SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(SC) 387

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA, A.C. GUPTA AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.
Sirajuddin, Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1975, D/-3-9-1980.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 – Offence of Murder – Charged – Appeal against conviction - Appellant and three others, namely, (accused 1) (accused 3) and (accused 4) were tried for murder, wife of - Accused 2 and 3 are sons of different sisters of this - His wife (the deceased) and P. W. 2 were residing in a house in Block - These three were only inmates of that house - Accused 3 and 4 were working in a laundry - Appellant herein who is original accused 2, is a book-maker runner - these four accused planned to murder deceased and take away her cash and gold ornaments from her house - They were aware that used to go away every morning from his house to attend to his work as Electrical Contractor and return by 9 p. m. and that P. W. 2 also used to go to College every morning and return by 5-30 p. m. or so - Story further proceeds that these four accused persons were frequently meeting in a room in Everest Hotel and some other places to hatch their plan – Held, trial judge further suspected that witness was a person who was frequently receiving stolen property - Trial Judge further noticed that the account-books of witness were not seized by police - In variance with it, at trial P. W. 29 stated that he knew accused 1 for several weeks prior to that date because father of accused was his old customer - For these reasons, trial Judge found it "impossible to accept testimony of P. W. 29," when he stated that accused 2 and accused had come and pledged gold articles with him on after murder - When oral testimony of P. W. 29 in regard to payment as loan to appellant on security of jewels, was not supported by any entry in his account-books, and his evidence was not free from infirmities, opinion of trial Judge to effect that witness was unreliable, could not be lightly ignored, much less could it be said to be manifestly erroneous or palpably wrong - It is well settled that if view of evidence taken by trial court is reasonably possible, High Court should not, as a rule of prudence, disturb the acquittal - Appeal allowed.

Judgment

R. S. SARKARIA, J.:- This appeal is directed against a judgment, dated December 17, 1973, of the High Court of Karnataka, whereby it reversed the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him under Section 302, Penal Code. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case were as follows :

Sirajuddin alias Shri appellant and three others (who will be referred to by their original numbers as accused in the trial court), namely, Altaf (accused 1) Sardar (accused 3) and Jaweed (accused 4) were tried for the murder of Smt. Khrushuddinnisa, wife of Dawood Sab. Accused 2 and 3 are the sons of different sisters of this Dawood Sab. Dawood Sab, his wife (the deceased) and P. W. 2 were residing in a house in Mohammedan Block, Malleswaram. These three were the only inmates of that house. Accused 3 and 4 were working in a laundry. Appellant herein who is the original accused 2, is a book-maker runner.

2. For about one month prior to March 3, 1972, these four accused planned to murder the deceased and take away her cash and gold ornaments from her house. They were aware that Dawood Sab used to go away every morning from his house to attend to his work as Electrical Contractor and return by 9 p. m. and that P. W. 2 also used to go to Nijalingappa College every morning and return by 5-30 p. m. or so. The story further proceeds that these four accused persons were frequently meeting in a room in Everest Hotel and some other places to hatch their plan.

3. In the morning of March 3, 1972, which is the date of occurrence, Dawood Sab went to the Fuel Depot of Keshava, where P. W. 4, and P. W. 15 were working as fuel cutters and placed orders for supply of fuel to his house. At about 2-30 p. m., Dawood Sab again went to the Fuel Depot and paid the splitting charges and went away to attend to his work as Electrical Contractor. In compliance with the order placed by Dawood Sab, P. W. 4 and P. W. 15 took the fuel wood to Dawood Sabs house, but found the door closed. P. W. 4 called : Amma Amma. Thereupon, accused 1 opened the door and asked P. W. 4 to store the fuel at a place shown by accused 1. P. W. 15 and P. W. 4 accordingly unloaded the fuel at that place and went back to the Fuel Depot. Accused 1 closed the door.

4. At about 4-15 p. m., P. W. 14 (Abdul Sattar), whose house is situated almost in front of the house of Dawood Sab, across the lane, saw all these four accused persons emerging out of the house of Dawood Sab and going away towards the railway line. P. W. 1, an auto rickshaw driver, who had come to the locality, heard the outcry of a girl "Murder! Murder". That girl had just come out of the house of Dawood Sab. P. W. 1 went into the house and found Smt. Khrushuddinnisa lying murdered, P. W. 1 then went to Malleswaram Police Station and lodged the information (Ex. P-1). The Police Sub-Inspector (P. W. 46) after registering the case reached the spot at about 5-15 p. m. Investigation commenced. The Circle Inspector (P. W. 47) also came and recorded the statements of P. W. 4, P. W. 14 and P. W. 15 and suspected these four accused persons. He directed his staff to trace and apprehend the accused. Accused 1 was arrested at 5-30 p. m. on March 7, 1972 and the appellant (accused 2) on March 7, 1972. He was interrogated by the Police Inspector. After making the statement (Ex. P-42), the appellant led the police in the presence of witnesses to the shop of the pawn-broker (P. W. 29), and asked the latter to produce the articles and jewels that he had pledged with him (P. W. 29). Accordingly, P. W. 29 produced a gold chain with pendent (M. O. 4), gold chain (M. O. 5), gold chand-thara (M. O. 7), a pair of golden ear-rings (M. O. 8), a pair of golden jumkies (M. O. 9), a pair of gold bangles (M. O. 11), a single gold bangle (M. O. 12) and a pair of golden metal (M. O. 28). These articles were seized under the Panchanama (Ex. P-32). The Police Inspector, also, took into possession the pawn-ticket and the pawn receipts and prepared the seizure memo














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top