Supreme Court of India
MUSTKEEM @ SIRAJUDEENversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 487
- Decided
- 13 July 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- A K GANGULY
Holding
The conviction cannot be sustained as the circumstantial evidence does not meet the requisite standards and the evidence is vitiated, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Summary
The accused Mustkeem, Nandu and Arun were convicted for the murder of Ram Pal Yadav under IPC s.302/34 and the Arms Act based largely on circumstantial evidence, hostile eyewitnesses, and weapons recovered after the accused’s disclosure. The Supreme Court found that key witnesses had turned hostile, statements were retracted, and there were contradictions and discrepancies in their testimonies. The recovery of the weapons under s.27 of the Evidence Act was doubtful, and the blood evidence did not establish a link to the accused. No motive or enmity could be proven, and the chain of circumstances failed to meet the established criteria for circumstantial proof. Consequently, the Court held that the conviction was unsafe and set aside the trial and High Court judgments, acquitting the accused.
Issues considered
- The conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence; did the evidence satisfy the legal requirements for such proof?
- Whether the recovery of weapons under s.27 Evidence Act establishes a link between the accused and the murder.
- Whether the hostile and contradictory witness statements can support a conviction.
- Whether the lack of motive and insufficient blood evidence preclude a finding of guilt.
- Whether the appellate court can interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution due to miscarriage of justice.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959s. 25, s. 4
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 162
- Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 226
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 27
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 149, s. 302, s. 304, s. 34
Subjects
murdercircumstantial evidenceSection 27 Evidence Acthostile witnessesmiscarriage of justiceArticle 136Indian Penal CodeArms Actblood evidencemotive
Judgment
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 101
!
MUSTKEEM @ SIRAJUDEEN A
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No.1327 of 2008)
JULY 13, 2011
8
.
: ._
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302134 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - c
Conviction by trial court - Upheld by High Court - HELD:
Where the case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence,
the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the
incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt
D
of any other person - In the instant case, the eye-witnesses
and one of the recovery witness, having retracted their
statements uls 161CrPC, were not believed bY courts below
- As regards other witnesses, there are several discrepancies
and contradictions in their statements - Their evidence that
the accused had one day prior to the incident intimated them E
to eliminate the deceased is not trustworthy - No enmity
could be established between the accused and the deceased,
and there was nothing on record which warranted them to
eliminate the deceased - Recovery witnesses were not local
persons - Overwriting on the recovery memos was not F
explained by the /. 0. - The blood found on the weapon
recovered at the instance of the accused was not sufficient
for test as it had already disintegrated - Thus, looking to the
matter from all angles, it would not be safe and proper to hold
the accused guilty of the offence - They are accordingly G
acquitted- Evidence Act, 1872- s.27 - Constitution of India,
1950 - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s. 162 - Explanation - "Contradictions':
101 H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
A Evidence Act, 1872:
s. 27 - Information received from accused - On the
disclosure statement made by the accused, weapons
recovered - HELD: With regard to s.27 what is important is
discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the
8
accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically
lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed
by the accused - In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the
prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the
material objects and its use in the commission of the offence
C - What is admissible u/s 27 is the information leading to
discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution
- One recovery witness was declared hostile and the other
stated that recovery memos were prepared in the Police
Station - Thus, the recovery of the weapons on disclosure of
D the appellants itself becomes doubtful - Penal Code, 1860
-s.304134.
Constitution of India, 1950:
E Article 136 - Interference with concurrent findings of the
courts below - In the instant case, the entire evidence, is
vitiated by serious errors and if the appellant's conviction is
upheld then it would amount to miscarriage of justice -
Therefore, the conviction as recorded by trial court and
confirmed by High Court cannot be sustained in law and,
F therefore, set aside.
The appellant along with four others was prosecuted
for committing the murder of one 'RY'. The prosecution
case was that on 24.07.2003 at 5.45 p.m., the SHO P.W.
