RAJU @ RAJENDRA PRASADversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

                        [2022] 7 S.C.R. 241                              241


                 RAJU @ RAJENDRA PRASAD                                  A
                                  v.
                     STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 1559 of 2022)
                       SEPTEMBER 19, 2022                                B
         [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
       Penal Code – ss.302, 34 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence
– As per FIR, the appellants-accused (wife of the deceased and co-
accused) had illicit relations – It was further stated that on account
                                                                         C
of disputes, the accused started residing in her paternal house –
That the deceased went to his in-law’s house to bring her and the
children back, however, on the next day his body was found hanging
from tree – Appellants convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34 – On appeal, held:
Case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence – There
is no direct evidence that the appellants killed or committed the        D
murder of the deceased – In a case of circumstantial evidence, 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 –
Circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be
                                                                         E
complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than
that of the guilt of the accused – Such evidence should not only be
consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent
with his innocence – There is no evidence that the accused were
last seen together with the deceased – Prosecution failed to prove
the guilt and complete chain of events leading to the only conclusion    F
that the appellants alone committed murder and/or killed the
deceased – Order of conviction passed by Trial Court and High
Court set aside – Accused acquitted – Evidence.
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
      HELD: The case rests on the circumstantial evidence.               G
There is no direct evidence by which it can be said that the
appellants killed or committed the murder of the deceased. There
is no direct evidence recorded indicating involvement of the
appellants in the crime; the case of the prosecution is based on
the circumstantial evidence. In case of a circumstantial evidence,       H
                                 241
242            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A     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 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
B
      evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused
      but should be inconsistent with his innocence. On considering
      the deposition of PW-6 (daughter of the deceased), who can be
      said to be the star witness and on whose deposition the appellants
      - accused are held guilty for the offence punishable under Section
C     302/34 IPC, even it cannot be said that the prosecution has
      established and proved that the accused were last seen together
      with the deceased. In the examination-in-chief, PW-6 has stated
      that after some quarrel, the grandmother took the deceased to
      the room where the deceased went to sleep. That thereafter she
      also gone to sleep and when in the morning she woke up, she
D
      came to know that her papa was found hanging on the tree. In the
      cross-examination, she has specifically stated that she has not
      seen anybody beating her father. Thus, there is no evidence that
      the accused were seen last together with the deceased. There is
      no evidence what happened after the deceased went to the room
E     and had gone to sleep. Under the circumstances, the prosecution
      has failed to prove the guilt and complete chain of events, which
      may lead to the only conclusion that the appellants - accused alone
      committed murder and/or killed the deceased. The Trial Court
      as well as the High Court have committed a very serious error in
      convicting the appellants – accused for the offence under Section
F
      302/34 IPC based on such circumstantial evidence. The judgment
      and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as well as the
      High Court convicting the appellants – original accused for the
      offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC are quashed and
      set aside and the accused are acquitted for the offence for which
G     they are convicted. [Paras 7.1, 7.7 and 8][246-F-H; 249-H; 250-
      A-E]
            Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 : [2010] 9
            SCR 1039; G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka,
            (2010) 8 SCC 593 : [2010] 10 SCR 377 – relied on.
H
   RAJU @ RAJENDRA PRASAD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                           243


      Mohd. Younus Ali Tarafdar v. State of West Bengal,                  A
      (2020) 3 SCC 747 : 2020 (2) JT 456; Anwar Ali and
      Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166
      : [2020] 9 SCR 878 – referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
(2020) 3 SCC 747                   referred to           Para 4.3         B
[2020] 9 SCR 878                   referred to           Para 4.3
[2010] 9 SCR 1039                  relied on             Para 7.2
[2010] 10 SCR 377                  relied on             Para 7.3
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.                C
1559 of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 106 of 2018.
      With                                                                D
      Criminal Appeal No. 1560 of 2022
      Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Manvendra
Singh, Dashrath Singh, Abhijeet Singh, Ms. Gunjan Negi, Shiv Autar
Singh Sengar, Aditya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Aishwarya Mishra, Gp.
Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Advs. for the Appellant.                         E

