Holding

A conviction cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish a complete, unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence and the alleged motive and forensic evidence are unconvincing, leading to acquittal.

Summary

The trial court convicted Shantabai, her husband Sajan and their son Govind for the murder of Gunwant Dhumale based solely on circumstantial evidence, including an alleged illicit relationship and the discovery of the dead body in front of their house. The High Court affirmed the conviction, but the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had established a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the testimony regarding the alleged illicit relationship to be unconvincing, the hearsay evidence unreliable, and the forensic evidence (fingerprints and blood‑group matching) inadequate. It held that the prosecution failed to satisfy the stringent tests for circumstantial evidence, leaving reasonable doubt about the accused's participation. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

Issues considered

The adequacy of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Whether the alleged motive of an illicit relationship was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the prosecution established a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
The credibility and admissibility of the testimony of PW‑5 and other witnesses.
The impact of the failure to collect fingerprints and the mismatch of blood‑group evidence on the prosecution's case.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedures. 164, s. 313, s. 374(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murdercircumstantial evidenceacquittalconviction set asideIndian Penal CodeSection 302Section 34illicit relationshiphearsayfingerprintblood groupchain of evidence

Judgment

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 713

r SHANTABAI & ORS .. A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 2006)

.
MARCH 3, 2008
B
(P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.)
J
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 34, 147, 148 and 302 rlw.s.149:

Murder - Trial Court convicting accused wife, her
husband and their son for committing murder of deceased c
relying on circumstantial evidence -Affirmed by High Court -
Correctness of - Held: Prosecution witnesses made a bald
and sweeping statement alleging illicit relationship of appellant
No. 1 with the deceased for the last many years - Testimony
of prosecution witnesses in connection thereof unconvincing D
•'' and unbelievable - No evidence led by prosecution to
establish that the deceased visited the house of accused on
the day of incident - Thus, it would not be safe to convict
accused No. 1 for committing murder of the deceased merely
because his dead body was found in front of the house of E
accused persons - Testimony of PW5, that he saw accused
persons going hurriedly towards the bus stand, is not free from
doubt - His evidence is hearsay evidence, therefore, it cannot
,, be accepted without corroboration as he does not appear to
• be truthful witness- I. 0. failed to collect finger prints on alleged F
weapons of crime - Moreover, weapons so collected found
lying in open space - Prosecution failed to establish that
weapons recovered had been used by accused in the
commission of crime - Moreover, blood-group detected on
clothes seized belonging to the appellants did not tally with
G
the blood-group of blood found on the clothes of the deceased
and also on the articles seized by I. 0. - No cogent, satisfactory
and convincing evidence led by prosecution to complete the

