http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: NASEEM AHMED

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DELHI ADMINISTRATION

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/12/1973

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1974 AIR  691            1974 SCR  (2) 694  1974 SCC  (3) 668  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1984 SC1622  (156)

ACT: Penal Code-Murder-Circumstantial evidence.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant  and the deceased who were friends,  came  to Delhi to purchase a motor-cycle and stayed in a hotel.   The deceased  fell short of money and the appellant promised  to get  it,  from  someone  known  to  him.   Two   prosecution witnesses  saw the deceased and the appellant  entering  the room  of the ’hotel ,on the night of the occurrence and  the appellant  leaving  the  hotel room in the  morning  on  the following day.  Two days later the room was broken open  and the dead body of the deceased was recovered.  The  appellant was  arrested at Gaya in his sister’s house and  an  attache case containing clothes, a spanner set, an allenkey set and a connecting rod were recovered from him.  The appellant was convicted  under s. 302 Penal Code. by the  Sessions  Judge. In  appeal  the  High Court reduced  the  sentence  to  life imprisonment. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD : In a case of circumstantial evidence it is  necessary to  find whether the circumstances on which the  prosecution relies are capable of supporting the sole inference that the appellant  is  guilty of the crime of which he  is  charged. The circumstances have to be established by the  prosecution by  clear and cogent evidence and those  circumstances  must not  be consistent with the innocence of the  accused.   For determining   whether  the.  circumstances  established   on evidence  raise but one inference consistent with the  guilt of  the accused, regard must be had to the totality  of  the circumstances.    Individual  circumstances  considered   in isolation  and  divorced’ from the context  of  the  overall picture  emerging  from  a  consideration  of  the   diverse circumstances  and their conjoint ,effect may by  themselves appear innocuous.  It is only when the various circumstances are  considered  conjointly  that  it  becomes  possible  to understand and appreciate their true effect.  ’ [696G-H] In  the instant case, the circumstances that, the  appellant and the deceased who occupied a room in the hotel were  seen entering  the room together at midnight on the night of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

occurrence,  the  appellant was seen locking  the  room  and leaving.  the  hotel, the dead body was recovered  from  the room, the appellant was found indulging in what for a man of his  means was a spree of extravagance, and a blood  stained connecting   rod  was  recovered  from  the  house  of   the appellant’s  sister where he was found, all point to  ,  the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 80  of 1970. Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order  dated the  23rd October, 1969 of the Delhi High Court in  Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1069 (Murder Reference No. 3 of 1969) Harjinder Singh and S. Sodhi, for the appellant G.   Das and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent 695 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD,  J.-This  appeal by special leave  is  directed against  a judgment of the High Court of  Delhi:  confirming the  conviction  of the appellant under section 302  of  the Penal Code but reducing the sentence of death imposed on him by  the  learned Additional Sessions Judge,  Delhi  to  life imprisonment.   The charge against the appellant is that  on the night between the 17th and 18 August, 1968 lie committed the murder of one Ram Kumar. On  April 11, 1968 Ram Kumar, his brother Shiv Kumar,  their mother  and  the  appellant  left  Kanpur  for   Moradnagar. On,April  15  Ram Kumar, Shiv Kumar and the  appellant  left Moradnagar  for  Delhi for purchasing  a  secondhand  motor- cycle.   Shiv Kumar went back to Moradnagar for  catching  a bus to Kanpur. At  about  7-15  p.m. on April 15, 1968 Ram  Kumar  and  the appellant  booked  a room at  Hindustan  Hotel,  Ballimaran, Delhi.   They signed their names in the hotel  register  and entered therein their Kanpur address.  On the 16th they were admittedly  together  and while in search of  a  motor-cycle they  met  Abdul Hafeez, Babu Khan and Om Prakash.   On  the 17th morning Ram Kumar and the appellant struck a deal  with Babu  Khan and Om Prakash agreeing  to purchase from them  a motor-cycle  for Rs. 1,000/-.  Ram Kumar paid a sum  of  Rs. 251-  by way of advance and the sellers agreed  to  ,deliver the motor-cycle in the evening. At about 6 p.m. on the 17th evening Babu Khan and Om Prakash went  to  Hindustan Hotel with the motor-cycle and  met  Ram Kumar, who told them that he was short of money by three  or four  hundred rupees and that he had sent the  appellant  to get the amount from his (the appellant’s) Ustad.  Babu  Khan and Om Prakash waited till about 9-30 p.m. but the appellant did not turn up and so they went away with the motor-cycle. The  case of the prosecution is that at about 12-30 a.m.  on the  night between the 17th and 18th the deceased Ram  Kumar and  the appellant were seen going to their hotel  room  by Lal  Chand, a partner of the hotel.  It is  further  alleged that at about 10 a.m. on the 8th morning, Lal Chand and  his brother  Tek Chand saw  the appellant locking the  room  and leaving  the hotel.  On April 20th, the hotel premises  were full  of  a foul smell and thereupon the lock  of  the  room which was occupied by Ram Kumar and the appellant was broken open.  Inside the room was found the dead body of Ram  Kumar with two stab injuries, one near the right eye brow and  the other near the right ear and nine contused lacerated  wounds on  the scalp, each injury being brain deep.  According  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

