near the cabin of the
     informant and she had burnt injury. Manu Sao, accused,          D
     had maintained that till 9.30 A.M. and when he returned at
     10.30 A.M. he found his wife Bimla Devi lying burnt in a
     chili field near his cabin and had also seen trace of K. oil.
     extending from well near the cabin up to the door of the
     cabin ........ "                                                E

    13. In light of the above undisputed position, now let us
proceed to examine whether complete chain of events has
been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
                                                                     F
     14. This aspect of the case wa~ also squarely dealt with
by the learned Trial Court which had the benefit of recording
the entire evidence noticed the demeanour and conduct of the
witnesses as well as the expert witnesses satisfactorily. In para
19 and 20, these circumstances have been noticed by the Trial
Court in an appropriate manner. We may refer to them:                G

    "19. It is true that there is no eye witness account but there
    are circumstances which ·prove beyond 'doubt that the
    accused had killed his wife and in order to escape
    punishment and in order to disappear the evidence of             H
    830         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010) 8 S.C.R.


A         death set fire to the dead body and gave out that his wife
          committed suicide by burning in between 9 A.M. to 10.30
          A.M. on 14.12.1985.

          20. The following circumstances clearly show that the
          accused committed the crime:
B
          (1) He was found in the cabin with his wife when the
          throttling was done. The evidence of throttling according
          to P.W.3 taken place in the right (sic) of 13/14.12.1985.

c         (2) The accused furnished false information in his
          fardbeyan propounding a case of suicide of his wife by
          setting fire, on the basis of which an U.D. case was
          instituted. The deceased Simla Devi had died due to
          throttling which can be attributed to the accused and not
D         due to burn injury which was post-mortem.

          (3} The accused did not give any information to the
          police about the occurrence and police on its own
          information had gone to the place of occurrence where
          Manu Sao (accused) gave out that his wife has committed
E         suicide. If this be so, then he ought to have immediately
          informed the police. The fact that he had informed one
          Bhola Paswan about it also cannot be believed because
          he has not been examined to prove this part of the defence ·
          version.
F
          (4) From the inquest report as well as from the evidence
          of the doctor, P.W. 3 it is clear that tongue of the deceased
          was found protruding and swollen. There was fracture of
          right parietal skull bone and the Larynx and treachea
G         congested. There was no possibility of pressing of neck
          by the deceased herself as P.W. 3 has negatived such a
          situation.

          (5)    The motive for the occurrence is also not far to seek.
          It is in the l'lvidence that the castmen of the accused were
H         against the keeping of Simla Devi by the accused. It is
           MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR                      831
              [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

    urged by the learned counsel for the defence that the           A
    possibility of the hand of the father of the deceased woman
    and his family member cannot be ruled out. There is
    nothing on the record to show that there was at any time
    protest by the father of the deceased rather there is
    evidence on record to show that the accused conduct was         B
    constantly opposed by his own castmen.

    (6) If the woman had burnt herself for which evidence
    created by the husband (accused) then how could she
    inflict injury on her person and how there could be trolling    C
    (sic) which the doctor had found during the post-mortem
    examination.

    (7) The learned defence counsel urged that the fard-
    beyan of the accused recorded by police inadmissible and
    this cannot be used against him as this statement was           D
    made to a police officer. This case has not been instituted
    on the basis of the fardbeyan of the accused rather on the
    statement and written information of the P.W. 4. The written
    report of the U.D. case and the information given by Manu
    Sao cannot be equated with first information of confession      E
    by the accused. I his (sic) statement was made by him
    when he was not accused rather an informant. Therefore,
    I find no substance in the above argument. Moreover,
    accused has also not denied his earlier statement and has
    even in this statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted       F
    to have given information regarding suicide by his wife by
    setting fire."

      15. These findings of facts and appreciation of evidence
by the Trial Court was not interfered by the High Court and in
fact, it recorded its conccurrence by reiterating these findings. ·G