~ chain of circumstances holding accused-apf?ellants guilty of
713 H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A committing murder of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt
- High Court was not justified in upholding conviction of A 1,
A2 and A3on surmise and hypothesis - Hence, conviction
and sentences of the accused set aside and they are acquitted
of the charges framed against them - Circumstantial evidence
B - Testimony of '
According to the prosecution, accused-appellant A1,
wife of A2, had illicit relationship with the deceased for ~ .
the last so many years. On the fateful day, the deceased
. had left his house in the morning and as he did not return
c till late evening, his brother, PW1, enquired about him from
PWS, a workman in a flour mill in the nearby area, who
informed that he saw accused persons hurriedly going
towards the bus stand. PW1, along with some other village
people then went to the house of A1, where he found the
D dead body of his brother lying in the compound of the
house. He also noticed injuries on the body of the
deceased. PW1 lodged a report in the police station on
'•
the next day. On the basis of the report, an FIR was
registered by the police naming A1, A2-her husband, A3-
E son, AS-daughter and A4-husband of AS as culprits for
committing the murder of the deceased. After completion
of the investigation by the Investigating Officer and after
receipt of the post mortem report and Chemical Analysis
report, charge sheet was filed by the Police against the .
• •
F accused persons for the commission of the crime. Trial
Court framed the charges against them for committing the
offence under Sections 147, 148 and 302, IPC, read with
Section 149, IPC and found A-1, A-2 and A-3 guilty of
committing murder of the deceased and convicted and
sentenced them accordingly for committing the offences
G
punishable under Section 302 IPC, read with Section 34,
IPC. However, A-4 and A-5 have been acquitted of the
charges. Being aggrieved, A-1, A-2 and A-3 preferred an
appeal before the High Court. The High Court confirmed
the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal.
H
SHANTABAI & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 715
,.
Accused-appellants contended that there was no A
direct evidence against them and the Trial Court as well
as the High Court have committed gross error in
convicting them on the basis of highly unbelievable,
insufficient and unconvincing evidence led by the
prosecution; that there is not an iota of evidence on record s .
to prove that on the day of occurrence, the deceased had
visited their residence nor the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 had illicit relations with
the deceased for the fast 10 to 15 years; that no motive
whatsoever has been proved by the prosecution from the c
evidence on record; and that the findings of both the
courts below that no explanation has been given by them
in regard to their absence of accused from their house
on the day of incident when PW-1 and other villagers
found the dead body of the deceased in the courtyard of
0
their house, are based upon surmises and conjectures
which cannot be taken as incriminating circumstance
holding them guilty of the murder of the deceased.
Respondent-State submitted that the reasons given
by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court in recording E
the order of conviction of the appellants are based upon
proper appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution
in the case; that the evidence of PW-5, that on the day of
the occurrence he saw the accused hurriedly going to
the Bus Stand and thereafter they were not found in their F
house where the dead body of the deceased was lying,
would suggest that the appellants had left their house after
· having committed the murder of the deceased; and that
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is cogent, clear
and satisfactory with the hypothesis of the guilt of the G
appellants.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the present case, there is no direct
evidence to connect A-1, A-2 and A-3 with the commission
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A of the offence and the prosecution rests its case solely
on circumstantial evidence. This Court in a series of
decisions has consistently held that when a case rests
upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy
certain tests, viz. the circumstances from which an
B inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently
and firmly established; that those circumstances should
be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt
of the accused; that the circumstances, taken
cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there
C is no escape from the conclusion that within all human
probability the crime was committed by the accused and
none else; and that 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 .
D consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be
inconsistent with his innocence. (Para - 11) [725-H;
726-A-E]
Gambhir vs. State of Maharashtra AIR (1982) SC 1157;
E Rama Nand vs. State of Himacha/ Pradesh AIR (1981) SC
738; Prem Thakur vs. State of Punjab, AIR (1983) SC 61;
Earabhadrappa vs. State of Karnataka, AIR (1983) SC 446;
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 1921; Balvinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR (1987) SC 350 and Hanumant
F Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.PAIR (1952) SC 3443 -
.
J ..

relied on.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116; C. Chenga Reddy vs. State of A.P (1996)
10 SCC 193; Sashi Jena & Ors. vs. Khadal Swain & Anr.
G (2004) 4 SCC 236 - referred to.
1.2 PW-1, brother and PW-4, wife respectively of the
deceased have made a bald and sweeping statement that
A-1 had illicit relations with the deceased for the last about
10 to 15 years before the day of the incident. PW-5, a co-
H villager of the deceased, stated that he heard some village
SHANTABAI & OR$. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 717

·-
~· people talking about the illicit relations of the deceased A
with A-1. The evidence of PW-5 is hearsay versi.on and it
cannot be accepted without corroboration from the
person who told this fact to PW-5. (Para -17) [728-G, H;
729-A, B]
1.3 The testimony of the witnesses in regard to the B
illicit relations of A-1 with the deceased for the last many
,.\ years is wholly unbelievable and unconvincing in view of
f the fact that A-1 has been living with her husband (A-2),
her major son (A-3) and daughter (A-5) in the same village
in which PW-1, brother of the deceased, his parents and c
PW-4 (wife) were residing along with her son and two
daughters. Had there been any such illicit relations, the
entire village people would have come to know about this
fact and. the parents of the deceased would have never
tolerated him to do so, more so when it has come in the D
evidence of these witnesses that the deceased was
-¥J maternal uncle of A-1. The prosecution has not examined
the parents of the deceased and some other village people
in support of this circumstance. (Para -17) [729-D, E, F]
1.4 The prosecution has. also not led any evidence E
to establish that on the day of occurrence the deceased
had visited the house of A-1, A-2 and A-3. This
circumstance cannot be said to be of a conclusive nature
and tendency to prove thatA-1, A-2 and A-3 had murdered
the deceased on the day of occurrence because he F
allegedly had illicit relations with A-1 for the past over many
years. In view of this fact, it is not possible to place implicit
reliance upon the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4, the selective
and interrogated witnesses. (Para-17) [729-F, G, H; 730-A]
2. The evidence of PW-3, who is one of the Panchas G
of Spot Panchnama and Inquest Panchnama and also other
prosecution witnesses, who saw the dead body of the
deceased in the courtyard, would suggest that when they
went on the spot of incident, the doors of the house of
accused persons were found left open. It has come in the H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R.

