Holding

The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside due to insufficient circumstantial evidence, while the conviction under Section 498A IPC was upheld.

Summary

The appellants, a husband and his in‑laws, were convicted for the death of the wife by strangulation allegedly motivated by a dowry demand. Both the trial court and the Madras High Court upheld convictions under IPC sections 302 (murder) and 498A (dowry death based on dowry demand). On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a murder conviction and whether the evidence of dowry demand justified the 498A conviction. The Court held that the dowry demand was clearly established from the testimony of relatives, so the 498A conviction was affirmed. However, the circumstantial evidence for murder was found insufficient, failing the established tests for a complete chain of circumstances, and the conviction under section 302 was set aside. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part: the murder conviction was vacated while the dowry‑death conviction remained.

Issues considered

Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the evidence of dowry demand justified a conviction under Section 498A IPC.
Application of the principles governing circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 174, s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 498A

Subjects

dowry deathcircumstantial evidencemurderSection 302 IPCSection 498A IPCconvictionappellate reviewIndian Penal Codecriminal lawevidence

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 1060

A SYED HAKKIM AND ANR.
\!.
STATE REP. BY DY. SUPERINTENDENT
OF PbLICE, KARUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU
Criminal Appeal No. 365 Of 2009
FEBRUARY 23, 2009
.[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 498A - Death of wife - ''t-'(
· Allegedly due to strangulation- by husband and in-f.aws on \

C account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand - Conviction by
Courts below under ss. 302 and 498A, on basis of
circumstantial evidence - Held: No infirmity in conclusion of
Courts below that dowry demand was made, particularly in view
of evidence of prosecution witnesses - Conviction in terms of
D s. 498A confirmed - However, as circumstances highlighted
by prosecution to bring in application of s.302 /PC were
· insufficient and scanty, conviction under s. 302 set aside -
Crime against Women. ·
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation pf.
E
According to the prosecution, the husband and· the
in-laws of PW1 's daughter strangulated her to death as
their dowry demand was not met Both the Trial Court and
the High Court convicted the husband and the brother-
. in-law of the deceased Le. the appellants utider ss.302 and
F. 498A IPC. Hence the present appeal. ·
Partly allowing the app~al, the. C::ourt
HELD:1. Both the· trial 'Court and the High Court
having regard to the evidence of relatives concluded that
G the dowry demand was made. There is no infirmity with
the conclusions arrived at more particularly in view of the
evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and therefore there is no scope
for interference with the conclusions relating to Section
498-A IPC. [Para 6] [1066-C-D]
H 1060
SYED HAKKIM .AND ANR. V. STATE REP. BY DY. SUP. 1061
OF POLICE, KARUR DIST., TAMIL NADU

2.1. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial A
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. The circumstances .from
which an inference as to the guilt of the ac~used. is drawn B
have to. be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to.
be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact .
·--r sought to be inferred. from those circumstances. '.[Para 8] ..
[1066-E~G]

2.2. In. the present ca~e, the circumstances high- C
lighted by the prosecution to bring in application of Section.
302 IPC are insufficient and scanty. That being so, the
conviction as recorded in terms.of Section 302 IPC cannot
be maintained and !s set.aside. [Para 17] [1070-B-C] ,
D
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 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 and Ashok Kumar
Chatterjee v. State of M.P. AIR (1989) SC 1890; Bhagat Ram E
v. State of Punjab AIR (1954) SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and
Ors..v. State of AP. (1996) 10 SCC 193; Pada/a Veera Reddy v.
. S.tate of A.P. and Ors. AIR (1990). SC 79; State of U.P. v. Ashok
Kumar Srivastava (1992) Cr/. LJ 1104; Hanumant Govind
Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh .AIR (1952) F
SC 343 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
AIR (1984) SC 1622; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8
SCC 180; State otHaryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. (2003) 11
SCC 261; Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of A.P. (Criminal
Appeal No.18512005 disposed of on 7.7.2008 - relied on. G

Circumstantial Evidence by Alfred Wills - referred to.
3. In the ultimate result, the conviction in terms of
Section 302 is set aside while that under Section 498A
stands confirmed. [Para 17] (1070-D] H
~

r;:

1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 2 S.C.R.

