Sabir Khan vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
Sabir Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 788 of 2011
Decided On : 10-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Shri A.K. Jain - Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri C.P. Singh - Advocate, for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Conviction for murder and concealing evidence - Appellant sentenced to Life Imprisonment, with fines for the respective offences - Circumstantial evidence establishes guilt through last seen theory and recovery of the deceased's body from appellant's premises - Prosecution presented testimonies corroborating circumstances of the case. (Paras 2, 12, 54).

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - To establish guilt, circumstances must exclude any other reasonable hypothesis - Each circumstance must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to support conviction, forming a complete chain that leads solely to the accused. (Paras 49, 52).

Facts of the case:
Appellant confessed to administering sleeping pills before strangling the deceased, with the body then concealed in his home. Evidence from multiple witnesses and forensic analysis contributed to the case. (Paras 17, 46, 54).

Findings of Court:
Prosecution successfully proved circumstances establishing the last seen theory; the body was found buried where the Appellant confessed, and possession of sleeping pills supports the murder charge. (Paras 28, 55).

Issues: Whether circumstantial evidence adequately established the appellant's guilt.

Ratio Decidendi: The complete chain of circumstances linking the Appellant to the crime substantiates the conviction. (Paras 53, 54).

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Ahluwalia, J. - This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment and Sentence dated 8-7-2011 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 283/2010, by which the Appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 , 201 of IPC and for offence under Section 302 of IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default 1 year R.I. and for offence under Section 201 of IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default 1 year R.I.

2. The prosecution story in short is that a gum insaan report no. 74/2011 was lodged. During enquiry, the statements of complainant Neelu Bano, Salma Bano, and the Appellant were recorded. It was found that Appellant was seen for the last time with the deceased. Thereafter, the Appellant made a confessional statement that on the dispute of non- payment of loan amount, he had given sleeping pills to the deceased Naushad and thereafter, strangulated him, and his dead body has been buried in his own room. Chappal, Belt and Pant of the deceased have been thrown. Accordingly, FIR for offence under Section 302 , 201 of IPC was registered against the Appellant.

3. The dead body of the deceased Naushad was dug out from the room of the Appellant. Articles belonging to the deceased were recovered at the instance of the Appellant. The Articles were got identified. One strip of Sleeping pills (Trika 0.5 mg) was seized from the house of the appellant. Appellant was arrested. Seized articles were sent to F.S.L. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, police filed the charge sheet for offence under Section 302 of IPC.

4. The Trial Court by order dated 30-12-2010, framed charges under Sections 302 , 201 of IPC.

5. The Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.

6. The prosecution examined Neelu Bano (P.W.1), Salma (P.W.2), Dr. Anil Mishra (P.W.3), Dinesh Raghuvanshi (P.W.4), Dr. D.S. Rana (P.W.5), Dhan Singh (P.W.6), Devendra Singh (P.W.7), D.K. Sharma (P.W.8), Mradul Sharma (P.W.9), and S.P. Sharma (P.W.10).

7. The Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

8. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the Appellant for the above mentioned offences.

9. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the Appellant that the case is based on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances. The prosecution has failed to prove that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the room of the house.

10. Per contra, the Counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case as well as the findings recorded by the Court below.

11. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

12. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence which can be summarized as under :

(a) Last Seen Together

(b) Recovery of Dead Body from the room of the Appellant

(d) One strip of Sleeping pills (Trika 0.5 mg) was seized from the possession of Appellant and in Viscera Report, Lorazepam (Tranquilizer) was found.

(e) Death was homicidal and cause of death was Strangulation.

13. Before considering the circumstances, this Court would like to consider as to whether the death of Naushad was homicidal in nature or not?

14. Dr. D.S. Rana (P.W.5) had conducted the post-mortem of dead body of Naushad and gave the following report : Dead body of a young male lying supine over PM table wearing dotted white shirt, white baniyan, and brownish underwear and a tabeez with Kaliva like thread in neck (seized and sealed and handed over to PC) Head tilted slightly towards left side. Face and scalp is swollened up and congested and cyanoised. Both eyes are prominent. Eye balls are slightly soft, conjuctiva congested with retechial hemorrhage. Both pupils are dilated. Mouth o