A evidence of PW-1 that there is a public way on the
·+..
southern side of the house and there is one Wada by the
northern side of their house. In his cross-examination,
PW1 has stated that there is one open space in between
the Wada and house of the appellants and the dead body
B of his brother-deceased was lying in open space near the
Wada. He also stated that there are some Kirana Shops in
the eastern side of the open space of the house. This being )\
the position, it is not safe to connect A-1, A-2 and A-3 with •
the commission of the death of the deceased merely
because the dead body of the deceased was found in an
c open space in front of their house, which is a public road.
(Para - 18) [730-C-G]
3.1 PW-5, who at the relevant time was serving at a
flour mill situated near the Bus Stand, stated that at about
D 6.00 p.m. on the day of incident when he came out of the
mill and was going to toilet, he saw A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5
going hurriedly towards the Bus Stand. On the basis of
this evidence, the accused persons are suspected to be
the authors of the crime who, according to the prosecution
E version, had left their house after committing the murder
of the deceased. Under the circumstances, it cannot be
held that A-1, A-2 and A-3 are guilty of the murder of the
deceased and throwing his dead body in front of their
house in the open place and then hurriedly left their house
F open in order to escape their arrest and final punishment
...
in relation to the commission of heinous offence of
murder. (Para - 19) [731-B, C, D]
3.2 If the version of PW5 has been discarded and
disbelieved by the Trial Court in regard to A-5 having
G accompa11ied the appellants when they were stated to be
going to bus stand in the evening, the same set of
reasoning will apply to A-1, A-2 and A-3 and, therefore, the
testimony of this witness is not free from doubt and he
does not appear to be a truthful witness to connect A-1,
H A-2 and A-3 with the commission of the crime. Thus, these
SHANTABAI & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 719
...
,

