# SAKHARAM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1992] 1 S.C.R. 638
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1992-02-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. E 370 of 1980
- **Bench:** Kuldip Singh, R.M. Saha!
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sakharam-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-11475
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction 1mder-Abse11ce of motive
in a case of circumstantial evidence-Relevancy of-Accused and deceased
'clrildren' defined in tire Children Act, 1960-J11ve11ile-i1111oce11ce--PresumpC tion of-Prosecution's duty.
The prosecution's case was that a fe\v days before the incident the
accused-appellant's grand father suffered heart attack and on his
hospitalisation, accused's parents were attending on him:
D
The deceased, who was the aunt of the accused and daughter-in-law
of accused's grand father came to see her ailing father-in-law.
Thereafter the deceased went to her father-in-law's one room house
in the village, where the accused was staying alone and stayed for 8/10 days.
E
The accused was aged about 16 and his aunt, the deceased was aged
F
G
17/18.
On 29.10.1968 at about noon time, the neighbours heard a gun-shot
sound from the accused's house. On reaching the accused's house they
found the deceased lying dead on the Door and a 12 bore gun on the bed.
One of the neighbours was an uncle of the accused, to whom, the
accused told crying, "run uncle what has happened".
The trial Court convicted the appellant for murder and sentenced
him to imprisonment for life.
Accused's appeal was dismissed by the High Court, against which by
special leave this appeal was filed.
Allowing the appeal of the accused, this Court,
H
HELD: 1.01. The appellant was present at the time and place of
638
-
SAKHARAM v. STATE [KULDIP SINGH, J.]
639
,..
occurrence but this circumstance alone is not sufficient to conclude . that A
it was the appellant who fired the gun-shot and he did so with the intention
or killing the deceased. [641F·G]
l.02. There is absolutely no motive on the part of the appellant to
murder the deceased. Absence of motive may not be relevant in a case
B
where the evidence is overwhelming but it is a plus-point for the accused
in a case where the evidence against him is only circumstantial. [642B)
~
1.03. His telling his uncle while crying "run uncle what has happened"
shows that the happening was beyond his comprehension. It could be an
accident while fiddling with the gun. [641H, 642A)
c
1.04. The appellant and the deceased were children as defined under
the Children Act, 1960. When presumption .or juvenile-innocence is sought
to be displaced by the prosecution on the basis of circumstantial-evidence
the circumstances must unmistakably prove the guilt beyond doubt.
[642C) D
...
I.OS. The prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against
the appellant beyond doubt. [642D)

## Text

A
SAKHARAM
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FEBRUARY 12, 1992
B
[KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction 1mder-Abse11ce of motive
in a case of circumstantial evidence-Relevancy of-Accused and deceased
'clrildren' defined in tire Children Act, 1960-J11ve11ile-i1111oce11ce--PresumpC tion of-Prosecution's duty.
The prosecution's case was that a fe\v days before the incident the
accused-appellant's grand father suffered heart attack and on his
hospitalisation, accused's parents were attending on him:
D
The deceased, who was the aunt of the accused and daughter-in-law
of accused's grand father came to see her ailing father-in-law.
Thereafter the deceased went to her father-in-law's one room house
in the village, where the accused was staying alone and stayed for 8/10 days.
E
The accused was aged about 16 and his aunt, the deceased was aged
F
G
17/18.
On 29.10.1968 at about noon time, the neighbours heard a gun-shot
sound from the accused's house. On reaching the accused's house they
found the deceased lying dead on the Door and a 12 bore gun on the bed.
One of the neighbours was an uncle of the accused, to whom, the
accused told crying, "run uncle what has happened".
The trial Court convicted the appellant for murder and sentenced
him to imprisonment for life.
Accused's appeal was dismissed by the High Court, against which by
special leave this appeal was filed.
Allowing the appeal of the accused, this Court,
H
HELD: 1.01. The appellant was present at the time and place of
638
-
SAKHARAM v. STATE [KULDIP SINGH, J.]
639
,..
occurrence but this circumstance alone is not sufficient to conclude . that A
it was the appellant who fired the gun-shot and he did so with the intention
or killing the deceased. [641F·G]
l.02. There is absolutely no motive on the part of the appellant to
murder the deceased. Absence of motive may not be relevant in a case
B
where the evidence is overwhelming but it is a plus-point for the accused
in a case where the evidence against him is only circumstantial. [642B)
~
1.03. His telling his uncle while crying "run uncle what has happened"
shows that the happening was beyond his comprehension. It could be an
accident while fiddling with the gun. [641H, 642A)
c
1.04. The appellant and the deceased were children as defined under
the Children Act, 1960. When presumption .or juvenile-innocence is sought
to be displaced by the prosecution on the basis of circumstantial-evidence
the circumstances must unmistakably prove the guilt beyond doubt.
[642C) D
...
I.OS. The prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against
the appellant beyond doubt. [642D)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
E
370 of 1980.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.1980 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 311 of 1973.
.,,
.. ·
T. Sridharan for the Appellant.
F
...