     16. Some emphasis was placed on the fact that PW2 a
co-villager, in his evidence, had said that he did not know about
the occurrence and he had signed on the report Ext.1/1 at the
behest of the Investigating Officer. The accused can hardly         H
    832     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A derive any advantage from this because this witness was to
   primarily prove the death of the deceased after she had been
   burnt. Even according to the prosecution he was not an eye-
   witness and there was nothing much which he would contradict,
   as the prosecution had mainly relied upon the statement of
 B PW3 and PW4. The most important witness of the present
   case was PW3 Dr. Sidhu Bhushan Singh who had performed
   the postmortem upon the deceased's body and had written that
   she had been killed by throttling or strangulating and thereafter
   she suffered the burn injuries. In the cross-examination of this
 C witness, nothing material could be pointed out which would help
   the case of the accused. The accused has admitted the
   deceased was his wife and was living with him in the cabin.
   On the basis of the record, the High Court has also noticed the
   fact that deceased had separated from her earlier husband and
 D was living with the accused who was also staying away from
   his family. The villagers had objected to the accused living with
   the deceased in that manner. In these circumstances, the onus
   to explain the cause of death of the deceased was upon the
   husband. He did offer an explanation that she had committed
   suicide by burning herself but this explanation has been
·E disbelieved. Another very material factor is that as per his own
   statement when he noticed that the deceased was still alive and
   her burnt body was lying just outside cabin in the chilly
   plantation, he had taken the help of Bhola Babu. The name of
   this person he neither referred in his statement under Section
 F 313 Cr.PC. nor he examined this person as a witness. In the
   normal course, thus, it will have to be presumed that if this
   witness was produced and examined in Court, he might have
   spoken the truth which was not suitable or favourable to the
   accused. For reasons best known and which remained
 G unexplained, this witness was not examined though in his
   statement under- Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in answer to the last
   question he had stated that he was innocent and would give in
   writing whatever he wanted to say. Despite this, no defence
   was led by the appellant. PW1 stated in his examination-in-chief
 H that the tube well of the accused Manu Sao was located north
           MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR                      833
              [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
of his khalian in village Mohanpur and that Simla Devi was living   A
with the accused and when about 10.00 A.M. on the date of
occurrence, he had gone there he had seen Bimla Devi in a
burnt condition. According to him, the police had come and
prepared an inquest report which was signed by him. The
statement o'f this witness is that of the truthful witness and he   B
has not tried to add or subtract anything in his statement what
he stated before the police during investigation. In face of his
statement, the relevancy of PW2 being declared hostile is
hardly of any consequence. Strangely, even to this witness even
a question was not posed in his cross examination that one          c
Bhola Babu was present at the site from whom the accused
had sought help to take the deceased to the hospital.

     17. Resultantly and in any case nothing worth noticing much
less favourable to the accused came in his cross-examination.
PW3 Dr. Sidhu Bhushan Singh expressed his opinion as to the         D
accused of death as follows:

    "In my opinion death was due to xphyxia (sic) shock and
    haemarrage (sic) as a result of throttling (sic) and above
    mentioned injuries. Time elapsed since death was 12 to          E
    16 hours. The bruise on the right forehead region was
    possible by hard blunt substance."

     18. The above evidence clearly satisfies the conditions
stated by this Court, which need to be satisfied in a case of
circumstantial evidence in the case of Sharad (supra). The          F
circumstances proved by the prosecution are of a conclusive
nature and they do exclude the possibility of any other view
which could be taken rationally and reasonably. The fact of the
matter is that the deceased died while living with the appellant
and he ought to explain his conduct and he was expected to          G
render some explanation which was reasonably possible in the
facts and circumstances of the case in regard to cause of her
death.

     19. Lastly, now we should revert to the discussion on as       H
    834      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A to what was the motive of the appellant to kill the deceased. It
  has come in evidence that the deceased had left her earlier
  husband and was living with the appellant, who was also
  staying away from his family in the cabin in his agricultural fields,
  where that i:icident occurred. There was definite protest raised
B by the villagers to their living together. The statement of PW4
  in this regard is of relevance. Besides this, even the medical
  evidence had shown that the deceased was strangulated or
  throttled before her body was burnt. The social embarrassment
  could be a plausible motive for the appellant to commit the
c crime. Furthermore, the appellant took an incorrect, if not a false
  stand before the Court that the incident occurred in his
  absence. His conduct in naming Bhola Babu from whom he had
  sought help to take the deceased to the hospital also does not
  appeared to be correct. Appellant made no effort whatsoever
  to examine any witness to establish this fact. The appellant has
0
  admitted that the deceased died in front of his eyes and he did
  nothing except reporting the matter to the police at a
  subsequent stage. With the development of law, now it is a
  settled principle that motive is not absolutely essential to be
  established for securing conviction of an accused who has
E committed the offence, provided the prosecution has been able
  to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. In the present
  case, the motive suggested by the prosecution appears to be
  reasonable and is in consonance with the behaviour of a person
  placed in a situation like the appellant and it is also difficult to
F believe that a person would commit suicide without any
  provocation or incident immediately preceding the occurrence.
  The explanation rendered by the appellant has correctly been
  disbelieved by both the Courts as we see no reason to take a
  different view. Furthermore, in the case of Bhimapa
G Chandappa Hosamani v. State of Karnataka, [(2006) 11 SCC
  323], this Court has taken the view that it is not always
  mandatory for the prosecution to establish motive as it is just
  one of the ingredients for convicting an accused, the Court held
  as under:
H
             MANNU SAO v. STATE OF BIHAR                            835
                [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
       "13. The trial court as well as the High Court have not              A
       accepted the evidence regarding existence of motive as
       alleged by PW 1 in the first information report. In fact she
       herself in the course of her deposition denied the existence
       of such a motive. The High Court has agreed with the view
       of the trial court on this issue. It is well settled that in order   B
       to bring home the guilt of an accused, it is not necessary
       for the prosecution to prove the motive. The existence of
       motive is only one of the circumstances to be kept in mind
       while appreciating the evidence adduced by the
       prosecution. If the evidence of the witnesses appears to             c
       be truthful and convincing, failure to prove the motive is not
       fatal to the case of the prosecution. The law on this aspect
       is well settled."

      20. In view of the above reasoning, we do not find any
infirmity in law or otherwise in the judgment under appeal. The             D
finding of guilty as well as the order of sentence also do not
call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

N.J.                                               Appeal dimissed.