medical  evidence  the  stab injuries  were  caused  with  a pointed,  sharp-edged weapon ,while the other injuries  were caused by a hard, blunt substance. Soon after the discovery of Ram Kumar’s dead body Lal  Chand lodged  the  First  Information Report at  the  Lahori  Gate police  station  stating that two, persons who  had  entered their names as Nasim Mahazroo and Ram Kumar occupied a  room in his hotel on April 15, 696 that he had seen them entering the room at about 10-30 p.m. of  the  night  between 17th and 18th  April  and  that  the younger of the two (namely Nasim, the appellant) had  locked the  room at about 10 a.m. on the 18th and had not  returned since then.  The First Information Report then refers to the circumstances in which the dead body of Ram Kumar was  found in the room. The appellant could not be found at Kanpur where he normally resides  and it was on May 4, 1968 that he was  arrested  at Gaya  (Bihar)  in the house of his sister.  On a  search  of that  house  an attache case containing clothes,  a  spanner set, an allenkey set and a connecting, rod are said to  have been recovered. According  to the prosecution., the appellant committed  the murder  of Ram Kumar with the motive of committing theft  of about six or seven hundred rupees which he had kept with him for purchasing the motorcycle.  The appellant admitted  that he  was on friendly terms with Ram Kumar and that  they  had gone  to  Delhi  for  purchasing  a  motor-cycle.   He  also admitted  that Ram Kumar agreed to purchase the  motor-cycle from  Babu Khan and Om Prakash, that a sum of Rs.  25/-  was given  to  Om  Prakash  by way  of  advance,  that  he,  the appellant,  was asked by Ram Kumar to raise some money  from his  Ustad to make up the price of the motor-cycle and  that during his absence, Om Prakash and Babu khan had come to the hotel but had, left before he reached the hotel. The  version of the appellant is that he was unable  to  get the required amount from his Ustad and therefore on reaching the hotel at about 9 p.m. on the 17th he told Ram Kumar that be  would go to Kanpur and bring the amount.. He  claims  to have  left for Kanpur by the 9-45 p.m. train reaching  there at  6 a.m. on the 18th.  He obtained a sum of Rs.  450/-  on April  19 from one Rafi and arrived in Delhi on the  evening of  April 20.  He says that be went to Ballimaran where  the Hindustan  Hotel  is situated and on hearing rumors  that  a person  was  murdered  in the hotel and that  his  name  was involved  in it he Bed to Gaya out of fear.  He denied  that any  of the incriminating articles were recovered  from  his sister’s house. This  is  a  case  of  circumstantial  evidence  and  it  is therefore  necessary  to find whether the  circumstances  on which  the prosecution relies are capable of supporting  the sole inference that the appellant is guilty of the crime  of which he is charged.  The circumstances, in the first place, have  to  be  established by the prosecution  by  clear  and cogent   evidence  and  those  circumstances  must  not   be consistent   with  the  innocence  of  the   accused.    For determining  whether  the circumstances established  on  the evidence  raise but one inference consistent with the  guilt of  the accused, regard must be had to the totality  of  the circumstances.    Individual  circumstances  considered   in isolation  and  divorced  from the context  of  the  overall picture  emerging  from  a  consideration  of  the   diverse circumstances  and their conjoint effect may  by  themselves appear  innocuous.   It, is only when the  various  circums- tances are considered conjointly that it becomes possible to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

