Case Analysis

Hanumant V. The State of Madhya Pradesh

By - B.Jaypraksh

Citation: - AIR 1952 SC 343

Date of Judgment: - 23rd Sept 1952

Bench: - Justices MC Mahajan, Das and Bhagwati

Petitioners: - Hanumant

Respondents: - The State of Madhya Pradesh

Abstract: -

This is a consolidated appeal by special leave from the two orders of the high court of judicature at Nagpur passed on 9th march 1950, in criminal revision no. 152 and 153 of 1949. The complaint was filed by inspector general of police, anti-corruption department, Nagpur the appellant in criminal appeal no. of 56 of 1951 H.G Nargundkar, excise commissioner Madhya Pradesh, and the appellant in criminal appeal no. of 57 of 1951 R.S. Patel were tried in the special magistrate, Nagpur, for the offence of conspiracy, abetment and forgery of tender. Both of them were convicted by the special magistrate court i.e., R.S. Patel was sentenced 1-year rigorous imprisonment under each charge and pay fines of Rs. 2000, Rs.2000 and Rs.1000 respectively and as far H.G. Nargundkar he was also sentenced 6 months rigorous imprisonment under each charge and pay fines of Rs. 2000, Rs. 2000, Rs.1000.And later both appellants appealed against their conviction. But there was no success and hence this special leave petition before Supreme Court.

Brief note this case: -

The appellant, Nargundkar, is a member of the Central provinces and Berar provincial services and held the substantive post of deputy commissioner for several years. In April he was appointed as excise commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, and continued to hold that office till 5th sept 1947.

The appellant, R.S. Patel, is a sugar technologist and chemical engineer. He received his technical education and practical training in America and after working as chief chemist and general manager in factories in madras for 5 years, came central provinces in 1944, when the provincial government gave him a licence to set up a distillery for the manufacture of industrial spirit.

On 11th sept 1946 Nargundkar in his capacity as excise commissioner invited tenders for the working the government distillery at seoni and supplying spirit to certain specified district for a period of four year. In response to this tender notice, five tenders were filed including the appellant R.S. Patel. But the Nargundkar wanted to a favour to R.S. Patel.

So, the case of prosecution is that on 9th November 1946 accused Nargundkar took these sealed tenders’ home, and opened the seal so that the R.S. Patel tender can be substituted with lower rates as compared to others. And thereafter the tenders were brought to the excise commissioner and that on the recommendation of Nargundkar the tender of R.S. Patel was accepted and the contract was given to him.

In May, 1947 they were some suspicions on Nargundkar that he had taken bribe from R.S. Patel, and Nargundkar has conspired with R.S. Patel to gain the tender in his favour, and the tender document was forged with intention of committing fraud and causing injury to the other 5 people.

Both of the accused denied the commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy, forgery and abetment thereof. Nargundkar stated that he hadn’t attended the office on 9th November 1946. He denied of having taken the tenders at home. According to Nargundkar the tenders were opened by him in the office on the 11th November 1946. Accused R.S. Patel denied that the tender was originally submitted but not fabricated.

Both of them were acquitted from the conviction first charge criminal conspiracy u/s 120-B of IPC. But maintained the convictions for forgery of documents under section 465 of IPC. Both the appellants made an application for revision application to the high court against the order of the sessions court. But the high court also upheld the same. Therefore, an application under article 136 of Indian Constitution was made before the Supreme Court and it was allowed. And there were some observations made that in dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules especially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. The while referring “Reg v. Hodge” case said that “the mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to from parts of one connected whole; and more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting , to take for granted some facts consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete.”

The court also held that The Criminal Justice System in India provides for evidence to be proved before a court of law in order to ascertain the guilt of the accused. Proving as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as interpreted by several judicial pronouncements, the standard set provides the evidence to substantially prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in a criminal case rest on prosecution and not on defence.

Reasons given above the court said that there is no evidence whatsoever on the record to prove that the document was antedated and that being so, the charge in respect of forgery of document also fails. Reading as whole the document cannot be said to have been written with the intention of causing any injury other 5 tenders or for the purpose of creating a defence in respect of the second charge. The letter read as a whole is an innocuous document and its dominant purpose and intent was to safeguard the interests of the accused R.S. Patel and to him against any underhand or unfair act of his rival contractors. We cannot infer any intent to defraud or any intention to injure the other 5 tenders, though in order to protect himself accused R.S. Patel made certain allegations against him. therefore, the court set aside the conviction of both the appellants under forgery and acquit them.

The Hanumant case laid down the 5 golden principles which constitutes the Panchsheel (Coexistence of 5 principles) of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. These 5 principles are as follows: -

Circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

Fact so established should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that accused is guilty.

Facts should be of conclusive nature.

The facts should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.

There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability they must have been done by accused.