IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Principle for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence is that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible.
2. Recovery of certain incriminating articles at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of Evidence Act by itself cannot form the basis of conviction. The recovery of incriminating articles and its evidentiary value has to be considered in the light of other relevant circumstances as well and the chain of events suggesting the involvement of accused.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860- Sections 147, 148, 302, 149 and 201-Prosecution of accused persons five in number for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with means of knife and dagger- Trial Court sentenced all the five accused persons to death for said offences -On appeals thereagainst High Court confirmed the conviction of appellants A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201, IPC and Section 25(4) of the Arms Act and commuted their sentence for offences punishable under Section 302/149, IPC from death penalty to that of imprisonment for life- In so far as A4 and A5 were concerned, they were convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 25(4) of the Arms Act and they were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 302/149 and 201, IPC-Appeals- No dispute whatsoever that murder of deceased took place in a shop which was under the occupation of (A 1) and others- The pieces of dead body of deceased were recovered from that room- No explanation whatsoever as to how the body of deceased cut into pieces was found in said shop premises which was in possession of A1 and others- Evidence of (PW 3), wife of deceased that deceased received a telephone call at about 8.30 p.m. on the fateful day from accused A1 to come over to his shop - Her evidence was corroborated by evidence of PW 1 - Blood stained knives and daggers allegedly used in the crime and the blood stained scooter, trouser and watch belonging to the deceased were recovered on disclosure made by appellants to police- Immediate impelling motive on part of appellants which led them to commit crime in question was traceable to their involvement in business and persistent demands from the deceased for return of his money- Conviction of A1 to A3 was held justified - No evidence whatsoever to connect A4 and A5 with commission of crime- High Court, rightly acquitted both said accused- Impugned judgment of High Court was upheld-Appeals dismissed. (Paras 16 to 25)
       Facts of the Case :
        Accused persons five in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with means of knifes and daggers. Trial Court sentenced all the five accused persons to death for said offences .On appeals thereagainst High Court confirmed the conviction of appellants A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201, IPC and Section 25(4) of the Arms Act and commuted their sentence for offences punishable under Section 302/149, IPC from death penalty to that of imprisonment for life.In so far as A4 and A5 were concerned, they were convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 25(4) of the Arms Act and they were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 302/149 and 201, IPC.
        2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        There was no dispute whatsoever that murder of deceased took place in a shop which was under the occupation of (A 1) and others. The pieces of dead body of deceased were recovered from that room. There was no explanation whatsoever as to how the body of deceased cut into pieces was found in said shop premises which was in possession of A1 and others. Evidence of (PW 3), wife of deceased that deceased received a telephone call at about 8.30 p.m. on the fateful day from accused A1 to come over to his shop . Her evidence was corroborated by evidence of PW 1 . Blood stained knives and daggers allegedly used in the crime and the blood stained scooter, trouser and watch belonging to the deceased were recovered on disclosure made by appellants to police. Immediate impelling motive on part of appellants which led them to commit crime in question was traceable to their involvement in business and persistent demands from the deceased for return of his money-.Conviction of A1 to A3 was held justified . Since there was No evidence whatsoever to connect A4 and A5 with commission of crime, High Court, rightly acquitted both said accused. Impugned judgment of High Court was upheld. Appeals were dismissed.

JUDGMENT

B. Sudershan Reddy, J. —

1. These three appeals by special leave arise out of a common judgment made in Criminal Appeal Nos. 445 of 2005, 701 of 2005 and Capital Sentence Reference No. 2 of 2005, dated 7th October, 2005 on the file of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2006 along with other accused by name Akhlaq, Salman and Nanha Pahalwan were tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Sections 149 and 201, IPC and Section 25 (4) of the Arms Act. The trial Court sentenced all the five accused persons to death for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. Various other sentences have been awarded to the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 201, IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 25(4) of the Arms Act. The aggrieved appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2006 along with co-accused Nanha Pahalwan and Salman have preferred their appeals in one set jointly being Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2005 and the other accused Akhlaq preferred Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 2005 in the High Court. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants Akhlaq, Wakkar and Imtiaz for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201, IPC and Section 25(4) of the Arms Act and commuted their sentence for the offences punishable under Section 302/149, IPC from death penalty to that of imprisonment for life. That, so far as the accused Nanha Pahalwan and Salman were concerned, they were convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 25(4) of the Arms Act and they were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302/149 and 201, IPC. Hence, Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2006 is preferred by the appellants Wakkar and Imtiaz challenging their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 148 and 201, IPC and Section 25(4) of the Arms Act and Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2006 is preferred by the State of U.P. pleading for award of death sentence against the accused. Likewise, Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2006 is preferred by the complainant Sheikh Zakaullah (PW 1) challenging the decision of the High Court acquitting some of the accused and as well as reducing death penalty to that of imprisonment for life.

2. According to the prosecution, on 9th August, 2000, the deceased Sujaullah @ Mintu left home at about 9 a.m. to his workplace and returned back at about 8 p.m. At 8.30 p.m., the accused Akhlaq gave a telephone call to the deceased whereupon, he told his wife Zebi (PW 3) that he was going to Akhlaq’s shop as he must have called him to receive payment of money and would be returning within a short time, but the deceased did not return. At about 11 p.m., the complainant (PW 1), Sheikh Zakaullah, who is none other than the brother of the deceased got anxious and went out in search of his brother. At about 11.45 p.m., he came across Hamraj ‘Furniture-wala’ from whom he inquired about his brother. He told PW 1 that he had seen the deceased at about 10 p.m. at the accused Akhlaq’s shop where he and the accused Imtiaz, Wakkar and Akhlaq were also present. PW 1 continued his search for his brother but could not trace him and he came back to his foundry and sat there for awhile. At about 12.15 am, he noticed the accused Wakkar, Akhlaq and Imtiaz along with two others coming down the stairs of first floor room of Akhlaq’s shop. On seeing them, PW 1 inquired about his brother and the accused Akhlaq told him that the deceased Mintu, in all probability, might have gone to Chandigarh as told to him. Next morning, at about 9 a.m. when accused Akhlaq came to his shop, PW 1 once again inquired from him about his brother and the reply of Akhlaq was the same but Akhlaq looked quite disturbed which gave rise to some suspicion in the mind of PW 1 and as such he insisted Akhlaq to show his first floor room, but the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 132

Cases Referred (1)