understand and appreciate their true effect.  If a person is seen running 697 away  on the heels of a murder, the explanation that he  was fleeing in panic is apparently not irrational.  Blood-stains on  the  clothes can be attributed plausibly to  a  bleeding nose.   Even the possession of a weapon like a knife can  be explained  by  citing a variety of acceptable  answers’  But such  circumstances  cannot  be  considered  in   watertight compartments.   If a person is found running away  from  the scene  of murder with blood-stained clothes and a  knife  in his hand, it would, in a proper context, be consistent  with the  rule  of circumstantial evidence to  hold-that  he  had committed the murder. The circumstances on which the High Court relies are these               (1)   that  on April 15,  1968  the--appellant               and  the deceased .Ram Kumar arrived at  Delhi               for purchasing a motorcycle;               (2)   that  on  the evening of the  15th  they               occupied  Room No.. 2 in the Hindustan  Hotel,               Delhi;               (3)   that on the 16th, the two were  together               and  were looking out for a secondhand  motor-               cycle;               (4)   that on the 17th the deceased agreed  to               purchase a, motor-cycle from Babu Khan and  Om               Prakash  and  paid  a sum of Rs.  25/-  to  Om               Prakash  by way of advance.   The  motor-cycle               needed  repairs  and  the  sellers  agreed  to               deliver it in. the evening;                (5)  that  the price of the  motor-cycle  was               fixed  at Rs. 1000/but the deceased was  short               of money by about Rs. 400/-;               (6)   that  on  the evening of the  17th  Babu               Khan  and  Om Prakash went to  the  hotel  to               deliver the motor_cycle when the deceased told               them that the appellant had gone to bring  the               money  from  his  Ustad.  Babu  Khan  and  Om,               Prakash waited till about 9 p.m. and since the               appellant had hot returned till then they left               with the motor-cycle;               (7)     that Lal Chand (P.W. 1), a partner  of               the hotel saw the appellant and the  deceased               coming to the hotel at about 12-30 a.m.;                (8)  that  at about 10 a.m. on the  18th  Lal               Chand  and his brother Tek Chand (P.W. 2)  who               run the hotel in partnership saw the appellant               locking Room No. 2 and leaving the hotel;               (9)   that the appellant went to Kanpur on the               18th and got new clothes stitched for  himself               from a tailor there on, payment of Rs. 60/- as               tailoring,  charges.  Appellant was  generally               in poor financial circumstances;               (10)  that  during  his  stay  at  Kanpur  the               appellant  stayed  at ’Himachal Hotel’  in  an               assumed  name.  ’S.  N. Gander.  He  booked  a               room in the hotel at 5-30 p.m. on the 18th and               left the hotel at 4 p.m. on the 19th;               698                (11)  that the appellant was traced at  Gaya,               Bihar,  on  May  4.1968 in the  house  of  his               sister.    On  a  search  of  that   house   a               ’connecting rod’ having stains of human  blood               was recovered along with other articles. There is clear and un-controverted evidence to show that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

deceased  bad, a sum at least of about Rs. 700/-  with  him, that  he wanted .to purchase a motorcycle, that he  and  the appellant were occupying Room No. 2 in the Hindustan  Hotel, that it was agreed to purchase a motor-cycle for Rs. 1000/- from  Babu  Khan and Om Prakash and that  the  deceased  had deputed the appellant on the 17th evening to get the deficit amount  of about Rs. 300./- from the latter’s Ustad.   These facts  were never disputed and are not in dispute before  us eithe r. The  crucial point of time at which the prosecution and  the defence  part company is the mid-night between the 17th  and the  18th.   Lal Chand has stated in his  evidence  that  at about  12-30  a.m.  he saw the deceased  and  the  appellant entering  Room  No. 2. It was urged by the  learned  counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that Lal Chand may have made a mistake in identifying the. companion of the deceased but we see no foundation for this submission.  Lal Chand  is a  proprietor  of  the Hindustan Hotel and  he  was  neither interested  in  the  deceased nor did  he  have  any  grudge against  a customer like the appellant.  It  is  significant that in the First Information Report which Lal Chand  lodged at  the  Lahori Gate police station on the  evening  of  the 20th, he has specifically mentioned that he saw the deceased and  the appellant entering the room at about 12-30 a.m.  on the  night between the 17th and the 18th.  At the time  when that Report was lodged no one had any clue to the murder and Lal Chand could not have started building up a theory of his own so as to implicate the appellant falsely.  The  evidence of Lal Chand shows that the appellant and the deceased spent the night in Room No. 2. Counsel  for the appellant also challenged the  evidence  of Lal Chand and Tek Chand that they saw the appellant  locking the room at about 10 a.m. on the 18th and leaving the hotel. This  fact  is  also specifically  mentioned  in  the  First Information  Report  which,  in our  opinion.  is  a  highly significant circumstance.  The case of the appellant is that he  left Delhi at about 9.45 p.m. on the 17th and  therefore be  could not have been seen locking the room at 10 a.m.  on the 18th.  The evidence of Chhedi Lal, the Manager of  Yasin Tailors,  Kanpur,  is  relied  upon  as  showing  that   the appellant was in Kanpur at least at about 2 pm. on the  18th and therefore he could not have left Delhi as late as at  10 a.m.  The  train  takes  more than  8  hours  to  cover  the ’distance   between  Delhi  and  Kanpur.   Chhedi  Lal   was obviously  trying to offer a helping hand to the,  appellant but even then his evidence does not show that the  appellant had  delivered the cloth to him at 2 p.m, on the  18th.   In answer  to,  a question put by the learned  Sessions  Judge, Chhedi  Lal stated that he did not remember the exact time when  the  cloth was delivered to him by the  appellant  and that the ’Cloth may have been delivered at any time  between 12 noon and 8 p.m. 699 on  the  18th.  The Sessions Court and the High  Court  were therefore., right in accepting the evidence of Lal Chand and Tek  Chand  that the appellant locked the room at  about  10 a.m. and left the hotel. These  two  circumstances are by  themselves  sufficient  to determine the guilt of the appellant.  The appellant and the deceased  occupied a room in the Hindustan Hotel, they  were seen  entering  the room together at mid-night  between  the 17th and 18th and the appellant locked the room on the  18th morning  and left the hotel.  From that room was  discovered the dead body of.  Ram Kumar on the 20th. The  sum  of  Rs. 700/- which the deceased had  on  him  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

