Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Nusrat Parween - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 458 of 2012 With Criminal Appeal No(s). 2032 of 2017
Decided On : 10-12-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Murder – Life imprisonment – Case of prosecution is based on purely circumstantial evidence in form of motive and theory of last seen together – Conviction on a charge of murder may be based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy – In cases involving circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to ensure that facts leading to conclusion of guilt are fully established and that all established facts point irrefutably to accused person’s guilt – Proof of motive is not sine qua non in a case of murder – However, in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, motive if properly established, assumes great significance and would definitely provide an important corroborative link in chain of incriminating circumstances and strengthen case of prosecution – Merely because such quarrels were going on between accused persons, that by itself could not be a ground to impute motive to accused-appellants for murder of deceased – There is total lack of evidence to convince Court that there was any immediate strife on fateful day which could have fuelled accused-appellants with such rage that they were impelled to murder deceased – Evidence led by prosecution to prove theory of motive for commission of crime as attributed to accused-appellants is far from convincing and a vital link in chain of incriminating circumstances is snapped. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 109] – Murder – Life imprisonment – Circumstantial evidence – Theory of last seen together – Section 106 of Evidence Act shall apply and onus to explain would shift on to accused only after prosecution succeeds in establishing basic facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding existence of certain other facts which are within special knowledge of accused – If prosecution fails to establish complete chain of circumstances in first place, then the accused's failure to discharge burden under Section 106 of Evidence Act becomes irrelevant – There is no credible evidence on record of the case to establish exclusive presence of accused-appellants with deceased in house in question at any time before incident, justifying shifting of burden of proof on to accused-appellants by invocation of Section 106 of Evidence Act – Theory of last seen together attributed by prosecution could not be proved beyond all manner of doubt – Prosecution has failed to prove chain of incriminating circumstances against accused-appellants by convincing evidence and beyond shadow of doubt, so as to affirm their guilt – Accused-appellants deserve to be acquitted of charges by giving them benefit of doubt – Accused-appellants acquitted of charges. (Paras 17, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34 and 35)
Facts of the case:
Appellant No. 1, appellant No. 2 and accused No. 3 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. separate judgments of conviction and orders of sentence passed by Trial Court were upheld by High Court of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeals.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment dated 19th January, 2011 passed by Division Bench of High Court and judgments and orders dated 25th November, 2003, and 1st December, 2003 passed by trial Court are hereby reversed and set aside.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. The present appeals by special leave are preferred on behalf of appellant-Nusrat Parween,1[In Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 2012, the appellant is Nusrat Parween. Hereinafter referred to as ‘Nusrat Parween/appellant No. 1.’] and appellant-Ahmad Khan, 2[In Criminal Appeal No. 2032 of 2017, the appellant is Ahmad Khan. Hereinafter referred to as ‘Ahmad Khan/appellant No. 2.’], assailing the judgment dated 19th January, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeals,3[Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 101 of 2004, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1741 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1810 of 2003.] upholding the separate judgments of conviction and orders of sentence,4[Conviction Order dated 25th November 2003 & Sentence Order dated 1st December 2003.] passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur,5[Hereinafter referred as ‘the trial Court.’] in Session trial cases,6[Sessions trial Case No. 228 of 1998 and Sessions trial Case No. 393 of 2000.], whereby appellant No. 1, appellant No. 2 and Abdul Rahman Khan/accused No. 3 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,7[Hereinafter referred as ‘IPC.’], and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as under:
2.1 Hamida Parween was married to Abdul Hamid Khan, the brother of Ahmad Khan/appellant No. 2 and Abdul Rahman Khan/accused No. 3. Abdul Hamid Khan, the husband of Hamida Parween, passed away two years prior to the incident. Late Abdul Hamid Khan owned Holding No. 13 situated at Dhatkidih in ‘A’ Block wherein the accused-appellants as well as Hamida Parween along with her three children, namely, Md. Sahid Khan(PW3), Md. Javed Khan and Kahkasan Anujam were jointly residing. Despite Late Abdul Hamid Khan having partitioned a part of Holding No. 13 in favour of the accused-appellants, they were still pressurizing Hamida Parween to give up her remaining share in the property. On this count, Hamida Parween had earlier lodged a complaint against the accused-appellants under Section 107 read with Section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,8[Hereinafter referred as ‘CrPC.’].
2.2 On 11th March, 1997, at around 8:00 am, Hamida Parween sent her sons, Md. Sahid Khan(PW3) and Md. Javed Khan to school. Both the boys returned home after school time and found their house locked from outside. When their mother did not turn up by evening, both the boys approached their maternal uncle, Md. Firoj(PW4) whose shop was situated at Golmuri Road No. 304, Sakchi, and narrated the sequence of events to him.
2.3 Md. Firoj(PW4), accompanied by his brother, Parvej Ahmad(PW9) and their father, Md. Yunush(PW8), launched a search for Hamida Parween at various places including the houses of their relatives but they were unable to trace her. Md. Firoj(PW4) went to the Bistupur Police Station to report about the disappearance of his sister Hamida Parween, but the police officials rather than registering any complaint advised him to continue the search. When the efforts to search Hamida Parween failed, Md. Firoj(PW4) again went to Bistupur Police Station on the next day, i.e., on 12th March, 1997, at around 10:15 am, and informed the Officer-in-Charge that his sister, Hamida Parween, had been missing since 11th March, 1997. Based on the said complaint, the police official recorded a missing person's report in the station diary. Sub-Inspector, Jitendra Kumar(PW12) proceeded to the locality and made inquiries. The neighbours divulged that a quarrel had taken place between Hamida Parween and her relatives i.e., the accused-appellants around 8:00 am on the day of the incident. Thereafter, the accused-appellants fled away in a tempo, but none of the neighbours saw Hamida Parween coming out of the house. After that the police officials broke open the lock of the front door in the presence of panch witnesses and found the dead body of Hamida Parween lyin
(1) Murder – Proof of motive is not sine qua non in a case of murder – However, in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, motive if properly established, assumes great significance and would....
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Whenever any doubt emanates in mind of Court, benefit shall accrue to accused and not prosecution – Conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be....
Burden of proof – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then....
The prosecution's successful establishment of the chain of events and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellants to prove otherwise.
Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside - A grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of guilt - Benefit of doubt to accused appellants.
The court affirmed that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the accused's failure to explain facts within their knowledge can lead to a presumption of guilt under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
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