U ma Nath Singh for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH, J. Sakharam and Awadhrani, aged about 16 and G
17118 were together in a one room-house belonging to Sakharam's grandfather in a village. Awadhrani was married to Sakharam's uncle {father's
younger brother). A gun-shot was heard and the neighbours rushed to the
room. Awadhrani was found lying dead on the floor with a gun-shot injury.
.,.
Sakharam was standing nearby and was crying. On these facts the trial
court convicted Sakharam for the murder of Awadhrani and sentenced him H
640
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1992] 1 S.C.R.
A
to imprisonment for life. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed.
B
c
Hence this appeal via special leave.
The appellant along with his father and grand-father was living in a
village near Jabalpur. Awadhrani was the wife of Govindprasad, uncle of
the appellant. Govindprasad was employed at Bhopal and Awadhrani was
living with him. A few days before the incident appellant's grand-father had
suffered heart attack and was shifted to Jabalpur Medical College.
Appellant's father and mother were attending on his grand father at the
hospital. Awadhrani had come from Bhopal to Jabalpur to see her fatherin-law. She stayed at Jabalpur for about 3/4 days and thereafter went to
the village where the appellant was staying alone in the family house. After
about 8/10 days of stay in the 'illage on October 29, 1968 at about noon
time the neighbours heard a gun-shot sound from the house of the appellant. Mahadeo (P.W.4), one of the neighbours, was the uncle of the
appellant. As soon as Mahadeo reached appellant's house, the appellant,
D while crying, told him "run uncle what has happened". The neighbours
found Awadhrani lying dead on the floor and a 12 bore gun lying on the
bed. It is not disputed that the appellant's grand-father had two licenced
guns which were lyiAg in the same room.
There is no direct evidence against the appellant. There is no reason,
E conscious or sub-conscious, for the appellant to commit the murder. They
have been together in the one room-house for about 8/10 days. The
appellant denied having committed the offence but gave no explanation as
to how and under what circumstances the deceased got the fatal gun-shot
IDJUry.
F
G
At the trial it was suggested that the deceased committed suicide.
Plea of alibi was also raised on behalf of the appellant. The courts below,
Go appreciation of e'idence, rejected both the pleas. We see no infirmity
in the said findings of the courts below and agree with the same.
The trial court found that the following circumstances came to be
established beyond doubt:-
1. That on the date and time of the incident the accused and the
deceased were the only two occupants of the house which consisted of one
H room.
SAKHARAM v. STATE [KULDIP SINGH, J.]
641
,..
2. That the accused when examined by Dr. V .P. Gupta on July 1, A
1972 was found capable of having sexual intercourse.
3. The deceased Awadhrani was found dead in the room which at
the time of the incident was occupied by the accused and the deceased.
4. Soon after the incident when the witnesses visited the house, the B
accused who was present, did not assign any reason for the death of the
deceased and kept quiet.
/
5. After the incident an attempt was made to show that the deceased
~-<:
died by committing suicide. A plea of alibi was also set up on behalf of the c
accused.
On the basis of the above circumstances the trial court convicted the
appellant for the murder of Awadhrani. The High Court upheld the
conviction.
D
So far as the defence set-up at the trial on behalf of the appellant is
..
concerned that cannot be taken as a circumstance against him. The appellant himself did not raise any plea in his statement made before the trial
court. Simply because the pleas of suicide and alibi have failed at the trial
no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant. The goilt of the E
appellant has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the
evidence produced by the prosecution.
It is no doubt correct that the appellant and the deceased were
~--
together at the time when gun-shot sound was heard and the witnesses who
reached the spot thereafter found the appellant standing nearby the dead F
body and crying. lt may, therefore, be reasonable to infer that the appellant
was present at the time and place of occurrence but this circumstance
alone is not sufficient to conclude that it was the appellant who fired the
gun-shot and he did so with the intention of killing the deceased. The
appellant and the deceased were living in the house for about 8/10 days G
prior to the occurrence. There is no evidence to show that he ever made
any sexual advances towards the deceased. It is no body's case that before
the gun-shot was fired any _attempt to molest or outrage the modesty of the
deceased was made. The appellant did not run-away from the place of
=
occurrence though he had ample opportunity to do so. There is nothing on
the record to show that he could handle the gun. His telling Mahadeo while H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1992) 1 S.C.R.
A crying 'run uncle what has h31ipened' shows that the happening was
beyond his comprehension. It wuld be an accident while fiddling with the
gun.
There is absolutely no motive on the part of the appellant to murder
the deceased. Absence of motive may not be relevant in a case where the
B evidence is overwhelming but it is a plus-point for the accused in a case
where the evidence against him is only circumstantial.
The appellant, on the date of occurrence, was a young boy and the
deceased was his aunt in the same age grotip. Both were children as
C. defined under the Children Act, 1960. When presumption of juvenile-innocence is sought tci be displaced by the prosecution on the basis of
circumstantial-evidence the circumstances must unmistakably prove the
guilt beyond doubt.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the circumstances
D
relied-upon by the courts below. We have not been able to dispel our
doubts. We are satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to prove
the charge against the appellant beyond doubt. We, therefore, allow the
appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and
acquit him. The appellant is on bail. His bail-bond is discharged.
V.P.R.
Appeal allowed.