circumstances too have not been proved by the A
prosecution beyond reasonable_ doubt against the
appellants. (Para - 19) [732-A, 8, C]
4. The Investigating Officer has not cared to collect
the finger prints appeared on the stones and axe, the
alleged weapons of offence, at the time of seizure of the B
~
articles nor he had taken the finger prints of the appellants
" for comparison with the finger prints, if any, detected on
the alleged weapons of offence. The articles collected by
the Investigating Officer from the spot were found lying
in the open place which was accessible to all and sundry. c
The prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that
axe, which was the alleged weapon of offence, found on
spot in the open place belonged to A-1, A-2 and A-3. Thus,
the prosecution has not established beyond reasonable
doubt that A-1, A-2 and A-3 had used the recovered D
weapons of offence in the commission of the crime. (Para
- 20) [732-E, F, G, H]
5.1 In the presence of PW9, a Panch witness of
seizure panchanama of the clothes, the Police recorded
the statement of A-1 in Police Station disclosing the E
concealment of the clothes in her house. It is the evidence
of PW9 that A-1, besides handing over one saree and
blouse, she also produced one dhoti and one baniyan of
..:-t
A-2 (her husband), one saree and one blouse of her
daughter (A-5), one fungi and one sando baniyan of A-3 (son) F
and one pant and one bushirl of A-4 (her son-in-law). The
evidence of this witness has to be discarded and
straightaway rejected from consideration simply on the
ground that he is not an independent witness, but a stock
witness of the Police. (Para - 21) [733-A, 8, C] G
5.2 The Chemical Analyser's report reveals that
human blood of Group '8' was detected on the clothes,
which were seized by the Police, allegedly belonging to
the appellants. The blood group on those clothes did not
H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 3 S.C.R.
~
..
A tally with the blood of Group '0', which was found on the
clothes of the deceased and on the sample of soil, axe,
stones, handles. etc which were taken from the spot by
the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has
categorically stated that when he along with A-1 and panch
B witnesses had gone in search of the clothes of the
appellants, the lock to the door of the house of the· ).
appellants was kept with the Police, which was opened •
by them later on. In this view of the matter, the prosecution
has not proved that the clothes, which were allegedly
c seized by the Police at the instance of A-1 and lying in the
open place, were stained with blood group '0' of the
deceased found on deceased's clothes and oil the articles
which were seized ,by the Investigating Officer from the
place of occurrence. These circumstances are not proved
by the prosecution by lending cogent, satisfactory and
D
convincing evidence to hold A-1, A-2 and A-3 guilty of the
offence. (Para - 21) [733-E, F, G; 734-A]
6. The prosecution has failed to complete the chain
of circumstances holding A-1, A-2 and A-3' guilty of the
E crime beyond reasonable doubt and the High Court was
not justified in upholding the conviction of A-1, A-2 and A·
3 on surmises and hypothesis. Hence, the conviction
and sentence of A-1, A·2 and A-3 is set aside and they
are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
t.
F (Paras - 22 & 23) [734-B, CJ
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 372 of 2006
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2005 of
the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
G
in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1995.
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari (for Naresh Kumar) for the
Appellants.
Manish Pitale (for Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure) for the
H
SHANTABAI & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 721
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] .
I'
Respondent. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. The appellants
Shantabai (A-1), Sajan (A-2) and.Govind (A-3) have filed this
appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2005 B
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court ofJudicature at
~
~ . Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No.58 of
1995 confirming the conviction and sentence for life in respect
of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short c
"the IPC"] and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with default clause to
undergo R.I. for six months awarded by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Biloli, in Sessions Case No. 160/1993.
2. In all five accused persons were tried by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, under Sections 147, 148 and D
302, IPC, read with Section 149, IPC. A-1, A-2 and A-3 were
found guilty of the murder of Gunwant Nivrati Dhumale, while
Venkar (A-4) and Anshabai (A-5) were acquitted of the charges
framed against them.
3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the E
accused persons was that A-1, A-2 and A-3 are residents of
village Loni and A-4 and A-5 are residents of village Shilvani. A-
•.t 1 is the wife of A-2 and A-3 is their son. A-5 is daughter of A-1
and A-2 and A-4 is the husband of A-5. Gunwant Nivrati Dhumale
was the brother of complainant Tanaji Nivrati Dhumale. Gunwant F
Nivrati Dhumale had b'een living with his brothers, namely, Tanaji
(PW-1); Shivaji; his parents; his wife Mathurabai (PW-4), and
two daughters and one ·son. The prosecution alleged that
Gunwant had illicit relations with A-1 since last so many years
and this fact was known to all the village people. Gunwant G
. occasionally used to reside in the house of A-1, A-2 and A-3. A-
"1 1 requested Gi.mwant to stop visiting her house because her
daughter (A-5) has now been married to Venkar (A-4) and her
son (A-3) has also become major, but Gunwant continued to
visit the house of A-1. H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A 4. On the day of the incident, i.e. on 14.08.1993, Gunwant
left his house in the morning and did not return till late evening.
Mathurabai (PW-4), wife of Gunwant, informed her parents-in-
law about this fact. They asked PW-1 to make search for
Gunwant. PW-1 made inquiry about his brother's whereabouts
B from Namdev (PW-5) at about 6.00 p.m., who at the relevant
time was working as a servant in Flour Mill near the bus stand.
PW-5 informed PW-1 that he saw A-1, A-2 and A-3 along with ~
~

A-5 hurriedly going towards the Bus Stand. Thereafter, PW-1
and some other village people went to the house of A-1. They
found the doors of the house lying open and the house was
c empty. They noticed the dead body of Gunwant lying just in the
compound of the house of A-1, A-2 and A-3. On visual
examination of the dead body of Gunwant, PW-1 and other village
people noticed head injury and many other injuries on various
parts of his body. On 15.08.1993, PW-1 lodged the report on
D
the basis of which first information report (Ext.38) was registered
by the Police Head Constable, Ganesh (PW-10) naming A-1,
A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5, as culprits for the murder of Gunwant.
5. The Head Constable (PW-10), on the next day of
E occurrence, went to the spot of the incident and collected stones,
axe and soil, etc. from the spot vide Spot Panchnama (Ext.44).
He also prepared inquest report of dead body of Gunwant
(Ext.43). The dead body of Gunwant was sent for post mortem
examination to Primary Health Centre, Hanegaon. PW-2, Dr. t.
F Hanumant, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gunwant.
He noticed about 13 injuries on his dead body. All the injuries
were ante-mortem. The post mortem report placed on record
is marked as Ext.41. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death of
Gunwant occurred because of shock due to cardio respiratory
failure, caused by injury to brain and brain hemorrhage. PW-10
G
seized the blood-stained clothes of the deceased. He handed
over further investigation to PSI Mirza Rahematulla Baig (PW-
11). PW-11 recorded supplementary statements of PW-1 and
other witnesses. He made search of the accused persons in
and around village Loni, but they could not be located. On
H
SHANTABAI & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 723
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
....
• 17 .08.1993, he arrested A-1, A-2 and A-3 near village Degloor. A
On 18.08.1993, he arrested A-4 and A-5 at Markhei. On
31.08.1993, he recorded statements of Hariba (PW-6) and
Eknath (PW-7). On 22.08.1993, A-1, while in police custody,
made statement (Ext.63) on the basis of which she recovered
her clothes and clothes of her husband and son from her house, B
which were taken into possession vide Panchnama (Ext.64).
:>I On 29.08.1993, five prosecution witnesses were produced
• before Shri Nivrati (PW-13), the Special Judicial Magistrate,
for recording their statements under Section 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.). The clothes of A-1, A-c
2 and A-3 and the deceased and other articles found on the
spot were sent to the Chemical Analyser. The report of the
Chemical Analyser (Ext.70) reveals that ethyl alcohol was
detected in the viscera contents of the deceased. The Chemical
Analyser's report (Ext.72) reveals that human blood was
D
~i1
detected on the clothes worn by the deceased and the clothes
worn by A-1, A-2 and A-3.
6. After completion of the investigation and after receipt of
the post mortem report and reports of the Chemical Analyser,
charge sheet was filed against A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 for E
the commission of the crime. The learned Judicial Magistrate
committed the trial to the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
who framed the charges against them for the offence under
•-'t Sections 147, 148 and 302, IPC, read with Section 149, IPC .
The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in support F
of its case. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., all the accused persons denied their involvement in the
crime and pleaded false implication on suspicion.
7. The case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial
evidence. The prosecution relied upon the following G
circumstances:
~ (i) Illicit relations of the deceased Gunwant with Smt.
Shantabai (A-1) since last 10 to 15 years;
(ii) The dead body of Gunwant was found in the courtyard H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
~