A Case Law Reference
t_. ...
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
't-- ~
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
(1992) Crl. LJ 1104 relied on Para 11
D ..
AIR (1952) SC 343 relied on Para 14 4

AIR (1984) SC 1622 relied on Para 15
(2003) a sec 1ao relied on Para 16
E (2003) 11 sec 251
••1
,_
relied on Para 16
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 365 of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 22.03.2007 of the
>. L:
F High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal (MD)
No. 283 of 2004.
S. Ravi Shankar, Yamuna Nachiar, for the Appellant..
S. Thananjayan, for the Respondent.
c
I
G
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by ...____ I

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
H 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the· judgment of a Division ~
SYED HAKKIM AND ANR. V. STATE REP. BY DY. SUP. 1063
OF POLICE, KARUR DIST., TAMIL NADU[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by A
- ·1 the appellants. Seven accused persons faced trial. Appellants-
accused were numbers as A-1 and A-2 respectively in the trial
Court and before the High court. Out of seven accused persons
who faced trial A-1 to A-5 and A-7 were convicted for offence
punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 B
(in short the 'IPC') while A-1 to A-5 were also convicted for
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In appeal the High
), _.., Court set aside the conviction so far as A3, A4 and AS are
concerned in respect of offence punishable under Section 302
IPC. c
3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
The marriage between the first accused and the Syed Ali
Fathima (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') took place on
,.. 22.4.2001. A2 is the brother of Al. A3 and A4 are the sisters of D
~ Al and AS is the mother and A6 is the father of Al. A 7 is the aunt
of Al. P.W.I is the mother of the deceased.Atthe time of marriage,
P.W.I paid Rs.5,000/- and three sovereigns of gold jewels and
after a period of two months, the first accused went to Mumbai
seeking for a job. All the other accused ill-treated the deceased
E
stating that the dowry demand was not met. Prior to the
occurrence, the first accused came from Mumbai. PW-1 was
summoned. At that time, there was a demand from accused
~ ,..l Nos. 1, 2 and 7 that 10 sovereigns of gold and a sum of
Rs.5,000/- towards "Seevarisai" for Ramzan must be paid
immediately. A-7 who was present at that time informed PW-1 F
that she can pay the said demand within a period of two months.

P.W.2 is closely related to P.W.1. On 6.3.2000, he came
to Pallapatti and went to the house of P.W.1. P.W.2 was informed
by P. W.1 that there was a dowry demand from the side of the G
.,,_...
accused. A marriage was scheduled to take place in the house
of a resident which is next to the house of the first accused and
hence on 8.3.2002, P.W.2 came to the house between 11 am
and 12 noon. He was talking to the said neighbour. Since P.W.2
knew that there was a dowry demand, he decided to meet the
H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A deceased in her house for that purpose. When he was just
)--A ~
getting doym through the staircase, he was able to see the house
of the deceased Fathima. A window was kept open through
which he was able to see within 10 feet. At that time, Al and A2
strangulated the deceased Fathima with a rope and A3 and A4
B caught hold of both the arms. On seeing this, P.W.2 was shocked.
When he was witnessing the occurrence, A2 saw P.W.2.
Immediately, P.W.2 went to the place of PW-1. But he could not
meet anybody and he went to his native place, Salem and I-
If- {
returned on the next day i.e. 9.3.2002.
c On the day of occurrence, i.e., 8.3.2002, the son of the 2nd
accused proceeded to the house of P:W.1 and informed her
that she was to be taken to the hpuse of the accused and took
her in a two wheeler. When P.W.1 went to the house of the
accused, the wife of A2 informed that the deceased Fathiina '
~

'-
D was upstairs. When P.W.1 went to upstairs, she found only the .. t
dead body of her daughter and P.W.1 was able to see a ligature -*
mark around the neck of the deceased. When P.W.1 enquired,
nobody gave any answer, but all laughed. P.W.1 immediately
1-
came back and informed to the relatives and proceeded to the
E police.Station. P.W.13, t_he Sub-lnsp~ctor of Police was on duty
on the day of occurrence. P. W1 gave acomplaint at about 17.30
hours which is marked as Ex.P.1 on the strength of which a case
came to be registered in Crime No.49/2002 under Section 174 _j.,
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short the 'Code') <.
F was dispatched to the Court. On receipt of the copy of the F.l.R.,
P.W.14 the Deputy Superint_endent of Police took up
investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made
inspection and prepared Ex.P.2- the observation Mahazar and
Ex.P.12- the rough sketch. He also sent a copy of the FIR to
G PW-10, the Revenue -Divisional Officer who on receipt of the
copy of the FIR proceeded to the place and also conducted
-~
inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and
prepared Ex.P-9, the Inquest Report wherein he opined that it
was not a case of suicide but it was the death by homicide. He
also made enquiries from witnesses and the accused. Following
H j