found  missing  and  at the Kanpur end,  the  appellant  was indulging  in  what for a man of his means was  a  spree  of extravagance.  He obtained terylene cloth and paid a bill of Rs.  60/- to the tailor while his friend was lying  dead  at Delhi.   The appellant is supposed to have gone to.   Kanpur to  obtain the deficit sum of Rs. 300/- and if he was  truly on such a bona fide mission, it passes comprehension that he should  have  stayed in the Himachal  Hotel,  Kanpur  in-the false name of S. N. Gander. The  conduct of the appellant after his arrival at Kanpur on the  18th is   a valuable link in the chain of causation. He knew that the.amount     was required by his friend urgently and that his friend was  waiting   for him in Delhi. On  his own  showing, he had a merry time.in Kanpur and according to him it was on the 20th that he went back to Delhi.  And what should  he have done ?. He says that he went to,  Ballimaran locality  where the Hindustan Hotel is situated and then  to the  hotel  itself.  Having come to know there that  he  was being  involved  in a murder which had taken  place  in  the hotel,  he claims to, have fled to Gaya, out of sheer  fear. This explanation is wholly irrational and is false.  He  and the  deceased were on intimate terms and there  is  evidence showing  that the deceased and his family used to treat  him as of their own kin.  If he were innocent, he would have in- quired about his benefactor in a moment of sorrow and  would not  have.run away under the magic spell of a strange  sense of fear. Added to the weight of these circumstances is the  discovery of  the blood-stained connecting rod from the house  of  the appellant’s sister.  That discovery was challenged before us because  the  two  witnesses who acted  as  Panchas  to  the seizure memo turned hostile and the prosecution was left  to depend on the testimony of two police officers to prove  the discovery.   That the two witnesses turned hostile  was  not surprising  because both of them are closely related to  the appellant.  It would have been better if the prosecution had examined  the  other  Panch,  Sayyed  Habib-ul-Rab,  who  is described  as a retired Judge in the Memo of  Seizure. The Investigating  Officer, however was not asked as to  why  he was not examined and we see no warrant for assuming that the witness though available was. deliberately kept back. The  postmortem  report  shows that on  the  person  of  the deceased  were  found two stab injuries  and  nine  contused lacerated wounds. 700 The nature of the injuries shows that two different  weapons were  used in the commission of Ram Kumar’s murder.  But  in the  light of the various circumstances discussed above,  it is  impossible  to accept the inference pressed upon  us  on behalf  of  the appellant that not only were  two  different weapons  used but at least two persons had  participated  in the commission of the murder.  Even granting that there  was more than. one person, there is no doubt that the  appellant had ;participated and was a key figure in the commission  of the crime. We  therefore  dismiss the appeal and confirm the  order  of conviction and sentence. P.B.R. Appeal dismissed. 701