A of the house of A-1, A-2 and A-3 at village Loni;
··-·
(iii) A-1, A-2 and A-3 were not found present at their house
on 14.08.1993, the day of occurrence, when PW-1 along
with other villagers went to their house in search of Gunwant;

B (iv) PW-5, Namdev, had seen A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5
going towards the Bus Stand on the evening of
..
14.08.1993; ..
(v) Medical evidence;

c (vi) Recovery of the clothes of A-1, A-2 and A-3 from their
house; and ..
(vii) The clothes of A-1, A-2 and A-3 recovered by the
Police at the instance of A-1 fro111 their house, were found
blood-stained of human blood of Group 'O' in the Chemical
D Analyser's report (Ext. 71 ). ..
...
8. The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, held A-1,
A-2 and A-3 guilty of the offence, therefore, they are convicted
and sentenced as aforesaid, forthe offence under Section 302,
IPC, read with Section 34, IPC. However, on the same set of
E evidence A-4 and A-5 have been acquitted of the charges. Being
aggrieved, A-1, A-2 and A-3 preferred an appeal under Section
374(2) of Cr.P.C. before the High Court and the High Court as
stated above, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed -t.
upon them by the Trial Court. Hence, A-1, A-2 and A-3 have
F filed this appeal by special leave.
9. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of A-1, A-2 and A-3, assailed the judgment of the High
Court inter alia contending:
G (i) that there was no direct evidence against the
appellants and the Trial Court as well. as the High
Court have committed gross error in cor1victing the .,..
appellants on the basis of highly unbelievable,
insufficient and unconvincing evidence led by the
H prosecution;
SHANTABAI & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 725
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
/
(ii) that there is not an iota of evidence on record to A
prove that on the day of occurrence, Gunwant had
visited the house of A-1, A-2 and A-3 nor the
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that A-1 had illicit relations with the deceased
Gunwant for the last 1O to 15 years; B
(iii) that no motive whatsoever has been proved by the
.. ~
prosecution from the evidence on record against A-
1, A-2 and A-3; and
(iv) that the findings of both the courts below that no c
explanation has been given by A-1, A-2 and A-3 in
regard to their absence from their house on the day
of incident when PW-1 and other villagers found the
dead body of Gunwant in the courtyard of their house,
are based upon surmises and conjectures which
D
·;!- cannot be taken as incriminating circumstance
holding A-1, A-2 and A-3 guilty of the murder of
Gunwant.
10. Mr. Manish Pita le, learned counsel for the respondent-
State, on the other hand, submitted that the reasons given by E
the Trial Court as well as by the High Court for recording the
order of conviction of the appellants are based upon proper
appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution in the case.
,-t According to him, the evidence of Namdev (PW-5) that on the
day of the occurrence he saw the accused hurriedly going to F
the Bus Stand and thereafter they were not found in their house
where the dead body of Gunwant was lying, would suggest that
the appellants had left their house after having committed the
murder of Gunwant. He submitted that the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses is cogent, clear and satisfactory with the
G
hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants and this Court shall be
slow to interfere in the well-reasoned and well-merited
judgments of the qourts below.
11. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel, we shall at the threshold point out that in the H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
k.,,
A present case there is no direct evidence to connect A-1, A-2 '
and A-3 with the commission of the offence and the prosecution
rests its case solely on circumstantial evidence. This Court in a
series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests
upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the
B 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
D was committed by 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
E only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
should be inconsistent with his innocence. [See
Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC
351 : (AIR 1982 SC 1157)] -t,

