Holding

A conviction cannot be sustained where the circumstantial evidence fails to meet the required conditions of a complete, conclusive chain that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

Summary

Puola Devi, married to the son of Dayal Singh, lived with her mother‑in‑law Mula Devi and sister‑in‑law Rajmati and repeatedly complained of harassment and fear of being killed. She was found dead with asphyxia due to ante‑mortem strangulation and post‑mortem burns. The trial court convicted Dayal Singh, Mula Devi and Rajmati under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and s.201 on the basis of circumstantial evidence, a conviction upheld by the High Court for the two women. The Supreme Court examined whether the circumstances – relationship, alleged harassment, location of the body, medical findings and lack of FIR – satisfied the established conditions for a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. It held that the evidence did not form a complete, unbroken chain that excluded all other hypotheses and therefore could not sustain the appellants' guilt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the convictions of Mula Devi and Rajmati were set aside, ordering their release.

Issues considered

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to sustain a conviction under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and s.201.
Whether the conditions precedent for conviction based on circumstantial evidence have been satisfied.
Whether the trial court and High Court erred in convicting the appellants.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

circumstantial evidenceconvictionIndian Penal CodeSection 302Section 34Section 201criminal lawappellate reviewchain of evidencemurder

Judgment

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 319 319

MULA DEVI & ANR. A
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 1722· of 2008)
NOVEMBER 4, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

\1 Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 rlw 34 and 201 - Conviction
under, by Courts below - Case resting on circumstantial .C
evidence - Conditions precedent for conviction on basis of
circumstantial evidence, elucidated - Held: On facts, both Trial
Court and High Court came to abrupt conclusions about the
guilt of accused - Circumstances indicated by Trial Court did
not present a complete chain of circumstances to implicate D
the accused-Appellants - Hence conviction of the Appellants
not justified.

The prosecution case was that while Appellant~., i.e.
the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased held
the leg of the deceased, her father-in-law caused her E
death.

Placing reliance upon the circumstantial evidence,
the Trial Court convicted the Appellants under s.302 r/w
y s.34 and s.201 IPC and 'D', the father-in-law of the F
deceased under s.302 and s.201 IPC.

The various circumstances highlighted by the Trial
Court to fasten the guilt on the accused were: i) that the
deceased lived with the Appellants and the incident G
occurred in the house they lived in; ii) that the father and
uncle of the deceased gave statements to the effect that
Appellants used to harass the deceased and whenever
she visited her parental house she expressed
319 H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A apprehension that she might be killed by them; iii) that h 1
the medical evidence indicated that the cause of death · '--'
was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation
and there were post mortem burn injuries on the body of
the deceased and iv) that no FIR was lodged regarding
B the death of the deceased from the side of the accused.

On appeal, High Court acquitted the father-in-law of
the deceased but upheld the conviction of the Appellants.
Hence the present appeal.

C Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD:1.1. Where ·a case rests squarely on
circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be
justified only when all the incriminating facts and
0 circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
innocence of th.e accused or the guilt of any other
person. The circumstances from which an inference as
to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be
closely connected with the principal fact sought to be
E
inferred from those circumstances. [Para 8] [326-D, F]

1.2. The conditions precedent, before conviction
could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully
established. They are: (1) the circumstances from which
·F the· conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or
'should' and not 'may be' established; (2) the facts so
es.tablished should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
G should not be explainable on any other hypothesis I

except that the accused is guilty;(3) the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they .
I

should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of
H
(

MULA DEVI & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 321

evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable A
' r-1.
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence
of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
[Para 15] [329-C-H]
B
1.4. In the present case, the Trial Court and the High
Court came to abrupt conclusions about the guilt of the
Appellants. None of the circumstances indicated by the
Trial Court really present a complete chain of
circumstances to implicate the accused-Appellants. The
circumstances referred to by the Trial Court and the
c I

abrupt conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court and the
High Court does not justify the conviction of the
appellants. Therefore, conviction cannot be maintained
and is set aside. [Paras 6, 7 and 17] [325-D; 326-C; 330-8]
D I

Hukam Singh v. State cf Rajasthan AIR (1977) SC 1063;
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, AIR (1956) SC 316;
Ear:abhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR (1983) SC 446;
State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors., AIR (1985) SC 1224;
Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 3SO; E
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P., AIR (1989) SC
1890; Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR (1954) SC 621;
C. Chenga Reddyand Ors. v. State of A.P., [1996] 10 SCC
193; Pada/a Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR (1990)
SC 79; State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) F
Crl.LJ 1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1952) SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) SC 1622; State of
Rajasthan v. Rajaram, [2003] 8 SCC 180 and State of
Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr., [2003] 11 SCC 261, relied G
on.

Circumstantial Evidence by Alfred Wills (Chapter VI},
referred to.

