RUKIA BEGUMversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

•                        [2011) 4 S.C.R. 711


                           RUKIA BEGUM                                 A
                                   v.
                      STATE OF KARNATAKA
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1519 of 2008)

                           APRIL 4, 2011
                                                                       B
       [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
                      PRASAD, JJ.]

         Penal Code, 1860: s.302, 201 r.w. s.34 - Murder and
    causing disappearance of evidence - Strained relations             C
    between the victims and the accused party - Assault on the
    victims resulting in their death - Trial court acquitted 'R' and
    'N' and two other accused holding that circumstances did not
    point guilt towards them - However convicted '/' and 'M'
    holding that the circumstantial evidence i.e. motive, presence     D
    of blood, recoveries and abscondence immediately after the
    occurrence pointed towards their guilt - High Court set aside
    the acquittal of appellants 'R' and 'N' and also upheld the
    conviction of appellants '/' and 'M' - On appeal, held: The
    circumstantial evidence against appellants 'R' and 'N' were not    E
    such which would lead towards their guilt - Trial court, on
    appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the
    prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond all
    reasonable doubt, so far as 'R' and 'N' were concerned - The
    view taken by trial court was justified in the facts and           F
    circumstances of the case and a possible view and, therefore,
    High Court erred in setting aside their acquittal - However,
    case of appellants '/' and 'M' stood on an a/together different
    footing - Trial court had held them guilty - There was
    overwhelming evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt         G
    that they shared the motive with other accused persons -
    Recovery of wheel and tyre of the motorcycle belonging to the
    victim and knife was made on the statements made by
    appellants '/' and 'M' - These two appellants were not found

                                  711                                  H
    712    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                      •
A at the normal place of their work and their abscondence was
  proved by the Manager of the firm where they were working -
  The trial court as also the High Court on the basis of the
  circumstantial e\lidence rightly came to the conclusion. that
  the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond all
B reasonable doubt so far as '/' and 'M' were concerned.

       Evidence: Circumstantial evidence - Held: For bringing
  home the guilt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence,
  the prosecution has to establish that the circumstances
C 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 - It
  should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from
  the conclusion, that the crime was committed by the accused
0 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 any explanation than the guilt of the accused.

E      Appeal against acquittal: Acquittal by trial court -
  Interference by High Court - Scope of - Held: 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
F ground that if it was trying the case, it would have taken an
  alternative view and convicted the accused - High court while
  hearing appeal against the 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
G that of 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 trial Judge as to
  the credibility of the witness must be given proper weight and
  consideration - There must be compelling and weighty
H
•        RUKIA BEGUM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                 713


    reason for the High Court to come to a conclusion different   A
    than that of trial court.

         The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased
    had strained relations with his mother-accused and
    sisters-appellants 'R' and 'N' in relation to the ancestral 8
    property. On the fateful day, the accused persons
    obstructed the passage near the house of the victim.
    When the victim was coming on. a motorcycle, he got hit
    against the obstruction and fell down from his
    motorcycle. His wife who was sitting behind also fell C
    down. The appellants and other accused persons
    attacked the victim and his wife and. caused their death
    and thereafter shifted their bodies and dismantled the
    motorcycle of the victim. The trial court acquitted
    appellants 'R' and 'N' and other two accused holding that
    the circumstances did not point guilt towards them. D
    However, the trial court convicted appellants 'I' and 'M'
    under Sections 302 and 201 r.w. Section 34 IPC holding
    that the circumstantial evidence i.e. motive, presence of
    blood, recoveries and abscondence immediately after the
    occurrence pointed towards their guilt. The convict- E
    accused and the State filed the appeals. The High Court
    dismissed the appeal filed by appellants 'I' and 'M'. 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 'R' and 'N' and convicted F
    them for the offence under Section 302 and 120-8, IPC
    and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.The instant
    appeals were filed by 'R', 'N', 'I' and 'M' challenging their
    conviction.             ·
                                                                  G
         Disposing of the appeals, the Court

