IMPORTANT POINTS
1. High court while hearing appeal against judgment of acquittal is possessed of all the power of appellate court and nothing prevents it to appraise evidence and come to a conclusion different than that of the trial court but while doing so it shall bear in mind that presumption of innocence is further reinforced by acquittal of the accused by the trial court.
2. In order to sustain conviction circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 –Prosecution of accused persons for causing death of two persons-Trial Court while acquitting A1 to A4,Convicted A5toA7-Appeals thereagainst-High Court set aside acquittal of A1toA4 and convicted them while dismissing appeals filed by A5 and A6-Appeals thereagainst by A1 and A2 and A5 and A6-Held circumstantial evidence brought against appellants A1 and A2 was not such which lead towards their guilt- Recovery from these appellants itself had been discarded by High Court- Motive alone, in the absence of any other circumstantial evidence held not sufficient to sustain conviction of these two appellants- Trial court on appraisal of evidence held that prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, so far as A1 and A2 were concerned - The view taken by trial court being justified and a possible view High Court erred in setting aside their acquittal- The case of appellant A5and A6 , however, stand on altogether different footing- Trial court had held them guilty- There was overwhelming evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they shared the motive with other accused persons - Motive, recoveries and abscondence of A5 and A6 immediately after the occurrence pointed out towards their guilt- Courts below rightly came to conclusion that prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt so far as these appellants are concerned-Appeals filed by A1 and A2 allowed while that filed by A5 and A6 dismissed. (Paras 8 to 11)
        Appeal against acquittal- It is trite that where two views on the evidence are reasonably possible and trial court has taken a view favouring acquittal, High Court in an appeal against acquittal should not disturb the same merely on the ground that if it was trying the case, it would have taken an alternative view and convicted accused- High court while hearing appeal against judgment of acquittal is possessed of all the power of appellate court and nothing prevents it to appraise evidence and come to a conclusion different than that of the trial court but while doing so it shall bear in mind that presumption of innocence is further reinforced by acquittal of the accused by the trial court- The view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witness must be given proper weight and consideration- There must be compelling and weighty reason for the High Court to come to a conclusion different than that of the trial court (Para 8)
        Circumstantial Evidence- No doubt it is true that for bringing home the guilt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to establish that the circumstances proved lead to one and the only conclusion towards the guilt of the accused- In a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn are to be cogently and firmly established- The circumstances so proved must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused- It should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and none else- It has to be considered within all human probability and not in fanciful manner- In order to sustain conviction circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused- Such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but inconsistent with his innocence- (Para 10)
       Facts of the Case :
        Accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of two persons.Trial Court while acquitting A1 toA4,Convicted A5toA7.On Appeals thereagainst,High Court set aside acquittal of A1toA4 and convicted them while dismissing appeals filed by A5 and A6.
        2. Aggrieved by the Order of High Court present Appeals have been preferred by A1 and A2 and A5 and A6.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Court held that circumstantial evidence brought against appellants A1 and A2 was not such which lead towards their guilt. Recovery from these appellants itself had been discarded by High Court. Motive alone, in the absence of any other circumstantial evidence held not sufficient to sustain conviction of these two appellants. Trial court on appraisal of evidence held that prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, so far as A1 and A2 were concerned. The view taken by trial court being justified and a possible view High Court erred in setting aside their acquittal. The case of appellant A5and A6 , however, stood on altogether different footing. There was overwhelming evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they shared the motive with other accused persons. Appellant A5 during the course of investigation gave statement which led to the recovery of wheel and tyre of the motorcycle belonging to deceased which was dismantled. Further, the statement given by appellant A6 during the course of investigation led to recovery of the knife .A5 and A6 were not found at the normal place of their work and their abscondence soon after the incident had been proved by PW-7 . Motive, recoveries and abscondence of A5 and A6 immediately after the occurrence pointed out towards their guilt. Courts below rightly came to conclusion that prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt so far as these appellants are concerned. Appeals filed by A1 and A2 were allowed while that filed by A5 and A6 were dismissed.
       Result : Ordered Accordingly

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt and be incapable of any other explanation. (!) - When reviewing acquittals, High Court may appraise evidence but must give weight to trial court’s view and presumption of innocence; not to substitute lightly. (!) - Convictions based on circumstantial evidence require that the circumstances conclusively point to the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; motive alone without corroborating evidence is insufficient for A1 and A2. (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

JUDGMENT

Chandramauli KR. Prasad, J. —

1. Altogether 8 persons were put on trial for commission of the offence under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 as also Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Jaibunissa died during the trial, whereas accused Rukiya Begum, Nasreen, Mansoor and Mohmmed Ghouse were acquitted of all the charges. However accused Issaq Sait, Nasarath and Mujahid were held guilty of the offence under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded life imprisonment and seven years imprisonment respectively. State of Karnataka, aggrieved by the acquittal of Rukia Begum Nasreen, Mansoor and Mohammed Ghouse preferred appeal whereas appellant Issaq Sait and Mujahid aggrieved by their conviction and sentence also preferred appeal. State also preferred appeal seeking enhancement of sentence. All the appeals were heard together and the High Court by its common judgment dated 28th of May, 2007 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants Issaq Sait and Mujahid. The appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused persons was partly allowed by the High Court and it set aside the acquittal of Rukia Begum, Nasreen and Mohammed Ghouse and convicted them for the offence under Section 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.

2. Rukia Begum and Nasreen have filed separate appeals whereas Issaq Sait and Mujahid appealed with the leave of the court. In these appeals we are concerned with Rukia Begum, sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1519 of 2008, Nasreen, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1808 of 2009 and Issaq Sait and Mujahid, appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 2008. It is relevant here to state that convict Mohammed Ghouse joined as Appellant No. 2 in the appeal filed by Nasreen and as he failed to surrender, his appeal stood dismissed.

3. Prosecution commenced on the basis of a written report given by PW-12 Thammaiah to PW-31 G.Jayaraj, the Sub-Inspector of Police in which he disclosed that while he was at his agricultural field near the land of accused Jaibunnisa, his brother-in-law PW-2 Chandrashekar @ Chandru informed him that while he was near Aralikatte, PW-1 Thandavamurthy and appellant Nasreen informed him that the dead bodies of Rasheed Sait and his wife Sabeena Sait were lying in the field. The Sub-Inspector of Police G.Jayaraj came to the place of occurrence and found trace of blood from the place of occurrence to the gate of the deceased and the accused. During the course of investigation appellants Rukiya Begum and Nasreen were arrested and on their disclosure plastic bucket and plastic pot kept in the bathroom were seized. Appellant Issaq Sait was also arrested and his statement led to the recovery of wheel and tyre of the motorcycle belonging to the deceased. Appellant Mujahid surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate and he was taken on police remand for interrogation. During interrogation the statement given by him led to the recovery of the knife. The personal belongings of the deceased Sabeena Begum were also recovered from other accused persons.

4. According to the prosecution there was strained relationship between the deceased Rasheed Sait on one side and his mother accused Jaibunnisa, sisters i.e. appellants Rukia Begum and Nasreen and husband of the sister on the other side in relation to the ancestral property. The appellants, in fact, had admitted the strained relationship amongst themselves. Further case of the prosecution is that on 9th June, 1995 Rasheed Sait along with his wife Sabeena Begum and daughter Tamanna had gone to Mysore to meet PW-4, Rameeza and reached there at 5.30 P.M. After having meal at her house they left for their home. In order to trap the deceased the accused persons tied coconut leaves obstructing the passage near his house. Rasheed Sait while coming to his house hit against the obstruction and fell from his motorcycle. It is the case of the prosecution that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document