G 16 received telephonic information about murder of a
person. He rushed to the spot with police squad and
found a person lying dead in a pool of blood. On inquiries
being made, P.W.3 present there informed him that the
murder was committed by A-1, A-2 and one other person,
H who was later identified as A-3, by inflicting injuries on
MUSTKEEM @ SI RAJU DEEN v. STATE OF 103
RAJASTHAN
the victim with sword and knife. The SHO recorded the A
Parcha Bayan of P.W.3 and registered the case. In all
there were five accused. One of them was declared
absconder. Out of the remaining four, the trial court
acquitted one and convicted the three accused-
appellants u/s 302/34 IPC and s.4/25 of the Arms Act. Their B
appeals were dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved,
the accused filed the three separate appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the light of the Post Mortem Report and C
the evidence of the doctor (PW-13), it is evident that
deceased had met with homicidal death. [para 8] [110-C]
1.2 It is pertinent to mention that the solitary star
witness of the prosecution, namely, P.W.3, and the main 0
material witnesses were declared hostile. The trial court
observed in this context that P.W.1 (recovery witness),
P.W.3 and P.W.2 (both eye-witnesses) had retracted their
statements made u/s 161 Cr.P.C. during examination.
Furthermore, it has also refused to attach much credence E
to the deposition of P.W.19, owing to the clear
contradictions in his statement and deposition regarding
his presence at the scene of crime. Thus, the trial court
had also found them unreliable and has not based the
appellants; conviction on the basis of their statements.
Similarly, the High Court has not taken their evidence into F
consideration. The trial court had recorded a finding that
the case is without any eye witness and is based on
circumstantial evidence. (para 11) [110-F-H; 111-A]
2.1 As per the statement of P.W. 10, in whose house G
the deceased was residing as a tenant for the last 5-6
years, appellants (A-1) and (A-3) had met him a day before
the occurrence, and told him that, that day it would be
the last visit of 'RY' and he would not come to his house
again. Similar is the evidence of P.W.9, the wife of P.W.10. H
)
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
A P.W.8 deposed that the three accused-appellants used to
visit the deceased regularly as all of them were dealing
in Illicit liquor trade. On coming to know from P. W. 9 that
the accused were keen to eliminate the deceased, she
had telephonically asked him to meet her at the earliest.
s When the deceased met her, she informed him about the
intentions of the accused. From an appraisal of the
evidence of P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10, the trial court and
the Division Bench of the High Court ruled that the
prosecution has been able to establish that the deceased
c and the appellants were all involved in illegal trade of
liquor and a day prior .to the date of incident, A-1 and A-
3 had expressed to P.W.9 and P.W.10 their intentions to
eliminate the deceased. But, in fact, the omissions on the
part of all three witnesses, namely, P.Ws.8 to 10 to state
certain material facts in the course of making their
0 statements before the police, which they have
categorically admitted in their depositions may even be
considered as "contradictions" as per the Explanation to
s. 162 Cr.P.C. Their evidence, that the accused had
intimated P.W.8 a day prior to the date of incident, that
E they would eliminate the deceased is also not
trustworthy. There are several discrepancies appearing
in their evidence. Further, P.W.8 is absolutely an hearsay
witness. [para 14-16, 21 and 22) [111-D-H; 112-A-B; 113-
B-D]
F
2.2 The other circumstance found against the
appellants by High Court was that, on the basis of the
disclosure statements made by them, weapons alleged
to have been used in the commission of the offence and
G clothes stained with human blood were recovered. In
fact, the recovery of the weapons on disclosure of the
appellants itself becomes doubtful. P.W.1, the witness of
Recovery Memo, was declared hostile and another
witness P.W.10 admitted that signatures were obtained
on the memos and annexures at the Police Station. If the
H
MUSTKEEM@ SIRAJUDEEN v. STATE OF 105
RAJASTHAN
recovery memos were prepared at the Police Station A
itself, then the same would lose its sanctity. It is also
pertinent to mention that P.W.1 was residing 4 Kms. away
and P.W.10 was residing 8 Kms. away from the place of ·
recovery and both were also declared hostile. The
prosecution failed to establish as to why none of the local B
persons were called to be the witnesses. The conduct of
the prosecution appears to be extremely doubtful and
renders the case as concocted, to falsely implicate the
appellants. The recovery Memos also reflect that there
were overwriting on the same which has not been c
explained by P.W.16, the Investigating Officer. [para 18,24
and 28) [112-D; 113-G-H; 114-A-D; 115-G·H]