        HELD: 1. The circumstantial evidence brought
    against appellants 'R' and 'N' were not such which would
    lead towards their guilt. The recovery from these
    appellants itself was discarded by the High Court. Motive H
   714      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                  •
A alone, in the absence of any other circumstantial evidence
  would not be sufficient to sustain the conviction of these
  two appellants. The trial court on appraisal of the
  evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution
  was not able to prove its case beyond all reasonable
B doubt, so far as 'R' and 'N' were concerned. It is trite that
  where two views on the evidence are reasonably
  possible and the trial court has taken a view favouring
  acquittal, the High Court in an appeal against acquittal
  should not disturb the same merely on the ground that if
c it was trying the case, it would have taken an alternative
  view and convicted the accused. The High court while
  hearing appeal against the 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
0
  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
E weighty reason for the High Court to come to a
  conclusion different than that of the trial court. The view
  taken by the trial court was justified in the facts and
  circumstances of the case and a possible view and,
  therefore, the High Court erred in setting aside their
F acquittal. [Para 8] (720-D-G; 721-A-B]

       2. The case of appellant 'I' and 'M' however, stood on
  an altogether different footing. The trial court had held
  them guilty. There was overwhelming evidence to prove
G beyond all reasonable doubt that they shared the motive
  with other accused persons. Appellant 'I' during the
  course of investigation gave statement which led to the
  recovery of wheel and tyre of the motorcycle belonging
  to the deceased which was dismantled. It was seized and
H seizure list was prepared. This recovery was proved by
•         RUKIA BEGUM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                 715


     oral evidence as also the seizure list. Further, the A
     statement given by appellant 'M' during the course of
     investigation led to recovery of the· knife and it was
     proved by PW-25 and seizure memo. These two
     appellants were not found at the normal place of their
     work and their abscondence was proved by PW-7, the B
     Manager of M/s. Habeeb Solvent Extract where they were
     working. He had further stated that 'I' was assigned duty
      for collection of money due to the company and such a
      duty was assigned on the 9th June, 1995, the day when
      the incident took place. PW-33 had also stated that the c
      appellant 'I', as an employee of Mis. Habeeb Solvent
      Extract, approached him for collection of money and on
      9th June, 1995 he paid a sum of ?10,000/- to him. PW-7
      had further stated in his evidence that during the month
      of June, 1995 appellant 'M' left the factory and did not join 0
      the duty. From the said evidence, it is clear that the
      appellants 'I' and 'M' were employees of M/s. Habeeb
      Solvent Extract and absconded soon after the incident.
      No doubt, it is true that for bringing home the guilt on the
      basis of the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has E
      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 F
      the guilt of the accused. It should form a chain so
       complete that there is no escape from the 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, G
      circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable
       of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the
       guilt of the accused. Such evidence should not only be
       consistent with the guilt of the accused but inconsistent
       with his innocence. No hard and fast rule can be laid to H
     716      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             . [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                     •
A say that particular circumstances are conclusive to
  establish guilt. It is basically a question of appreciation
  of evidence which exercise is to be done in the facts and
  circumstances of each case. Here in the instant case, the
  motive, the recoveries and abscondence of these
B appellants immediately after the occurrence pointed out
  towards their guilt. The trial court as also the High Court
  on the basis of the circumstantial evidence rightly came
  to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove
  its case beyond all reasonable doubt so far as these
c appellants were concerned. [Paras 9, 10) [721-C-H; 722-
  A-F]

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1519 of 2008.

D       From the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2007 of the
    High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.
    501 of 2004.

                                   WITH

E Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 2008.

    Criminal Appeal No. 1808 of 2009.

       Basava Prabhu S. Patil, B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Ajay
F Kumar M.R.D. Upadhyay, V.N. Raghupathy and S.N. Bhat for
  the Appellant.

         Anitha Shenoy, Rashmi Nandakumar and B.S. Gautam for
    the Respondent.

