Supreme Court of India
RIYOJODDIN RAFIYODDIN SHAIKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 304
- Decided
- 3 March 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed After
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The conviction under Section 302 IPC is upheld as the circumstantial evidence satisfies all the judicial tests for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Summary
The deceased Sayarabi was found dead with severe burn injuries and a strong kerosene odor in her matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that her husband, Riyazoddin (the appellant), had poured kerosene on her and set her alight, while other family members were accused of abetting. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 498-A of the IPC; the High Court acquitted him of 498-A but upheld the murder conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence—kerosene smell, medical testimony on cause of death, and the circumstances surrounding the fire—met the established legal tests for conviction without direct evidence. Relying on precedents governing circumstantial evidence, the Court held that the facts were fully established, pointed inexorably to the appellant’s guilt, and excluded any reasonable alternative hypothesis. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302 was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the prosecution met the legal standards for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt solely on circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the charge under Section 498-A IPC was proved.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 302, s. 34, s. 498-A
Subjects
circumstantial evidencemurderIPC 302burn injuryconvictionhomicideevidentiary standardsacquittal of 498-A
Judgment
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 944
A RIYOJODDIN RAFIYODDIN SHAIK
V.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REP. BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
(Criminal Appeal No. 426 of 2009)
B MARCH 3, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
C; Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Death due to burn injury -
Deceased was ill treated by husband- Found dead with burn
.
injury - Smell of kerosene from body of victim and clothes
found burnt - Circumstantial evidence pointing guilt towards ·
husband - Conviction of husband under s.302 - Held: Injuries
D on dead body were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
cause death - Circumstances highlighted by prosecution as
• analysed by courts below clearly established guilt of accused
- Conviction upheld - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence.
Prosecution case was that the deceased was ill
E treated by her husband and other members of his family.
On the fateful day, father of deceased received
information about the serious condition of his daughter.
·When he reached matrilmonial home of daughter, he
found dead body of his daughter with burn injury. He
F found kerosene smell on her hair and half burnt clothes.
·Trial Court convicted husband under sections 302 and
4J8A IPC and directed acquittal of other members of his
family. The High Court found that the accusations so far
.as Section 498-A were concerned were not established,
G but the evidence was sufficient to hold the appellant guilty
of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Hence the
instant appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
H 944 ,..
RIYOJODDIN RAFIYODDIN SHAIK v. STATE OF 945
MAHARASHTRA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HELD: 1. Where a case rests squarely on A
circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be
justified only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other
person. [Para 8] [950-B-C] B
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977) SC 1063;
Eradu andOrs. v. State of Hyderabad AIR (1956) SC 316;
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State
of UP. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR (1985) SC 1224; Ba/winder C
Singh v. State of Punjab AIR (1987) SC 350; Ashok Kumar
Chatterjee v. State of M.P. AIR (1989) SC 1890; Bhagat Ram
v. State of Punjab AIR (1954) SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and
Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193 and Pada/a Veera
Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR (1990) SC 79, relied on.
D
Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" Chapter VI, referred to.
2. The doctor (PW-8) clearly stated that the dead body
was totally burnt and was smelling of kerosene and the
cause of death was due to burns and shock. It was also E
opined that the injuries found on the dead body were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
and by pouring kerosene the injury would be caused. The
circumstances highlighted by the prosecution as
analysed in detail by the trial and High Court clearly
established the guilt of the accused. [Para 17] [953-H; F
954-A-B]
State of UP. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (1992) Crl.LJ
1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of
Madhya Pradesh; AIR (1952) SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand G
Sarda v. State of MahC:Jrashtra, (AIR (1984) SC 1622; State
of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180; State of
Haryana v. Jaghir Singh and Anr. (2003) 11 SCC 261;
Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of A.P. (2008) 10 SCR 89 and
H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A Manivel and Ors. v. State of Tami Nadu (2008) 11 SCR 1036,
relied on.
Case Law Reference:
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
(1996) 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 1984 SC 1622 relied on Para 15
AIR 1952 SC 343 relied on Para 14
(2003 (8) sec 180 relied on Para 16
E
(2003 (11) sec 261 relied on Para 16
(2008) 10 SCR 89 relied on Para 16
(2008) 11 SCR 1036 relied on Para 10
F
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 426 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27/28.10.05 of the
High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad in Criminal
G Appeal No. 89 of 2005.
R.V. Kameshwaran, SCLSC for the Appellant. •,
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondent.
H
RIYOJODDIN RAFIYODDIN SHAIK v. STATE OF 947
MAHARASHTRA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismissing
the appeal filed by the appellant who was convicted for offences B
punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'), so far as the conviction under
Section 302 IPC is concerned, while directing acquittal in
respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Seven
persons faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions c
Judge, Amalner.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the prosecution are as under:
Akbarbeg (PW-4) is the father of Sayarabi (hereinafter
referred to as the 'deceased'). The marriage of the deceased D
Sayarabi with accused No.5 Riyazoddin, present appellant was
preferred one year back. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the parents
, and accused Nos.3 and 6 are the brothers of accused No.5.
Accused No.4 is the wife of accused No.3.
E
It was alleged that the accused were giving ill treatment
to deceased Sayarabi during the period of her stay in the
matrimonial house at Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. The accused No.5-
appellant was abusing and beating the deceased Sayarabi.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 had brought the deceased to her parent's F
house at village Dherangeon Tai Onerrangaon Dist. Jalgaon
three months back. Deceased disclosed about her ill treatment
at the hands of accused to her relatives.
