Supreme Court of India
VITHAL EKNATH ADLINGEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 277
- Decided
- 27 February 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The cumulative effect of the circumstances proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld.
Summary
Vithal Eknath Adlinge was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based primarily on circumstantial evidence. The trial court and the Bombay High Court found him guilty, citing that the accused was last seen with the victim, the victim was found dead in a pool of blood, there was prior enmity, and witnesses testified to the accused's harassment of the victim. The appellant challenged the adequacy of the circumstantial evidence, arguing that the chain was not complete and the "last seen" theory was insufficient. The Supreme Court examined the established legal tests for circumstantial evidence and held that the cumulative circumstances satisfied all the required criteria, leaving no reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and life sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the trial court's findings were perverse or contrary to legal principles governing circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the "last seen" theory applied in this case to infer the accused's participation in the murder.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302
Subjects
murdercircumstantial evidenceSection 302 IPClast seen theoryconviction upheldcriminal law
Judgment
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 532
A VITHAL EKNATH ADLINGE
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 662 of 2007)
FEBRUARY 27, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
c s. 302 - Murder - Conviction on basis of circumstantial
t.Jvidence - HELD: The cumulative effect of the circumstances,
when considered in the background of legal principles
enshrined in the decisions of the Court, make it clear that the
accusations have been established by the prosecution -
D Circumstances highlighted by the trial court and the High
Court to find the accused guilty cannot be termed as perverse
- Conviction and sentence as recorded by trial court and
affirmed by High Court, upheld - Circumstantial evidence.
E The accused-appellant was convicted uls 302 IPC on
the evidence establishing the circumstances that he was
last seen with the victim, the victim was lying dead in the
pool of blood and accused was not there, previous
..
enmity and, therefore, intention to commit the murder
F was proved; and the witnesses clearly referred to the
conduct of the accused for ill-treating and harassing the
victim prior to the date of incident. The High Court having
upheld the conviction, the accused filed the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: The cumulative effect of the circumstances,
when considered in the background of legal principles
enshrined in the decisions of the Court, it is but clear that
the accusations have been established by the
H 532
VITHAL EKNATH ADLINGE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 533
prosecution. The finding recorded by the trial court and A
the High Court, on the basis of the circumstances
highlighted holding the accused guilty, cannot be termed
as perverse. Though the High Court's judgment is not
very elaborate, but that cannot take away the effect of
elaborate discussions made by the trial court to find the B
accused guilty. The conduct of the accused also cannot
.. .. be lost sight of. He was absconding for 7 days. The
appeal has no merit. [Para 18] [541-E-G]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR C
1984 SC 1622, relied on.
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 U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; Ba/winder D
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; Padala Veera Reddy
v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; State of U.P. v. E
Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 Crl.LJ 1104; Hanumant
Govind Nargundkar and Anr. Vs.. State of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 1952 SC 343; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8)
SCC 180; State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003
(11) SCC 261; Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of A.P. 2008 F
(10 ) SCR 89; State of U.P. v. Salish 2005(3) SCC 114;
Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of A.P. 2006 (10)
SCC 172 and Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab 2005 (12) SCC
438; Manivel and Ors. V. State ofT.N. 2008 (11) SCR 1036,
referred to.
G
"Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" {Chapter VI) by Sir
Alfred Wills, referred to.
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1977 SC 1063 referred to para 6 H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.
* ..
A AIR 1956 SC 316 referred to para 6
AIR 1983 SC 446 referred to para 6
AIR 1985 SC 1224 referred to para 6
AIR 1987 SC 350 referred to para 6
B
AIR 1989 SC 1890 referred to para 6
AIR 1954 SC 621 referred to para 6 ~ -
(1996) 10 sec 193 referred to para 7
c
AIR 1990 SC 79 referred to para 8
1992 Crl.LJ 1104 referred to para 9
AIR 1952 SC 343 referred to para 12
~
D AIR 1984 SC 1622 relied on para 13
2003 (8) sec 180 referred to para 14
2003 (11) sec 261 referred to para 14
E 2008 (10) SCR 89 referred to para 14
2005(3) sec 114 referred to para 14
2006 (10) sec 112 referred to para 16 •
~
2005 (12) sec 438 referred to para 17
F
2008 (11) SCR 1036 referred to para 17
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 662 of 2007.
G From the Judgment & Order dated 20.10.06 of the High
;l ...
Court of Judicature of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 324/ ""'
2002.
..
Sushi! Karanjakar and K.N. Rai for the Appellants.
H
VITHAL EKNATH ADLINGE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 535
..,. ~
Anjani Kumar Mishra and Ravindra Keshavrao for the A
Respondent.
The Judgment of the court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court B
upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
' " the 'IPC').
2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: c
....