H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A Case Law Reference :
h. _..___ _
l

AIR (1977) SC 1063 relied on Para 8
~
AIR (1956) SC 316 relied on Para 8
AIR (1983) SC 446 relied on Para 8
B
AIR (1985) SC 1224 relied on Para 8
AIR (1987) SC 350 relied on Para 8
,•
AIR (1989) SC 1890 relied on Para 8 -'{'

c AIR (1954) SC 621 relied on Para 8

[19961 10 sec 193 relied on Para 9
AIR (1990) SC 79 relied on Para 10 -.
D (1992) Crl.LJ 1104 relied on Para 11
AIR (1952) SC 343 relied on Para 14
1·
AIR (1984) SC 1622 relied on Para 15 ~ i--

I-
c20031 8 sec 180 relied on Para 16
E
. [2003J 11 sec 26 relied on Para 16

CRIMINAL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. \1722 of 2008.
~
.,-
F From the final Judgment and Orct?r dated 7.3.2008 of the """/ I

High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Crl Appeal No. 773 of
2001.
~
r
Fakhruddin, A.K. Gautam, and Ashbk Mathur for the
G Appellants.

Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by -~

H DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. '"

t
MULA DEVI & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 323
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

.,.-\ 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division A
Be_nch of the Uttarakhand High Court upholding the conviction
of the appellants for offences punishable under Section 302
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
the 'IPC') and Section 201 IPC. However, the appeal of the·co-
accused Dayal Singh, who was convicted for offence B
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, was allowed.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
"')..
Puola Devi (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') daughter
of PW 3 Amar Singh was married to Kamal Singh, son of c
accused Dayal Singh in Village Jaikot, District Tehri Garhwal.
Accused I appellant Mula Devi is mother-in-law and accused I
appellant Rajmati is sister-in-law of the deceased. Puola Devi,
always complained about the harassment being made to her
by the accused/appellants whenever she visited her parental D
house. She often told that her in-laws used to ask her to give
her jewellery to them else they would kill her. On 30.05.1990,
~
Amar Singh (P.W.3) (father of the deceased), who used to work
in Delhi, received a message there that his daughter Puola Devi
has died. On the next day, at about 5.00 P.M, he proceeded E
for his home Village Kulpi, District Tehri Garhwal, and reached
there on 01.06.1990. He went to the Patwari and came to know
that dead body of his daughter has already been taken to
Narendra Nagar. It needs to be noted that in the interior hills of
-,..- Uttarkhand, certain. Revenue Officials are given the pplice F
powers. Meanwhile, Lal Singh (P.W.1 ), uncle of the deceased,
had a!ready lodged the first information report on 30th of May
1990, after he received information that Puola Devi had died
in her in-laws house. In the first information report (Ext. A-1 ), ,
Lal Singh (P. W.1) had mentioned that Puola Devi was married
G
to son of Dayal Singh in Village Jaikot, where she usect'to get
harassment at the hands of her in-laws. He had also stated in
his report that whenever Puola Devi used to come to her
parental village she complained of the harassment meted out
to her by the accused /appellants. She had apprehended that
H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 15 S.C.R.

A she would be killed in her in-laws house. Lal Singh (P.W.1) at ~~
the end of the first information report expressed suspicion that
after committing murder of his niece Puola Devi, kerosene oil
was poured over her body and it was set on fire to conceal the
fact of murder. On the basis of the first information report, Crime
B No.02 of 1990 was registered against all the three accused
persons under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC by Patti Patwari,
Baman Gaon. The dead body of the deceased was taken into
possession by Kapur Singh Paya/ (P.W.5), Patwari, who initially ,
-./,
investigated the crime. He prepared the check report (Ext. A-
c 3) on the basis of the first information report received from Lal
Singh and made necessary entry in the general diary, copy of
extract of which is Ext. A-4. He inspected the spot, took the
dead body in his possession, prepared the inquest report (Ext.
A -2) and other necessary papers including sketch of the dead
body (Ext. A ,.6), police form No. 13 (Ext. A-7), sample of seal
D
(Ext. A-8). He also prepared the site plan (Ext. A-5). The dead
body was sent for postmortem examination. Dr. P.P. Raturi 1
(P.W.7) Medical Officer, Narendra Nagar conducted the autopsy +
on the dead body of Puola Devi on 01.06.1990, at 10:00 AM.,
and prepared the postmortem examination report (Ext. A-11 ).
E
The cause of death in ~he opinion of the Medical Officer was
asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. He also found
postmortem burn injuries. Subsequently, the investig_ation was
taken up by, Bachchan Singh (P.W.6), Patwari, who further
interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused persons. y
F After completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet
(Ext.A -10) against all the three accused for their trial in respect
of the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC.

Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was
G held after commitment to the Court of Sessions. Since the case
was based on circumstantial evidence the trial court referred
to various circumstances to hold the three accused persons jf
guilty. In appeal, as noted above, appeal of Dayal Singh was ~.

accepted while that of present appellants was dismissed.
H

•"'
~
(

I MULA DEVI & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
325

,~ A
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
prosecution version was specific that it was Dayal Singh who
was responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased. The
role ascribed to the appellants was that they held the legs of
the deceased. Since the High Court accepted the appeal of
the co-accused Dayal Singh who was supposed to be the main B
culprit, on the self same evidence, the appellants could not have
been convicted. It is submitted that the circumstances
.t highlighted by the trial court and concurred with by the High
Court do not make out any case against the appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
c
hand supported the judgment of the trial court and the High
Court.

6. It is to be noted that the trial court and the High Court
have come to abrupt conclusions about the guilt of the D
appellants. The circumstances highlighted by the trial court to
' fasten the guilt on the appellants were as follows:

(i) It established on record that Puola Devi (deceased)
was daughter-in-law of Mula Devi and sister in law of
E
Rajmati and she used to live with them.

(ii) It is established on record from the statement of P.W.
1, Lal Singh, uncle of the deceased and P.W.3, Amar
Singh, father of the deceased that accused Mula Devi and
"'
·~
Rajmati used to harass puola Devi (deceased), and F
whenever she visited her parental house she alwayp
expressed apprehension that she might be killed on any
day by them.

(iii) It is established on record from the medical G
evidence that cause of death of Puola Devi was asphyxia
as a result of ante mortem strangulation.
--\
(iv) It is established from the oral evidence that there.
were burn injuries on the body of the deceased and from
H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008f 15 S.C.R.

;.,...__
A the medical evidence it is also established that the burn
injuries were postmortem.

(v) It is.also established on the record that incident had
occurred inside the house where accused Mula Devi and
B Rajmati used to live. It is not the case of the defence that
anyone else was there in the house at that juncture.

(vi) No FIR was lodged regarding death of Puola Devi !I' I
from the side of the accused. i '
C _7. None of the circumstances indicated above really
present a complete chain ·of circumstances to implicate the
accused appellants.

8. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that
where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
D inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts ~md circumstances are found to be incompatible. with the
innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. ·(see
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1977 SC 1063);
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, (AIR 1956 SC 316);
E Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka, (AIR 1983 SC 446);
State of UP. v. Sukhbasi and Ors., (AIR 1985 SC 1224);
Ba/Winder Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok
Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M. P. (Al R 1989 SC 1890). The
Circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the
F · accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal
fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat
Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down
that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from
G circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must
be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring
the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.

9. We may also make a reference to a decision of this
H Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., [1996]
MULA DEVI & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 327
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

10 sec 193, wherein it has been observed thus: A
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the
settled law is that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, al/
the circumstances should be complete and there should
8
be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved
circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his ~
innocence .... "
c
10. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., (AIR
1990 sc· 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy ;~he following
tests:
D
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly
established;

(2) those ·circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; E
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a
chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and none else; and F

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation
of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused
and such evidence should not only be consistent with the
guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his G
innocence.

11. In State of UP. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992
Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken
1n evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied H
~
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. ,I
'
'

A on is reasonably capable of two inferences, ttie one in favour ~ ...
of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that
the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully
established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
B 12.Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills'
Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following
rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial
evidence: (1) the facts alleged a~ the basis of any legal '-I" l:"t
inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt
c connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof
is always on the party who asserts the existence of '1ny fact,
which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of.
direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be
adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to
D justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable
of explanation, upon any other reasonabl8 hypothesis than that _, "
Gf his guilt, (5) if there be arw reasonable doubt of the guilt of
the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted".
E
13. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely
on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-
stone of la.w relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by
the this Court as far back as in 1952.
1-
-:I
F 14. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein H was '
observed thus:

"It is well to remember that in cases where the
G evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
be 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
H f'
"
MULA DEVI & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 329
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

A
......~ tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other
words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must
be such as to show that within all human probability the act B
must have been done by the accused."

15. A reference may be made to ~ later decision in
"'~ Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984
SC 1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, c
1 it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that
~
the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution
cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions
precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could
be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.
They are:
o.

·~
(1) the circumstances from which the ~onclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances
concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
E
(2) 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;
F
"\ (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature._and
tendency;

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved; and
G
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusfon
A consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have been
dpne by the accused.
H
'. '

330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A 16. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan h._.
v. Rajaram, [2003] 8 SCC 180, State of Haryana v. Jagbir
Singh and Anr., [2003] 11 SCC 261.

17. Circumstances referred to by the trial court and the
abrupt conclusions arrived at by the trial court and the High
8
Court does not justify the conviction of the appellants.
Therefore, convictipn cannot be maintained and is set aside.
The appellants be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be
in cust~dy in ariy other case.
c 18;.I Appeal is allowed.

B.B.B. Appeal is allowed.

·1
I