F See also Rama Nand v. State of Himacha/
Pradesh (1981) 1 SCC 511 : (AIR 1981 SC 738),
Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC
462: (AIR 1983 SC 61), Earabhadrappa ,,., State
of Karnataka, (1983) 2 SCC 330 : (AIR 1n83 SC
446), Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986 Suppl.
G
SCC 676: (AIR 1987 SC 1921), Ba/vinder Singh
v. State of Punjab (1987) 1 SCC 1 : (AIR 1987 SC
350).
12. As far back as in 1952 in Hanumant Govind
H Nargundkar v. State of M.P. [AIR 1952 SC 3443], it was
SHANTABAI & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 727
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
j
• observed thus: A
"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 in the first
instance be fully estabiished, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis B
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 words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any c
• 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."
D
•,t
13. f!.. reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad
•• Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC
-4\
116 : (AIR 1984 SC 1622). Therein, while dealing with
circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on
the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the
infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false E
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 (SCC pp. 185,
para 153) :
F
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established. The
circumstances concerned must or should and not
may be established;
(ii) the facts so established should be consistent only G
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;
~ (iii) the circumstances should be of a conciusive nature
H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

-t,.
A 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
B not to 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.
.,::
..
14. We may also make a reference to a decision of this
c Court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC
193, wherein it has been observed thus: (SCC pp.206-207, para
21)
"21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled
law is that the circumstances from which the conciusion of
D
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 r
be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved
circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis
E
of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence."
15. In Sashi Jena & Ors. v. Khadal Swain &Anr. [(2004)
4 SCC 236], this Court again reiterated the well-settled principle
+.-.
F of law on circumstantial evidence.
16. Bearing the above principles of law enunciated by this
Court, we have scrutinized scrupulously and examined carefully
the circumstances appearing in this case against A-1, A-2 and
A-3.
G
Circumstance No. I
17. So far as the first circumstance is concerned, the
prosecution has adduced the evidence of PW-1, brother and r
PW-4, wife respectively of the deceased. Both these witnesses
H have made a bald and sweeping statement that A-1 had illicit
SHANTABAI & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 729
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
4..
• J
relations with the deceased for the last about 10 to 15 years A
.
11(''-'1.
before the day of the incident. PW-5, a ·co-villager of the
de~eased, stated that he heard some village people talking
about the illicit relations of the deceased with A-1. The evidence
of PW-5 is hearsay version and it cannot be accepted without
corroboration from the person who told this fact to PW-5. PW- B
1, brother, and PW-4, wife of the deceased, have categorically
stated that the deceased was maternal uncle of A-1 and he
~
" occasionally used to visit the house of A-.1, A-2 and A-3. It has
come in the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased was living in
his house with his wife (PW-4) along with one son aged about c
20 to 22 years and two daughters, out of whom one is aged
about 30 years and t.he second is about 14 to 15 years
respectively. It is his evidence that A-5 (acquitted accused),
daughter of A-1 and A-2, was married toA-4 (acquitted accused)
about 5 to 7 years prior to the day of the incident. A-3 is also a
D
major son of A-1 and A-2. The testimony of these witnesses in
-;t regard to the illicit relations of A-1 with the deceased for the last
many years is wholly unbelievable and unconvincing in view of
the fact that A-1 has been living with her husband (A-2), her
major son (A-3) and daughter (A-5) (acquitted) in the same
village in which PW-1, brother of the deceased, his parents and E
PW-4 (wife) vvere residing along with her son and two daughters.
Had there been any such illicit relations, the entire village people
would have come to know about this fact and the parents of the
.:) deceased would have never tolerated him to do so, more so
...
when it has come in the evidence of these witnesses that the F
deceased was maternal uncle of A-1. The prosecution has not
examined the parents of the deceased and some other village
people in support of this circumstance. The prosecution has·
also not led any evidence to establish that on the day of
occurrence the deceased had visited the house of A-1, A-2 and G
A-3. This circumstance cannot be said to be of a conclusive
nature and tendency to prove that A-1, A-2 and A"3 had murdered
.., Gunwant on the day of occurrence because he allegedly had
illicit relations with A-1 for the past over many years. In view of
this fact, it is not possible to place implicit reliance upon the H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

