Criminal appeal before the Supreme Court concerning Ravi, who was convicted of murdering his first wife, Jamni, by strangulation. The case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence, as key prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s brother and sister, turned hostile. The court scrutinizes the medical evidence, which did not conclusively establish the cause of death, and the investigative findings, which also lacked definitive proof. Ultimately, the Supreme Court applies the “five golden principles” of circumstantial evidence and Section 106 of the Evidence Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to Ravi’s acquittal and immediate release after over ten years in jail.
(A) Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Three PWs, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, i.e. the brother, the sister and the Cousin of the deceased respectively did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile – Dr. PW-5, in his testimony, stated that he had conducted the post-mortem – The testimony of PW-5 in no certain terms, establishes that the deceased died of asphyxia due to hanging or strangulation inasmuch as he had also opined that the death may be due to chronic tuberculosis – He had also explained the possibility of the ligature marks on the neck to be on account of the long journey and not solely due to hanging or strangulation – The Inspector (PW-7), who carried out the investigation, simply states that he had conducted the investigation and had arrested the appellant – On appellant’s disclosure, he discovered the rope which was used in the commission of the crime – However, in cross- examination, he admitted that similar ropes were easily available in the market – The evidence PW-5 and PW7 if read together, would only reveal that they have conducted the post- mortem and the investigation respectively – The doctor opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to hanging with ligature marks on the neck but in the cross- examination admitted that the ligature marks could be on account of the long journey of the dead body and that the cause of death of the deceased can also be due to chronic tuberculosis – Therefore, his evidence does not conclusively establish the cause of the death – Even the evidence of the Inspector (PW-7) does not establish beyond the shadow of doubt that the rope which was recovered by him was the same rope with which the crime may have been committed as similar ropes were easily available in the market – Circumstances of this case, in no way, conclusively establish the guilt of the appellant rather it gives sufficient room to form a different opinion – On the basis of the above circumstantial evidence, the innocence of the appellant cannot be completely ruled out.
(Para 9 to 17 and 19)
(B) Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 313 Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Learned counsel for the State argued that in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it was for the appellant to have explained the circumstances under which the deceased died as the crime had occurred within the four corners of a house i.e. jhuggi and he alone had knowledge as to what had happened inside at the time of the crime – Held that the above argument may appear to be of some substance but the initial burden is upon the prosecution to first prima facie establish the guilt of the accused and then only the burden shifts upon the accused to explain the circumstances as contemplated by Section 106 of the Evidence Act – Courts below have completely lost sight of the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 ‘CrPC’ whereas in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, on being asked if he had anything further to say, categorically stated that the deceased had died a natural death as she was suffering from chronic tuberculosis for which she was under treatment at Beas hospital – Once the appellant had disclosed about the aforesaid illness of the deceased and her treatment in a particular hospital, it was for the prosecution to have sought re-examination of the doctor conducting the post-mortem so as to ascertain as to whether the deceased was actually suffering from chronic tuberculosis, though he may have opined that the death may be due to asphyxia caused due to tuberculosis – The prosecution failed to do so or to produce any other independent evidence in this regard to dislodge the version of the appellant – Prosecution has completely failed to produce evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence – Rather the evidence on record gives ample leverage for two conflicting opinions, and in such circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to be given in favour of the appellant – Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court liable to be and hereby set aside.
(Para 20 to 26)
(C) Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of evidence – In a leading case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra[(1984) 4 SCC 116] this Court laid down the five golden principles, the panchsheels of circumstantial evidence, namely, (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and 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 conclusive nature 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 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.
(Para 18)
Ravi V. State Of Punjab
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 170: (DoJ 10-02-2025)
