Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sandeep Mehta, Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
Rahil & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1856 of 2014
Decided On : 25-06-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – In an appeal against acquittal, appellate court would not interfere with finding of trial court unless same finding is wholly perverse or against weight of evidence on record – In the event acquittal is based on findings which are reasonable and plausible, appellate court would be slow to interfere with the same as presumption of innocence stands re-enforced by acquittal. (Para 16)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – No direct evidence is forthcoming with regard to presence of appellants at their residence when murder is alleged to have occurred – High Court drew inference with regard to their presence on the ground that being inmates of house they would be presumed to be present there – High Court erred in relying on a speculative inference that all inmates must invariably be present in house at all times to reverse acquittal and convict appellants – In absence of medical evidence that murder was committed by a single person High Court incorrectly drew its own inference that lady was assisted by others in committing crime and roped in her family members (Appellants) – Exhibits are inadmissible in law being secondary evidence without certification – Even if CDRs and other electronic records were admitted in evidence they merely contain cell tower location information – In a criminal case whether based on direct or circumstantial evidence, burden of proof always rests on prosecution – Only when prosecution discharges initial onus and proves incriminating attending circumstances to establish cause of death are within ‘special knowledge’ of accused does onus shift and adverse inference against such accused may be drawn if he fails to discharge such onus – High Court was not justified in reversing findings of acquittal on the basis of mere surmises and impugned judgment to the extent that it convicts appellants is liable to be set aside. (Paras 26, 28, 29, 36, 37, 42, 44 and 45)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65-B – Admissibility of electronic records – Issuance of certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent for admissibility of computer-generated secondary evidence – It cannot be supplemented through oral evidence. (Para 33)
Facts of the case:
By impugned judgment High Court had reversed acquittal passed by trial court and convicted appellants for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
In absence of reliable and convincing evidence proving presence of appellants at Suraiya’s residence when Shakeel ur Rehman is said to have come there, it cannot be said that prosecution had discharged its initial onus and proved appellants were present in house when murder occurred.
Result : Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under section 302 ipc based on reversed acquittal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of prosecution evidence and witness testimonies. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. court analysis of evidence and inferences drawn. (Para 12 , 13 , 16 , 23 , 30) |
| 4. importance of credible evidence for a conviction. (Para 20 , 22 , 24 , 35) |
| 5. final ruling allowing the appeal and restoring acquittal. (Para 43 , 45) |
JUDGMENT :.
Joymalya Bagchi, J
1. By the impugned judgment the High Court had reversed an acquittal passed by the trial court and convicted the appellants for commission of offence under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 18601[Hereinafter ‘IPC’.] and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
2. Prosecution case in brief is as follows:-
Co-accused Suraiya had entered into a sale agreement with the deceased Shakeel ur Rehman for purchase of property number 15/1 Jaipur Estate, Nizamuddin, New Delhi. Prior to the sale deed being executed, on 6.04.2003 Shakeel ur Rehman started raising a boundary wall in the property. Suraiya and her associates resisted and a quarrel ensued. Suraiya threatened to kill Shakeel ur Rehman. Matter was reported to the police and amicably settled. At 7.30 pm, Suraiya made a phone call to deceased on the landline and called him to her residence. Thereafter, deceased went missing. Despite efforts deceased could not be traced.
3. As a consequence, Aniq ur Rehman (PW3) lodged missing DD entry No. 27A (Ex. PW3/B) at 7.15 AM on 7.04.2003 at Police Station, Hazrat Nizamuddin. On the same day at 5:30 pm, a written complaint was filed by Aniq ur Rehman (PW3) which was treated as First Information Report under Section 365 /34 IPC against Suraiya, Mohd. Fazal her brother, and the appellants, namely Rahil and Noor Ahmed who are her son and husband, respectively.
4. During the investigation, Fazal and one Mohan Seth were arrested on 13.04.2003. On their disclosure statements decomposed body of deceased was recovered near Haridwar. Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Postmortem Doctor (PW9) opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and had occurred 3 to 5 days ago.
5. In course of trial, charges were framed against Suraiya, Mohd. Fazal, Mohan Seth and the appellants under Sections 120B and 302/34 read with 120B IPC. Mohd. Fazal and Mohan Seth were also charged under sections 201/34 IPC.
6. During trial, prosecution examined 25 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, the trial judge while convicting Suraiya and Mohd. Fazal under Section 302 /34 IPC acquitted the appellants of the charges levelled against them. Mohd. Fazal and Mohan Seth were also convicted under Section 201/34 IPC.
7. Suraiya, Mohd. Fazal and Mohan Seth preferred appeals against their conviction while the State challenged the acquittal of appellants before High Court.
8. By a common order, High Court while upholding the conviction of Suraiya reversed the acquittal of the appellants and held them guilty under Section 302 /34 IPC along with Suraiya. Mohd. Fazal was acquitted of the charge of murder but his conviction along with Mohan Seth under Section 201 IPC was upheld. Appellants as well as Suraiya appealed against their conviction. We are informed that Suraiya has died in the meantime and her appeal has abated. Accordingly, the appellants' appeal is taken up for hearing.
9. Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, ld. counsel for Appellants argued that High Court erred in reversing a well-reasoned acquittal on the basis of vague surmises and inferences. He contended mere suspicion howsoever high cannot take the place of proof.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, ld. counsel for Respondent-State argued that findings of trial court were wholly perverse and against the weight of evidence on record. PW-3, 4 and 6 unequivocally deposed that appellant had received a phone call and gone to the house of Suraiya. Appellants are son and husband of Suraiya, their presence at the place of occurrence was most natural. No plea of alibi was t
(1) Murder – In a criminal case whether based on direct or circumstantial evidence, burden of proof always rests on prosecution.(2) Admissibility of electronic records – Issuance of certificate under....
(1) When a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence and chain of circumstances must be conclusive enough to sustain a conviction.(2) Electronic evidence – Section 65B(4) o....
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the accused to explain incriminating circumstances, and the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B(4)....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court upheld the conviction based on corroborative evidence despite non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act regarding electronic records.
Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