-t,.
A evidence of PW-1 and PW-4, the selective and interrogated
witnesses. PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are residents of the same 'i'
village to which A-1, A-2 and A-3 and the deceased do belong,
but they have not uttered a word in regard to factum of the illicit
relations of the deceased with A-1 . PW-4 has deposed that the
8 dead body of her husband was lying in the 'Wada', whereas
PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 stated that the
dead body was placed in the open place outside the house of :.
~

the appellants.
Circumstance No. II
c
18. In support of the second circumstance, the prosecution
has brought on record the evidence of PW-3, who is one of the
Panchas of Spot Panchnama and Inquest Panchnama. The
other witnesses, who saw the dead body of the deceased in
the courtyard, are PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-
D
8. The evidence of all these witnesses would suggest that when 'v
they went on the spot of incident, the doors of the house of A-1,
A-2 and A-3 were found left open. It has come in the evidence
of PW-1 that there is a public way on the southern side of the
house of A-1, A-2 and A-3 and there is one Wada by the northern
E side of their house and the owner of the said Wada is Ram
Sawakar. In cross-examination, he stated that there is one open
space in between the house of the appellants and Wada of Ram
Sawakar and the dead body of his brother-Gunwant was lying
to.
in open space near the Wada. He also stated that there are
F some Kirana Shops in the eastern side of the open space of
the house of A-1, A-2 and A-3. This being the position, it is not
safe to connect A-1, A-2 and A-3 with the commission of the
death of Gunwant merely because the dead body of the
deceased was found in an open space in front of their house,
G which is a public road.
Circumstances Nos. Ill and IV
1--
19. In support of the third and fourth circumstances, the
prosecution has led the evidence of PW-1 and Namdev (PW-
H 5). It is the version of PW-1 that in the evening on 14.08.1993,
SHANTABAI & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 731
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
..:f
- ...
he along with Police Patil and other villagers went in search of
his brother-Gunwant in the village and they found the dead body
of Gunwant in front of the house of A-1, A-2 and A-3 in an open
A

place with multiple injuries on his body. They found thatA-1, A-2
and A-3 were not present in their house and the doors of their
house were left open. PW-5, who at the relevant time was B
serving at the flour mill situated near the Bus Stand, stated that
,,._
at about 6.00 p.m. on the day of incident when he came out of
the flour mill and was going to toilet, he saw A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-
5 going hurriedly towards the Bus Stand. On the basis of this
·evidence, the accused persons are suspected to be the authors c
of the crime who, according to the prosecution version, had left
their house after committing the murder of Gunwant. We are
afraid to hold A-1, A-2 and A-3. guilty of the murder of Gunwant
and throwing his dead body in front of their house in the open
place and then hurriedly left their house open in order to escape
D
their arrest and final punishment in relation to the commission
of heinous offence of murder. PW-5 in his deposition stated
that PW-1, brother of the deceased, c;ame to him on the day of
occurrence at about 6.00 p.m. and enquired from him about the
', whereabouts of his brother-Gunwant to.which he replied that he
did not see Gunwant on the day of occurrence. This witness E
also stated that after some time PW-1 again came to the flour
mill and enquired second time from him whether he had seen
Gunwant to which he replied that he did not meet Gunwant on
$i
that day, but he disclosed to PW-1 that he had seen A-1, A-2, A-
3 and A-5 going hurriedly towards the nearby bus stand. On F
examination of the evidence of this witness, we have noticed
that he has named A-5, who was also accompanying A-1, A-2
and A-3 when they were going to the bus stand on the day of
occurrence. The testimony of this witness appears to be wholly
inconsistent and unbelievable to hold that he, in fact, had seen G
~ the appellants and A-5 going to the bus stand in the evening of
..,. 14.08.1993. If he had seen the appellants along with A-5 going
to bus stand, he could have disclosed this fact to PW-1 at the
--"
earliest occasion at about 6.00 p.m. when he, for the first time,
I
was asked by PW-1 in regard to the whereabouts of his brother- H
'
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