     Ms. Gurkirat Kaur, Ms. Asiya, Milind Kumar, Advs. for the
Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.                                                      F
      1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jaipur
in D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 106 of 2018 and 107 of 2018 by which the
High Court has dismissed the said appeals preferred by the appellants
herein – original accused convicting them for the offence under Section   G
302 IPC, the original accused Raju @ Rajendra Prasad and Smt. Suman
Devi have preferred the present appeals.
      2. The original complainant Prakash – brother of the deceased
lodged a complaint/F.I.R. against the accused persons for having killed
his brother Narendra @ Goliya. It was stated in the complaint/F.I.R.
                                                                          H
244            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A     that his brother Narendra was married to his sister-in-law Suman Devi.
      There were some differences between his brother and his wife. It was
      alleged that accused Suman Devi was having illicit relations with the co-
      accused – Raju @ Rajendra Prasad. That because of the dispute and
      differences, accused Suman Devi had started residing in her paternal
      house. On 26.09.2016, his brother – deceased went to his in-law’s house
B
      to bring back his wife and children. However, on the next day in the
      morning, he came to know that his brother had committed suicide and
      his body was found hanging from a tree. That it was alleged that his
      brother had been murdered by Suman Devi, father-in-law Moti Ram,
      mother-in-law Lakhpati Devi, brother-in-law Vikram and Raju @
C     Rajendra Prasad in conspiracy with each other. Thereafter, on completion
      of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants herein.
      The charge was framed against the appellants – accused for the offence
      under Section 302 IPC or in the alternative under Section 302/34 IPC.
      The appellants – accused did not plead guilty and therefore they came
      to be tried by the learned Trial Court for the aforesaid offence.
D
             2.1 To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution
      examined as many as 15 witnesses including PW-6, Shiwani, daughter
      of the deceased and the accused Suman Devi and PW-7, Sunita, sister
      of Suman Devi. That after close of the prosecution evidences, further
      statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
E     That on appreciation of evidence and relying upon the depositions of
      PW-6, Shiwani, daughter of the deceased and the accused Suman Devi
      and PW-7, Sunita, sister of Suman Devi by judgment and order dated
      22.01.2018, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants - accused
      for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
F     and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of
      Rs. 20,000/-.
             2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
      of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused
      preferred the present appeals before the High Court. By the impugned
G     common judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said
      appeals and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and
      sentence passed by the learned Trial Court convicting the accused for
      the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
            2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
H     and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeals and confirming
   RAJU @ RAJENDRA PRASAD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                  245
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the judgment and order of conviction, the original accused have preferred        A
the present appeals.
      3. Ms. Sangeetha Kumar and Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, learned
counsel have appeared on behalf of the respective appellants and
Ms. Gurkirat Kaur, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the
respondent – State of Rajasthan.                                                 B
       4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants
- accused have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, both the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court have
committed a very serious error in holding the appellants guilty for the
offence under Section 302/34 IPC.                                                C
       4.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants – original accused that the case rests on
circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence at all. It is submitted
that there is not an iota of evidence against the appellants by which it
can be said that the appellants killed and/or committed the murder of the        D
deceased.
       4.2 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants – original accused that as such PW-6, Shiwani,
daughter of the deceased and the accused Suman Devi can be said to
be the ‘star witness’, who, in her deposition, has categorically stated          E
that she has not seen the appellants having killed her father. It is submitted
that even from the deposition of PW-6, the prosecution has not established
and proved that the appellants - accused herein were last seen together
with the deceased. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to
establish and prove the complete chain of events. It is submitted that
therefore the conviction of the appellants – accused for the offence             F
under Section 302/34 IPC is unsustainable.
       4.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused have
vehemently relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd.
Younus Ali Tarafdar Vs. State of West Bengal, (2020) 3 SCC 747
as well as Anwar Ali and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020)              G
10 SCC 166 in support of their submissions that as the circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not
complete and the said circumstances are not leading to the conclusion
that in all human probability, murder must have been committed by the
appellants- accused and, therefore, the appellants ought not to have been
                                                                                 H
convicted on the basis of such circumstantial evidence.
246             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A           5. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned counsel
      appearing on behalf of the State.
             5.1 It is submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has
      established and proved that there were differences and disputes between
      Suman Devi and the deceased. It is submitted that by leading cogent
B     evidence and examining the daughter of the deceased and the accused
      Suman Devi and by examining other witnesses, the prosecution has
      established and proved that on the earlier day/night, there were quarrels
      and that the accused Raju and others gave threats to the deceased. It is
      submitted that therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case,
      when the prosecution has established the motive and the circumstances
C     which led to the conclusion that the accused committed the murder of
      the deceased, both the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court
      have rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302/34
      IPC. It is submitted that the medical evidence – postmortem report proves
      that the deceased was murdered/killed.
D           5.2 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present
      appeals.
            6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
            7. We have gone through the judgment and order passed by the
E     learned Trial Court as well as the impugned judgment and order passed
      by the High Court. We have also re-appreciated the entire evidence on
      record.
             7.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the case rests on
      the circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence by which it can
F     be said that the appellants killed or committed the murder of the
      deceased. There is no direct evidence recorded indicating involvement
      of the appellants in the crime and as observed hereinabove, the case of
      the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. As held by this
      Court in a catena of decisions, in case of a circumstantial evidence, the
      circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that
G     there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability
      the crime was committed by the accused and none else and 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 innocence.
H
   RAJU @ RAJENDRA PRASAD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                            247
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