Varun Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan
2010 SCR 296 =AIR 2011 SCC 72 - relied on.
D
2.3 With regard to s.27 of the Evidence Act, what is
important is discovery of the material object at the
disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone
would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the
offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, E
thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a
close link between discovery of the material objects and
its use in the commission of the offence. What is
admissible u/s 27 of the Act is the information leading to
discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the F
prosecution. [para 27] [115-E-G]
Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (2) SCR 123
= 2004 (1 O) sec 657 - relied on.
Pu/ukuri Kotayya & Ors. Vs. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 • G
referred to.
2.4 On the basis of the report of the serologist, it has
come on record that traces of 'AB' blood group were
found on the pants and baniyan of the deceased. The
prosecution has also averred that sword and clothes H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 9 S.C.R.
A stained with human blood of group 'AB' were also
recovered at the instance of the appellants, from the
places shown by them and known only to them and none
others. The High Court was of the opinion that the chain
of circumstances was complete and it pointed the finger ·
B for commission of the said offence only to the appellants.
However, it is significant to note that the 'AB' blood group
which was found on the clothes of the deceased does
not by itself establish the guilt of the appellants unless
the same was connected with the murder of the deceased
c by the appellants. None of the witnesses examined by the
prosecution could establish that fact. The blood found on
the sword recovered at the instance of A-1 was not
sufficient for test as the same had already disintegrated.
[para 19 and 23) [112-E-F; 113-E-F]
D 2.5 As regards the motive (if any) behind the
homicide, on review of the relevant deposition of the
witnesses, one of the circumstances found against the
appellants, that the deceased and the appellants indulged
in illegal trade of liquor and thus were having enmity with
E each other, is not based on any cogent and reliable
evidence much less on the evidence of P.W.8, P.W.9 and
P.W.10. This could not have been the motive for killing
the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws.9 and 10 does not
establish the intention on the part of the accused to
F murder the deceased. Since no enmity could be
established on record between them there was nothing
which warranted to eliminate the deceased. [para 20 and
22) [112-G-H; 113-A-C-D]
2.6 It is too well settled in law that where the case rests
G squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt
can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other
person. No doubt, it is true that conviction can be based
H solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be
MUSTKEEM @ SIRAJUDEEN v. STATE OF 107
RAJAS THAN
decided on · the touchstone of law relating to A
· . circumstantial evidence, which has been well settled by
law by this Court. In the instant case, looking to the matter
from all angles it would not be safe and proper to hold
the appellants guilty of commission of the offence. [paras
24- 25] [114-0-F] B
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
1985 (1) SCR 88 =1984 (4) SCC 116; and Sattatiya
@Satish Rajanna Karla/la Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 (3)
sec 210 - relied on.
c
3. As regards scope of interference against
concurrent findings of fact, there is no doubt that in the
instant case, the entire evidence is vitiated by serious
errors and if the appellant's conviction is upheld then it
would amount to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the o
judgment and order of conviction as recorded by trial
court and confirmed by High Court cannot be sustained
in law. The same are, therefore, set aside and quashed.