,_-
..,
SYED HAKKIM AND ANR V. STATE REP. BY DY. SUP. 1065
OF POLICE, KARUR DIST., TAMIL NADU[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

the same, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.9, A
'~ the doctor attached to Govt. Headquarters Hospital, Karur, who
opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia
due to strangulation about 24-36 hours prior to autopsy.
Originally, the case was registered under section 174 of
B
Code. Later, it was converted into one under Sections 498-A
and 302 IPC and the Express F.l.R. Ex.P.13 was dispatched to
the court.
> _.,
Pending investigation, accused Nos.1 to 6 were arrested.
A2 came forward to give confessional statement voluntarily and c
the same was recorded by P. W.13, the Deputy Superintendent
of Police in the presence of witnesses, pursuant to which A2
has produced M.0.1-Nylon rope which was recovered under a
cover of Mahazar, Ex.P.4. All the accused were sent for judicial
remand. D
•
~

On completion of investigation, the investigating officer
filed the final report. The case was committed to the Court of
Sessions. Necessary charges were framed in order to
substantiate the charges leveled against the accused. The
prosecution examined 16 witnesses and relied upon 13 exhibits E
and 3 material objects. On completion of evidence on the side
of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under section
J. 313 of Code.

PW-2 was projected to be an eye witness. But he resiled F
from his statement made during investigation. The trial Court
and the High Court proceeded on the basis as if the prosecution
version rested on circumstantial evidence. Two circumstances
were highlighted to fasten the guilt on the accused. The plea of
alibi set up by A-1 having been dis-believed it must be presun .ed G
that he was guilty. Similarly, in respect of A-2 plea of suicide
,, i.
was ruled out by the evidence of doctor (PW-9). A-2 was held to
be guilty. On the aforesaid ground the trial Court convicted the
present appellants and the High Court concurred with the view
of the trial Court. H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 2 S.C.R.

A 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from
)-4 '":
the stage of trial, the prosecution case was that there was only !
one eye witness i.e. PW-2 but since he did not support the
prosecution case, the prosecution proceeded to rely on the
certain circumstances. It is submitted that the circumstances
B highlighted do not present a complete chain of circumstances
to warrant the conclusion of guilt on the accused persons.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
hand supported the judgment. ,,._ ....

c 6. So far as Section 498-A is concerned according to
learned counsel for the appellants the evidence is scanty but it
is to be noticed that both the trial Court and the High Court having
regard to the evidence of relatives concluded that the dowry
demand was made. We do not find any infirmity with the
D conclusions arrived at more particularly in view of the evidence
of PWs 1 and 2 and therefore there is no scope for interference _,\ "4
with the conclusions relating to Section 498-A IPC.
7. The residual question is about the conviction in terms of
Section 302 IPC.
E
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 ~ '
innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See
F Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1977SC1063); Eradu
and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316);
Earabhadrappa v. State of f<arnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State
of UP v. Sukhbasiand Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Ba/winder
Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar
G Chatterjee v. State of M. P. (Al R 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
fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat
H Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621 ), it was laid down
. SYED HAKKIM ANO ANR. V. STATE REP. BY DY. SUP. 1067
OF POLICE, KARUR DIST., TAMIL NADU[OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

--l • -1 that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from A
circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must
be such as to negate 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
B
Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P (1996) 10
sec 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
'; _,, "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 c
circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all
the circumstances should be complete and there should
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 D
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
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following
tests: E
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
, ,4,
). established;
"'

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency F
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(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 G
.,, 1-
(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
H
A
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
•
should be inconsistent with his innocence."
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
8 ·. · on is reasonably capable of two infererces, 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
established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
c
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 as the basis of any legal inference
0 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, which infers legal
accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial
evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature
E 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 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
F 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-
stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by
the this Court as far back as in 1952.
G 14. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr V State of
Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed
thus:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence
is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which
H
SYED HAKKIM AND ANR. V. STATE REP. BY DY. SUP. 1069
OF POLICE, KARUR DIST., TAMIL NADU[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first A
instance be fully established and ·all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should
_be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should
be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one B
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 must have been C
done by the accused."
15. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC
1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it
has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that D
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:
E
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established. The circum-
stances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be'
established;
I

(2) the facts so established should· be consistent only F
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;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature.
and tendency; G
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
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 H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A consistent with the innoGence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have been
r·.
done by the accused.
16. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan
B v. Raja Ram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir
Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261) and Kusuma Ankama
Rao v State of A.P (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of
on 7.7.2008).
17. The circumstances highlighted by the prosecution to
c bring in application of Section 302 IPC are insufficient and scanty.
That being so, the conviction as recorded in terms of Section
302 IPC cannot be maintained and is set aside. The sentences
imposed in respect of Section 498-A IPC does not warrant
interference. In the ultimate result, the conviction in terms of
0 Section 302 is set aside while that under Section 498-A stands
confirmed.
18. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

B.B.B. Appeal party allowed.