\.
A Gunwant. It has come on record that there were many other
employees present in the Mill when PW-1 met PW-5 on both
occasions in the evening of 14.08.1993. If the version of this
-
.-.

witness has been discarded and disbelieved by the Trial Court
in regard to A-5 having accompanied the appellants when they
B were stated to be going to bus stand in the evening, the same
set of reasoning will apply to A-1, A-2 and A-3 and, therefore,
the testimony of this witness is not free from doubt and he does ~
~

not appear to be a truthful witness to connect A-1, A-2 and A-3
with the commission of the crime. Thus, these circumstances
c too have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt against the appellants.
Circumstance No. V
20. In support of the fifth circumstance, the prosecution
has examined Dr. Hanumant, who performed post mortem on
D
the dead body of the deceased-Gunwant on 15.08.1993. Doctor
noticed as many as 13 injuries on the body of the deceased as
described in the post mortem report (Ext. 41 ). According to the
opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was because of shock

E
due to cardio respiratory failure caused by injury to brain and
brain hemorrhage. The Chemical Analyser's report would reveal ·-
that ethyl alcohol was found in the viscera contents of the
deceased. We may point out that the Investigating Officer has
not cared to collect the finger prints appeared on the stones
and axe, the alleged weapons of offence, at the time of seizure
F of the articles nor he had taken the finger prints of the appellants
for comparison with the finger prints, if any, detected on the
alleged weapons of offence. The articles collected by the
Investigating Officer from the spot were found lying in the open
place which was accessible to all and sundry. The prosecution
G has not led any evidence to prove that axe, which was the
alleged weapon of offence, found on spot in the open place l"
belonged to A-1, A-2 and A-3. Thus, the prosecution has not
established beyond reasonable doubt thatA-1, A-2 and A-3 had 1"
used the recovered weapons of offence in the commission of
H the crime.
SHANTABAI & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 733
[LOK~SHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
.r•
Circumstances Nos. VI and VII A
" 21. In support of the sixth and seventh circumstances, the
prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW-9, Ram Woglaji,
a panch witness of seizure panchanama of the clothes. In his
presence the Police recorded the statement of A-1 in Police
Station on 21.08.1993 disclosing the concealment of the clothes 8
...
.So. of the accused persons in her house. It is the evidence of this
witness that A-1, besides handing over one saree and blouse,
she also produced one dhoti and one baniyan of A-2 (her
husband), one saree and one blouse of her daughter (A-5), one
fungi and one sando baniyan of A-3 (son) and one pant and c
one bushirt of A-4 (her son-in-law). The evidence of this witness
has to be discarded and straightaway rejected from
consideration simply on the ground that he is not an independent
witness, but a stock witness of the Police. In his cross-
-·-¥ examination, he admitted that there are about 2 to 4 criminal D
~

cases pending against him. He stated that there was no door to
the Madi from where the clothes were recovered at the instance
of A-1. The Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of this
witness to the extent of the recovery of the clothes of A-4 and A-
5 (acquitted) from the open Madi. The Chemical Analyser's E
report (Ext.72) reve~ls that human blood of Group 'B' was
detected on the clothes, which were seized by the Police,
allegedly belonging to the appellants. The blood group on those
.:i< clothes did not tally with the blood of Group 'O', which was found
on the clothes of the deceased and on the sample of soil, axe, F
stones, handles. etc which were taken from the spot by the
Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has categorically
stated that when he along with A-1 and panch witnesses had
gone in search of the clothes of the appellants, the lock to the
door of the house of the appellants was kept with Police Patil
G
which was opened by them later on. In this view of the matter,
the prosecution has not proved that the clothes, which were
~ allegedly seized by the Police at the instance of A-1 and lying in
the open place, were stained with blood group 'O' of the
deceased found on deceased's clothes and on the articles which
H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
-'I',,.
A were seized by the Investigating Officer from the place of
occurrence. These circumstances are not proved by the.
--
,,
prosecution by lending cogent, satisfactory and convincing
evidence to hold A-1, A-2 and A-3 guilty of the offence;
22. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view
B that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of
circumstances holding A-1, A-2 and A-3 guilty of the crime %.
~
.
beyond reasonable doubt and the High Court was not justified
in upholding the conviction of A-1, A~2 and A-3 on surmises and
hypothesis.
c
23. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and
sentence of A-1,A-2 and A-3 is set aside and they are acquitted
of the charges framed against them. Shantabai (A-1), Sajan
(A-2) and Govind (A-3), who are in custody, are directed to be
released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
D '-.
S.K.S. Appeal allowed.