The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled
against them. [para 31-33] [117-8-G] E
Case Law ·Reference:
1985 (1) SCR88 relied on para 26
2010 SCR 296 relied on para 28
F
AIR 1947 PC 67 referred to para 28
2004 (2) SCR 123 relied on para 28
2008 (3) sec 21 o relied on para 28
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal G
No. 1327 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2007 of the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at jaipur in D.B.
Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2005. H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
A WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 1369 of 2008
Criminal Appeal No. 1370 of 2008.
B R.K. Kapoor, Shweta Kapoor, Reetu Sharma, Anis Ahmed
Khan, Dr. Monika Gusain, Hariom Yaduvanshi and R.K. Kapoor
(Amicus Curiae) for the Appellant.
lmtiaz Ahmed, Naghma lmtiaz, Milind Kumar, Archana
Pathak Dave and Milind Kumar for the Respondent.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. This judgment and order shall
govern disposal of Crl. A. No. 1369 of 2008 Nandu Singh@
0 Vikram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Crl. A.No. 1370 of
2008 Arun Joseph Vs. State of Rajasthan as they arise out of
the common judgment and order recorded by Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur
in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 125/2005, 210/2005 and 1176/
E 2005 decided on 03.12.2007, arising out of judgment and
order of conviction recorded by Special Judge SC/ST (PA
Cases) Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 02/2004 decided on
10.02.2005.
2. The trial court vide its judgment and order held the
F Appellants guilty for commission of offence under Section 302/
34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and awarded life
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment
of fine further three months simple imprisonment and under
Section 4/25 of the Arms Act one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/
G - and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month
imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, Appellants had
preferred three appeals as mentioned hereinabove before the
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
H
MUSTKEEM @ SIRAJUDEEN v. STATE OF 109
1 RAJASTHAN [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
at Jaipur Bench. The High Court, after considering the matter A
from all angles also came to the conclusion that no interference
was called for against the said judgment of the trial Court and
dismissed the appeals. In all, there were five accused out of
which one Abrar was declared absconder and Abdul Wahid
-, was acquitted by the Trial Court. Thus these appeals by the B
three convicted accused.
4. We have, accordingly, heard learned Counsel Mr. R.K.
Kapoor, Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Mrs. Mansi Dhiman for the
Appellants and Mr. Milind Kumar, Mr. lmtiaz Ahmeda and Ms.
Archana Pathak Dave for the Respondent State and perused c
the record.
5. Facts giving rise to the prosecution story, ultimately
resulting in conviction of the Appellants, are as under:-
On 24.07.2003 at 5.45 p.m. Diwakar Chaturvedi SHO D
Police Station Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur received telephonic
information about murder of a person in Kathputli Colony. After
recording the said information in Rojnamcha, SHO rushed to
the spot with police squad and found a person lying dead in a
pool of blood. E
6. On inquiries being made P.W.3 - Ashok Kumar,
present at the place of occurrence informed Diwakar that the
name of the deceased was Ram Pal Yadav. He further
'"' informed that the murder of Ram Pal Yadav has been caused
by Mustkeem, Nandu and one other person by inflicting injuries F
on his person with sword and knife. The third person was later
identified as Arun Joseph. On receiving the said information
SHO recorded the Parcha Bayan of P .W.3 -Ashok Kumar and
registered a case under Section 302/1208 of the IPC. Thus the
investigation machinery was set into motion. Dead body was G
sent for autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of
witnesses were recorded, accused were arrested and on
completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
7. Charges under Section 302/149 IPC and Section 4/25
H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.
A of the Arms Act were framed against the accused. They denied
the charges and prayed for being tried. The prosecution in
support of its case examined 19 witnesses. The statements of
the Appellants under Section 31'3 of Cr. P.C. were recorded,
who claimed innocence and prayed for their acquittal.
B ,-
8. As per the post mortem report Ex. P.34, deceased Ram
Pal Yadav had received 38 ante mortem injuries and from the
evidence of P.W.13 - Dr. Sumant Dutta, cause of death was
stated to be due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of injuries
to chest, lungs and skull and on account of excessive bleeding.