G          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          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
H
•          RUKIA BEGUM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
             [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
                                                                  717

    trial, whereas accused Rukiya Begum, Nasreen, Mansoor and A
    Mohmmed Ghouse were acquitted of all the charges. However
    accused lssaq 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, B
    aggrieved by the acquittal of Rukia Begum Nasreen, Mansoor
    and Mohammed Ghouse preferred appeal whereas appellant
    lssaq 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 c
    together and the High Court by its common judgment dated
    28th of May, 2007 dismissed the appeal preferred by the
    appellants lssaq 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, 0
    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 lssaq Sa it and ·Mujahid appealed with the leave of the      E
    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 lssaq Sait
    and Mujahid, appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 2008. It
    is relevant here to state that convict Mohammed Ghouse joined        F
    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·J~ PW-~1 G.Jayaraj, the
    Sub-Inspector of Police in which he disclosed that while he was      G
    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
                                                                         H
    718       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 4 S.C.R.


A Rasheeq 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
B and Nasreen were arrested and on their disclosure plastic
  bucket and plastic pot kept in the bathroom were seized.
  Appellant lssaq 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
c 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.

D      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,
E 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
F 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 all the appellants herein
G besides other accused persons attacked Rasheed Sait and his
  wife Sabeena Begum and caused their death. Prosecution has
  alleged that in order to shield themselves from punishment the
  accused persons shifted the dead bodies and dismantled the
  motorcycle used by the deceased.
H         5. Police after investigation submitted chargesheet and the
•         RUKIA BEGUM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
            [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
                                                                 719


    appellants besides four other accused persons, namely,              A
    Jaibunnisa, Mansoor, Mohammed Ghouse, and Nasarath @
    Musarath @ Nasarathulla Shariff were committed to the Court
    of Sessions. Appellants denied to have committed any offence
    and claimed to be tried. There is no eye-witness to the
    occurrence and the prosecution sought to establish the guilt        B
    against all the accused persons, including the appellants by
    circumstantial evidence. It has brought on record oral evidence
    as also documentary evidence to prove that there was strained
    relationship between the deceased and the accused persons
    in regard to the share in the ancestral property. Presence of       c
    blood marks near the house of some appellants was another
    circumstance relied on by the prosecution to prove the guilt.
    Recovery of wheel and tyre of the motorcycle of the deceased
    from appellant lssaq Sait and recovery of knife from appellant
    Mujahid at their instances was another circumstance which,
                                                                        0
    according to the prosecution pointed towards the guilt of these
    two appellants. The conduct of these appellants i.e.,
    abscondence immediately after the occurrence was yet another
    circumstance brought by the prosecution to establish their guilt.

         6. The trial court on the appraisal of the evidence came to    E
    the conclusion that motive and recovery of bucket and plastic
    pot at the instance of the appellants Rukia Begum and Nasreen
    do not pointedly lead towards their guilt and accordingly
    acquitted them of all the charges. However, the circumstantial
    evidence brought and proved by the prosecution, i.e. motive;        F
    presence of blood; recoveries and abscondence immediately
    after the occurrence persuaded the trial court to hold that the
    circumstantial evidence clearly lead towards the guilt of
    appellants lssaq Sait and Mujahid and accordingly convicted
    and sentenced them as above.                                        G

         7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants
    as also the State. It has been submitted by the counsel
    representing appellants Rukia Begum and Nasreen that the
    circumstantial evidence brought against them do not                 H.
    720      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                          •
A conclusively point towards their guilt and, therefore, the High
  Court erred in reversing the well considered judgment of
  acquittal of the trial court. They point out that the strained
  relationship between these appellants and their brother
  Rasheed Sait does not necessarily lead towards the guilt of
B these appellants. Recovery of day to day articles i.e., bucket
  and plastic pot also do not point out towards their guilt. It has
  been pointed out that the High Court while convicting these two
  appellants has not relied on the recovery. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,
  however, submits that two sisters, i.e., appellants Rukia Begum
c and Nasreen had very serious dispute with the deceased in
  regard to share of property. According to her this is a strong
  motive to commit the crime.