"
I
On 12.5.1996 the marriage of niece of P.W.4 Akbarbeg
was performed at Dharangaon. Accused No. 3 and 5 had G
;
attended the said marriage. They demanded Rs.2000/- for the
construction of a house from P.W. 4 Akberbeg. He expressed
his inability to pay the amount.
On 20.5.1996 the deceased was sent to stay at her H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A matrimonial house along with accused 1 and 2. On 25.5.1996
at about 2.00 midnight P.W.4 Akbarbeg received the message
through police about the serious condition of the deceased.
Thereafter he along with his relatives paid visit to the
matrimonial house of his deceased daughter. He saw the dead
B body of his daughter with burn injury in her matrimonial house.
He found kerosene smell on the hair and half burnt cloth.
Ramesh (PW-1) the Police Patil of Parola lodged an
occurrence report to the police. On the basis of his report AD.
bearing No. 35/96 was registered. Inquest panchanama on the
C dead body was prepared on 25.5.1996 in AD. case. Spot
panchanama was also prepared in AD.Case. Dead body was
sent for conducting the post mortem to the cottage Hospital,
Paro la.
D Akberbeg came to know through his relative Rahanabi
(PW-5) that the accused No.5 committed the murder of the
deceased by pouring kerosene oil on her person and setting
her on fire. Accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 abetted the accused
No.5 in the commission of murder of the deceased. P.W.4
E Akberbeg lodged the complaint dated 25.5.1996 alleging ill-
treatment to the deceased prior to 25.5.1996 and committing
her murder on 24.5.1996 at about 11-00 P.M.
On the basis of his complaint crime bearing No.121/1996
was registered with Parola Police station at about 1.00 p.m.
F M.D. Patil (PW-11) carried out the investigation of the crime.
On 27.5.1096, he sent the seized articles for examination to
the C.A Aurangabad. After the completion of investigation on
14.8.1996 he submitted the charge sheet against the accused
for the offences as stated above to the learned Judicial
G Magistrate, First Class. Parola.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parola by an
order dated 21.8.1996 committed the case to the Additional
Sessions Judge, Amalner, as the offence punishable under
H Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
- RIYOJODDIN RAFIYODDIN SHAIK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
949
In Sessions case charge was framed against accused A
Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read
with section 34 IPC and against accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6
under Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC.
The charge was read over and explained to the accused
B
in vernacular. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The defence of the accused is that the house caught fire due
to short circuit. Deceased sustained burn injury on account of
house catching fire in a short circuit.
The trial Court directed acquittal of A-1 to A-4 and A-6 but c
held the present appellant guilty of offence punishable under
Sections 302 and 498-A IPC. In appeal, as noted above the
High Court found that the accusations so far as Section 498-A
are concerned are not established, but the evidence was
"' sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of offence punishable under D
Section 302 IPC.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that there was no direct evidence and the
prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence. The
circumstances highlighted do not lead to conclude about the E
guilt of the accused.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
supported the judgment.
F
·6. The circumstances highlighted by the trial Court and the
High Court are essentially as follows:
(i) The appellant was residing with his wife.
(ii) Death of wife at odd hours (midnight) and in G
unnatural manner.
"
(iii) Kerosene smell in the body and articles around the
body.
H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R. -
A (iv) False defence (i.e. fire by short circuit).
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there
is no evidence to show that the deceased was sprinkled with
kerosene. The evidence clearly established that there was no
homicidal death and it was due to short circuit of electricity.
B
8. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that
where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
C 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);
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AlR 1983 SC 446);
State of UP. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224);
o Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok
Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). 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
E 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
circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must
be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring
. F the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
9. We may also make a reference to a decision of this
Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996)
10 sec 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
G "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, all
the circumstances should be complete and there should
H
be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved
RIYOJODDIN RAFIYODDIN SHAIK v. STAlE OF MAHARASHTRA 951
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis A
of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence .... ".
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 8
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the
following tests:
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently anq firmly
established; C
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a
0
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
'
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation E
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.
F
11. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992
Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken
in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied
on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the 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 G
established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
• established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
12. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills'
Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial
evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal
inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt
connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof
is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact,
B . 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
justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable
c . of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that
of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of
the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted".
13. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely
on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-
D stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by
· the this Court as far back as in 1952.
14. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State \-
of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was
E observed thus:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the
evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts
F
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 be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other
G words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must
be such as to show that within all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused."
H
~
~
RIYOJODDIN RAFIYODDIN SHAIK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 953
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
. 15. A reference may be made to a later decision in A
Sha rad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (Al R 1984
SC 1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence,
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 B
precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could
,, be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.
They are: I
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances
c
concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
(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 D
except that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature-and
tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except E
the one to be proved; and
(5) 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 F
show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.
16. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan
v. Raja Ram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir
G
Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261), Kusuma Ankama Rao
v. State of A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of on
7.7.2008) and Manivel and Ors. v. State of Tami Nadu
(Criminal Appeal No.473 of 2001 disposed of on 8.8.2008).
17. The doctor (PW-8) clearly stated that the dead body H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A was totally burnt and was smelling of kerosene and the cause
of death was due to burns and shock. It was also opined that •
the injuries found on the dead body were sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death and by pouring
kerosene the injury as mentioned in Column No.17 of P.M.
B Notes Exh.78 would be caused. The circumstances highlighted
by the prosecution as analysed in detail by the trial and High
Court clearly established the guilt of the accused. That being
so, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly •
dismissed.
c D.G. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "circumstantial evidence"Sign in to search