On 13.2.1986 Police Head Constable Dinkar Shankar
Dumbre (PW-1) was attached to Railway Police Head Quarters
at Ghatkopar. At the relevant time, his nature of work was to
receive the telephonic message from outside and convey the
said message to the Railway Reserve Inspector. On 13.2.1986 D
at about 1845 hrs. Mr. Gavade Head Constable came and
informed Dinkar Dumbre (PW1) that in Room No.41 of building
No.24, one lady is lying in injured condition in a pool of blood.
The said constable also informed that he came to know about
the said fact from the ladies residing in the said building. On E
receipt of this message Dinkar Dumbre (PW1) proceeded to
~
.. the place of incident. He noticed one lady lying in pool of
)-
blood in the bath room of the house. Dinkar Dumbre (PW1)
appointed one police constable to guard the said place of
- incident and he proceeded to inform the said fact to RSI, Gaze. F
Dinkar Dumbre (PW1) also informed the above said fact to
Tilak Nagar police station. The police from Tilak Nagar police
station arrived at the place of incident. The statement of PWI
was recorded by Tilak Nagar police which was treated as
First Information Report. After investigation, charge sheet was G
- ,X filed.
Prosecution examined 12 witnesses to substantiate its
~ccusations and the trial was held as the accused pleaded
innocence.
H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A The trial Court found the evidence to be sufficient to fasten
"' ~
the guilt on the accused. Questioning the conviction and the
sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, an appeal was
filed before the Bombay High Court which came to be
' B dismissed by the impugned judgment. As the case rested on
circumstantial evidence the trial Court and the High Court
analysed the evidence with great detail and held the accused
guilty. The appeal did not bring any relief. ••
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
c appellant submitted that the circumstances have not been
established to find him guilty. -
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
hand supported the judgment.
D
5. The circumstances highlighted by the trial Court and
the High Court to find the accused persons are as follows:
(i) That the accused and the victim were last seen together;
E (ii) The victim was lying dead in the pool of blood and the
accused was not there.
(iii) Previous enmity and therefore intention to kill is proved; ~
'
...
(iv) PWs 6 and 7 clearly refer to the conduct of the accused
F for ill treating and harassing the victim prior to the date of
incident.
6. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that
-
where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
G inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the 1l -
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);
H Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446);
VITHAL EKNATH ADLINGE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 537
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
; 'f
State of UP. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); A
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 B
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 c
bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
7. 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:
D
"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 E
be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved
circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis
~
of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
~
innocence.... ".
F
8. In Pada/a 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:
,,. )f
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is G
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R.
A (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
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
B
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.
c
9. 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
D 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.
E
10. 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 must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt
F 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 of the case admits; (4) in order to
G 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 right to be acquitted".
H
VITHAL EKNATH ADLINGE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 539
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
- "' 11. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely A
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.
12. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State
B
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 the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should c
be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts
so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the
- -I
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
D
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 E
must have been done by the accused."
13. A reference may be made to a later decision in
-1
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 - F
-.
"
that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in
prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The
conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before
conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must
be fully established. They are: G
... "' (1) 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;
H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
"' ....
A
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
B
tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved; and
.. -
c (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
show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.
,._
D 14. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan
)..
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).
E
15. So far as the last seen aspect is concerned it is
necessar)' to take note of two decisions of this court. In State
of U.P. v. Satish [2005 (3) sec 114] it was noted as follows: .
"22. The last seen theory comes into play where the time- '
F gap between the point of time when the accused and the
deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased
is found dead is so small that possibility of any person
--
other than the accused being the author of the crime
becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases
G to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with
the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of "' lo
other persons coming in between exists. In the absence
of any other positive evidence to conclude that the
accused and the deceased were last seen together, it
H
VITHAL EKNATH ADLINGE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 541
': [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
'f
would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in A
.,, those cases. In this case there is positive evidence tnat
the deceased and the accused were seen togethe{ by
witnesses PWs. 3 and 5, in addition to the evidence of
PW-2."
B
16. In Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of A.P.
[2006 (10) sec 172] it was noted as follows:
-- ., "27. The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play
where the time gap between the point of time when the
c
- accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the
deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any
person other than the accused being the author of the
crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case the courts
should look for some corroboration".
1 D
(See also Bodh Raj v. State of J&K (2002(8) SCC
45).)"
17. Similar view was also taken in Jaswant Gir v. State
of Punjab [2005(12) SCC 438], Kusuma Ankama Rae's case
(supra) and_Manivel and Ors. v. State of T.N. (Crl.A. No. 473 E
of 2001 disposed of on August 8, 2008),
-- ...
)-
18. The cumulative effect of the circumstances, as
highlighted above, when considered in the background of legal
principles stated supra it is but clear that the accusations have
F
been established by the prosecution. The circumstances
highlighted by the trial Court and the High Court to find the
accused guilty cannot be termed as perverse. Though the High
Court's judgment is not very elaborate, but that cannot take
away the effect of elaborate discussions made by the trial
Court to find the accused persons guilty. The conduct of the G
A< -(
accused cannot be also lost sight of. He was absconding for
7 days. Above being the position, there is no merit in this
appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
~ RP. Appeal dismissed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search