A. Yadev V/s State of Karnatka

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2008-12-25
Case No: 102 of 2001
Case Type: Appeal (Criminal)
Judge Name: Arijit Pasayat & Mukundakam Sharma
Subject: Criminal Law
Statutes / Acts: Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Bench Strength: Double Bench
Advocate: Jaspal Singh, V.N. Raghupathy, Dharampal et. al (P)& Sanjay R. Hegde, A. Rohen Singh, Vikrant Yadav and A et. al (R)
State of Appellant(s): Karnataka
History of Case No: Order dated 29.5.2000 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No. 749/1996
Equal Citation Details :

2009(1)ACR202(SC), AIR2009SC613, JT2008(12)SC441, 2009(1)KarLJ529, (2008)15SCC322, 2008(14 )SCALE676 ,2008(12 )JT441

Case Note / Description :

Dismissing the appeal, the Court: HELD: 1. The circumstances highlighted by the prosecution against the appellant were that he was acquainted with accused No. 1; that he was found near the place of incident along with Accused No.1 going to the flat of the deceased on 8.8.1992 at about 8.30 pm; that Accused No.1 pointed out the appellant as his accomplice and after apprehension as per the voluntary statement made by him, M.Os. 7 and 7a (pillow and pillow cover alleged to have been used for smothering both the deceased) were recovered; that chance finger print of the appellant were found from the scene of offence. The High Court has referred to several factors including the motive aspect. It has referred to the evidence of PWs. 2 & 4, who saw the appellant and A-1 after they came out of the deceased's house. PW4 remembered that the appellant was sitting in the car with A1. The circumstances highlighted by the High Court to hold the appellant guilty cannot be said to be without relevance. The High Court has rightly observed that the trial court did not consider the relevant aspects while directing acquittal of the present appellant. [Paras 6 and 18] [581-H; 582-A-B] 2. 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. 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. The condition precedent, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. 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; the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 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.

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)