        7.2 In the case of Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189,      A
it is observed and held in paras 22 to 24 as under :
      “22. In Krishnan v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 430], this Court after
      considering a large number of its earlier judgments observed as
      follows : (SCC p. 435, para 15)
         ‘15. … This Court in a series of decisions has consistently       B
         held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such
         evidence must satisfy the following tests:
                (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt
         is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
                                                                           C
               (ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency
         unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
                (iii) 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      D
         the accused and none else; and
               (iv) 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
                                                                           E
         the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
         (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra [(1982) 2 SCC 351].)’
       23. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984)
4 SCC 116] while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held
that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete
                                                                           F
and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false
defence or plea. The conditions precedent before conviction could be
based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are :
(SCC p. 185, para 153)
            (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
      to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances           G
      concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established;
            (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;                                                   H
248            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A                 (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
            tendency;
                  (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
            the one to be proved; and
                  (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
B           leave any reasonable 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.
                  A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in State of
            U.P. v. Satish [(2005) 3 SCC 114] and Pawan v. State of
C           Uttaranchal [(2009) 15 SCC 259].
             24. In Subramaniam v. State of T.N. [(2009) 14 SCC 415], while
      considering the case of dowry death, this Court observed that the fact of
      living together is a strong circumstance but that by alone in absence of
      any evidence of violence on the deceased cannot be held to be conclusive
D     proof, and there must be some evidence to arrive at a conclusion that
      the husband and husband alone was responsible therefor. The evidence
      produced by the prosecution should not be of such a nature that may
      make the conviction of the appellant unsustainable. (See Ramesh
      Bhai v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 12 SCC 603]).”
E                                                         (emphasis supplied)”
            7.3 In the case of G. Parshwanath Vs. State of Karnataka,
      (2010) 8 SCC 593 in paras 23 and 24, it is observed and held as under:
            “23. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
            circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
F
            should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought
            to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying
            this principle a distinction must be made between facts called
            primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be
            drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts,
G           the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that
            evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the
            question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the
            accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect
            of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although
            there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not
H
   RAJU @ RAJENDRA PRASAD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                249
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the       A
      evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred
      from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court
      must have regard to the common course of natural events and to
      human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular
      case. The court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved
                                                                               B
      facts.
      24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for
      the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total
      cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which
      reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all
      these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of    C
      the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may
      be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are
      not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with
      the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every
      hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not         D
      mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting
      upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every
      hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and
      fanciful it might be. 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 in all human        E
      probability the act must have been done by the accused, where
      various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false
      plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance
      to the court.”
       7.4 A similar view is taken by this Court in the subsequent decisions   F
in the case of Mohd. Younus Ali Tarafdar (supra) and Anwar Ali
and Anr. (supra).
       7.5 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand, it is to be considered, whether
in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court and the Trial       G
Court are justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 302/34 of the IPC ?
       7.6 On considering the deposition of PW-6, who can be said to be
the star witness and on whose deposition the appellants - accused are
held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, even it       H
250              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A     cannot be said that the prosecution has established and proved that the
      accused were last seen together with the deceased. In the examination-
      in-chief, PW-6 has stated that after some quarrel, the grandmother took
      the deceased to the room where the deceased went to sleep. That
      thereafter she also gone to sleep and when in the morning she woke up,
      she came to know that her papa was found hanging on the tree. In the
B
      cross-examination, she has specifically stated that she has not seen
      anybody beating her father. Thus, there is no evidence that the accused
      were seen last together with the deceased. There is no evidence what
      happened after the deceased went to the room and had gone to sleep.
             7.7 Under the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove
C     the guilt and complete chain of events, which may lead to the only
      conclusion that the appellants - accused alone committed murder and/or
      killed the deceased. Under the circumstances and applying the law laid
      down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on circumstantial evidence,
      we are of the opinion that the Trial Court as well as the High Court have
D     committed a very serious error in convicting the appellants – accused
      for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC based on such circumstantial
      evidence. The conviction of the appellants - accused for the offence
      under Section 302/34 IPC is not sustainable.
            8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both the
E     appeals succeed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the
      learned Trial Court as well as the High Court convicting the appellants –
      original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC
      are hereby quashed and set aside and the accused are acquitted for the
      offence for which they are convicted. The appellants accused be
      released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
F
             Present appeals are accordingly allowed.

      Divya Pandey                                               Appeals allowed.
      (Assisted by: Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)

G




H