C In the light of the Post Mortem Report and the evidence of
P.W.13 - Dr. Sumant Dutta, it cannot be disputed nor has been
disputed before us that deceased had met with homicidal
death.
D 9. Now the question that arises for our consideration in this
and the connected appeals is as to who were the perpetrators
of the crime and whether the trial Court and High Court were
justified in holding the appellants guilty for commission of the
said offences.
E 10. Before we proceed to do so it is necessary to point
out that the solitary star witness of the prosecution P.W.3 -
Ashok Kumar had turned hostile and was declared as such.
11. In fact, it is pertinent to mention here that the main
material witnesses were declared hostile. The Trial Court
F ebserved in this context that P.W.1 Mohd. Ayub (recovery
witness), P.W.3 Ashok Kumar and P.W.2 Prakash (both eye-
witnesses) had retracted their statements made under Section
161 Cr.P.C. during examination. Furthermore, it has also
refused to attach much credence to the deposition of P.W.19
G Yogesh Kumar, owing to the clear contradictions in his
statement and aforesaid deposition regarding his presence at
the scene of crime. Thus, in a nutshell, Trial Court had also
found them unreliable and has not based the Appellants
conviction on the basis of their statements. Similarly High Court
H has not taken their evidence into consideration. Thus, it is
MUSTKEEM .@ SIRAJUDEEN v. STATE OF 111
RAJASTHAN [DEEPAK VERMA, J.] .
neither required nor is necessary to deal with their evidence. A·'
Trial Court had recorded a finding that the case is without any
eye witness and is based on circumstantial evidence.
12. It is therefore necessary to discuss the evidence of
P.W.8 -Smt. Supyar Kanwar, P.W.9- Lali Devi and P.W.10
~, - Chittar so as to find out the element of truth in the same-iand 8 .. "
to discern any motive behind the commission of the offence.
•·-
13. It is fully established that the prosecution case. is.based
on circumstantial evidence. In this view of the matter, we have
to see if the chain of circumstances was so complete so as to' :. C
unerringly point the finger only at the Appellants as perpetrators ·
of crime. Before delving into the legal analysis, however, we
would like to examine the statements of P.W.8 a11d P.\IY.10 in
brief. ·
,. D
14. As per the prosecution story, Appellants Mustkeem
and Arun had met P.W.10 - Chittar a day before the
occurrence, in whose house deceased Ram Pal Yadav, was·
residing as a tenant, for last 5 to 6 years and h~ deposed that
Appellants Mustkeem and Arun had told him that, that day it E
would be the last visit of Ram Pal and he will not come to his
house again. Similar is the evidence of P.W.9- Lali Devi, wife
of P.W.10. She has repeated the same version as had been
deposed by P.W.10- Chittar.
15. P.W.8 - Smt. Supyar deposed that Mustkeem, Arun F
and Nandu used to visit Ram Pal Yadav regularly as all of them
were dealing in illicit liquor trade. On coming to know from Lali
Devi that Arun, Mustkeem and Nandu were keen to eliminate
Ram Pal Yadav, she had telephonically asked him to meet her
at the earliest. When deceased Ram Pal Yadav met Smt. G
Supyar, she informed him about the intentions of the accused.
She also told him that Arun and Mustkeem both had said that
it would be the last visit of Ram Pal Yadav to her house as they
were planning to eliminate him.
H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R
A 16. Thus, from an appraisal of the evidence of P.W.8,
P.W.9 and P.W.10, the Trial Court and the Division Bench of
the High Court ruled that prosecution has been able to establish
that deceased Ram Pal Yadav and Appellants were all involved
in illegal trade of liquor and a day prior to the date of incident,
B Arun and Mustkeem had expressed their intentions to eliminate
Ram Pal to P.W.9 and P.W.10.
17. High Court while considering the Appellants' appeal
found this factor as one of the incriminating circumstances to
C eventually hold the Appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence.