        8. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival
  submissions and we are of the opinion that the circumstantial
D evidence brought against these appellants are not such which
  lead towards their guilt. As stated earlier, recovery from these
  appellants itself has been discarded by the High Court. In our
  opinion motive alone, in the absence of any other circumstantial
  evidence would not be sufficient to sustain the conviction of
E these two appellants. It is worthwhile mentioning here that the
  trial court on appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion
  that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond
  all reasonable doubt, so far as Rukia Begum and Nasreen are
  concerned. It is trite that where two views on the evidence are
F reasonably possible and the trial court has taken a view
  favouring acquittal, the 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 the accused. The High court while hearing appeal
G against the 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
H the trial court. The view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of
•         RUKIA BEGUM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
            [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRA~AD, J.]
                                                                   721


  the witness must be given proper weight and consideration.               A
  There must be compelling and weighty reason for the Higb
. Court to come to a conclusion different than that ·of the trial court.
  The view taken by the trial court was justified in the facts and
  circumstances of the case and a possible view and, therefore
  in our opinion, the High Court erred in setting aside their              B
  acquittal.

         9. The case of appellant lssaq Sait and Mujahid in our
    opinion, however, stands on altogether different footing. The trial
    court has held them guilty. There is overwhelming evidence to          C
    prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they shared the motive
    with other accused persons. Appellant lssaq Sait during the
    course of investigation gave statement whi(::h led to the recovery
    of wheel and tyre of the motorcycle belonging to the deceased
    which was dismantled. It was seized and seizure list was
    prepared. This recovery has been proved by oral evidence as            D
    also the seizure list. Further, the statement given by appellant
    Mujahid during the course of investigation led to rec6very of the
    knife and it has been proved by PW-25 Jakir Ahamad and
    seizure memo. These two appellants were not found at the
    normal place of their work and their abscondence has been              E
    proved by PW-7 Ashok Kumar, the Manager of M/s. Habeeb
    Solvent Extract. In his evidence he has stated that appellant
    lssaq Sait and appellant Mujahid were working in the factory.
    He has further stated that lssaq Sait ·was assigned duty for
    collection of money due to the company and such. a duty was            F
    assigned on 9th of June, 1995. PW-33 Govindaraju had also
    stated that the appellant lssaq Sait, as an employee of M/s.
    Habeeb Solvent Extract, approached him for collection of
    money and on 9th of June, 1995 he paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/
    - to him. PW-7 has further stated in his evidence that during          G
    the month of June, 1995 appellant Mujahid left the factory and
    did not join the duty. From the aforesaid evidence it is clear
    that the appellants lssaq Sait and Mujahid were employees of
    M/s. Habeeb Solvent Extract and absconded soon after the
    incident.                                                              H
    722       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                          •
A         10. 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
B   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 the conclusion
    that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. It
c   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 the guilt of the accused. Such
    evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the
    accused but inconsistent with his innocence. No hard and fast
0
    rule can be laid to say that particular circumstances are
    conclusive to establish guilt. It is basically a question of
    appreciation of evidence which exercise is to be done in the
    facts and circumstances of each case. Here in the present
    case the motive, the recoveries and abscondence of these
E   appellants immediately after the occurrence point out towards
    their guilt. In our opinion, the trial court as also the High Court
    on the basis of the circumstantial evidence rightly came to the
    conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case
    beyond all reasonable doubt so far as these appellants are
F   concerned.

        11. In the result Criminal Appeal No. 1519 of 2008 flied
  by Rukia Begum and Criminal Appeal No. 1808 of 2009
  preferred by appellant Nasreen are allowed, the Impugned
G judgment of the High Court is set aside. Appellant Rukia Begum
  is in jail, she be set at liberty forthwith.

           Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 2008 stands dismissed.

    D.G.                                      Appeals disposed of.
H