18. The other circumstance found against the Appellants
by High Court was that, on the basis of the disclosure
statements of the Appellants, weapons alleged to be used in
the commission of offence and clothes stained with human
D blood were recovered. In its Judgment, the High Court has
discussed in extenso the effect of Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act (hereinafter s~all be referred to as 'Act') and
subsequent discovery of the material objects thereafter.
E 19. On the basis of the report of the serologist, it has come
on record that traces of AB blood group were found on the
pants and baniyan of the deceased. The prosecution has also
averred that Sword and clothes stained with human blood group
AB were also recovered at the instance of Appellants, from the
F places shown by them and known only to them and none others. "
On account of aforesaid circumstances, the High Court was of
the opinion that the chain of circumstances was complete and
the completed chain of circumstances pointed the finger for
commission of the said offence only by the Appellants.
G 20. As regards the motive (if any) behind the homicide,
on review of the relevant deposition of the witnesses, we are
of the opinion that one of the circumstances found against the
present Appellants, that deceased and Appellants indulged in
illegal trade of liquor and thus were having enmity with each
H other, is not based on any cogent and reliable evidence much
MUSTKEEM @ SIRAJUDEEN v. STATE OF 113
RAJASTHAN [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
less on the evidence of P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10. This could A
not have been the motive of killing Ram Pal.
21. In fact, the omissions on the part of all three witnesses
namely, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W. 10 to state certain material
facts in the course of making their statements before the police, 8
-, which they have categorically admitted in their depositions may
even be considered as "contradictions" as per the Explanation
to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C.
22. Their evidence, that they had intimated P.W.8 a day
prior to the date of incident, that they would eliminate Ram Pal C
is also not trustworthy. On account of several discrepancies
appearing in their evidence, P.W.8 is absolutely an hearsay
witness which is borne out from their evidence. Similarly the
evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 does not establish the intention
on the part of the accused to murder Ram Prasad. Since no D
enmity could be established on record between them there
was nothing which warranted to eliminate Ram Pal.
23. The AB blood group which was found on the clothes
of the deceased does not by itself establish the guilt of the E
Appellant unless the same was connected with the murder of
deceased by the Appellants. None of the witnesses examined
by the prosecution could establish that fact. The blood found
on the sword recovered at the instance of the Mustkeem was
not sufficient for test as the same had already disintegrated.
F
At any rate, due to the reasons elaborated in the following
paragraphs, the fact that the traces of blood found on the
deceased matched those found on the recovered weapons
cannot ipso facto enable us to arrive at the conclusion that the
latter were used for the murder.
G
24. In fact, the recovery of the weapons on disclosure of
the Appellants itself becomes doubtful. The witness of Recovery
Memo P.W.1 - Mohd. Ayub Khan was declared hostile and
another witness P.W.10 - Chittar admitted that signatures
were obtained on the memos and annexures at the Police H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.
A Station itself. It is also pertinent to mention here that P.W.1 -
Mohd. Ayub Khan was residing 4 Kms. away from the place of
recovery and P.W.10- Chittar was residing 8 Kms. away from
the pla~ of recovery and were also declared hostile.
Prosecution failed to establish as to why none of the local
• B persons were called to be the witnesses. The conduct of the
prosecution appears to be extremely doubtful and renders the
case as concocted, to falsely implicate the Appellants.
Recovery Memos also reflect that there were overwriting on the
same which has not been explained by P.W.16 - Diwakar
C Chaturvedi (Investigating Officer). He admitted that memos and
annexures were prepared in his own handwriting but also
admitted in his cross examination that the same were in a
different handwriting. This lacuna should have been explained
by the prosecution more so when the whole case rested only
on circumstantial evidence. Thus looking to the matter from all
0
angles we are of the considered opinion that it would not be
safe and proper to hold the Appellants guilty for commission
of offence.
25. It is too well settled in law that where the case rests
E squarely on circumstantial evidence the inference of guilt can
be justified only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence
of the accused or the guilt of any other person. No doubt, it is
true that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial
F evidence but it should be decided on the touchstone of law
relating to circumstantial evidence, which has been well settled
by law by this Court.
26. In a most celebrated case of this Court reported in
G 1984 (4) SCC 116 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra in para 153, some cardinal principles regarding
the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been
postulated. Whenever the case is based on circumstantial
evidence following features are required to be complied with.
It would be beneficial to repeat the same salient features once
H
MUSTKEEM @ SIRAJUDEEN v. STATE OF 115
RAJASTHAN [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
•
again which are as under:- A
"(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn must or should be and not merely 'may be'
fully established,
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with 8
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty, .
(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature c
and tendency,
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not D
to leave any reasonable gro_und for the conclusion
consistentwith the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused".
E
27. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important
is dis~overy of the material object at the disclosure of the
accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead
to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the
.. accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to
F
establish a close link between discovery of the material objects
and its use in the commission of the offence. What is
admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information
leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the
prosecution.
G
28. If the recovery memos were prepared at the Police
Station itself then the same would lose its sanctity as held by
this Court in Varun Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan reported
in AIR 2011 sec 12.
H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
A 29. The scope and ambit of Section 27 were also
illuminatingly stated in AIR 1947 PC 67 Pulukuri Kotayya & Ors.
Vs. Emperor reproduced hereinbelow:-
"... it is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within
the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact
B discovered embraces the place from which the object is
produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and
the information given must relate distinctly to this fact.
Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object
produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in
c which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person
in custody that 'I will produce a k11ife concealed in the roof
of my house' does not lead to the discovery of a knife;
knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the
discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house
D of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved
to have been used in the commission of the offence, the
fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the
words be added 'with which I stabbed A' these words are
inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of
E the knife in the house of the informant."
The same were thereafter restated in another judgment of
this Court reported in 2004 (10) SCC 657 Anter Singh Vs.
State of Rajasthan.
F 30. The doctrine of circumstantial evidence was once
again discussed and summarised in 2008 (3) sec 210
Sattatiya @Satish Rajanna Karla/la Vs. State of Maharashtra
in the following terms:
G "10 ... It is settled law that an offence can be proved not only
by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence
where there is no direct evidence. The court can draw an
inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the
H innocence of the accused. Of course, the circumstance
MUSTKEEM @ SIRAJUDEEN v. STATE OF 117
RAJASTHAN [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have to A
be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be
shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought
to be inferred from those circumstances".
31. As regards scope of interference against concurrent 8
findings of fact, powers under Article 136 of the Constitution
can be exercised, in the manner described in para 14 of the
aforesaid judgment reprod.uced hereinbelow:-
"14. At this stage, we also deem it proper to observe that
in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution, C
this Court will be extremely loath to upset the judgment of
conviction which is confirmed in appeal. However, if it is
found that the appreciation of evidence in a case, which
is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, is vitiated by
serious errors and on that account miscarriage of justice D
has been occasioned, then the Court will certainly interfere
even with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court
and the High Court. [Bharat Vs. State of MP. 2003 (3)
· sec 106)
E
32. After having discussed the entire evidence, we have
no doubt in our mind that the same is vitiated by serious errors
and if Appellant's conviction is upheld then it would amount to
miscarriage of justice.
33. In the light of the aforesaid well settled principles of law F
by several authorities of this Court, we are of the opinion that
the judgment and order of conviction as recorded by Trial Court
and confirmed by High Court in Appellants appeal cannot be
sustained in law. The same are, therefore, hereby set aside and
quashed. Appeals are allowed. Appellants are acquitted of the G
charges levelled against them. The Appellants be set at liberty,
if not required in any other criminal case~.
R.P. Appeals allowed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search