REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1519 OF 2008

RUKIA BEGUM                 .... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA                ..... RESPONDENT WITH

  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2008

ISSAQ SAIT AND ANOTHER                 .... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA                ..... RESPONDENT WITH

  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1808 OF 2009

NASREEN                 .... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA                ..... RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

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  

2

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.  

3

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  

4

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 all the appellants herein  

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.   

5. Police after investigation submitted chargesheet and the  

appellants  besides  four  other  accused  persons,  namely,  

Jaibunnisa,  Mansoor,  Mohammed Ghouse,  and Nasarath  @  

Musarath @ Nasarathulla Shariff were committed to the Court  

5

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  

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 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 Issaq Sait and recovery of knife  

from  appellant  Mujahid  at  their  instances  was  another  

circumstance  which,  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

6. The trial court on the appraisal of the evidence came to  

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;  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 Issaq Sait  and Mujahid and  

accordingly convicted and sentenced them as above.   

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  

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  

7

Rasheed Sait  does not  necessarily  lead towards the guilt  of  

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  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  

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  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  

8

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 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  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  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. 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  

9

acquittal.

9. The  case  of  appellant  Issaq  Sait  and  Mujahid  in  our  

opinion, however, stands on altogether different footing.  The  

trial  court  has  held  them  guilty.   There  is  overwhelming  

evidence  to  prove  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  they  

shared  the  motive  with  other  accused  persons.   Appellant  

Issaq Sait 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 seizure list was prepared.  This recovery has been  

proved by oral evidence as also the seizure list.  Further, the  

statement  given  by  appellant  Mujahid  during  the  course  of  

investigation  led  to  recovery  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  proved  by  PW-7  Ashok  

Kumar, the Manager of M/s. Habeeb Solvent Extract.  In his  

evidence he has stated that appellant Issaq Sait and appellant  

Mujahid were working in the factory.  He has further stated  

10

that Issaq Sait was assigned duty for collection of money due  

to the company and such a duty was assigned on 9th of June,  

1995.  PW-33 Govindaraju had also stated that the appellant  

Issaq 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 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  

Issaq  Sait  and  Mujahid  were  employees  of  M/s.  Habeeb  

Solvent Extract and absconded soon after the incident.   

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 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  

11

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  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 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  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 concerned.

12

11. In the result Criminal Appeal No. 1519 of 2008 filed by  

Rukia Begum and Criminal Appeal No. 1808 of 2009 preferred  

by appellant Nasreen are allowed, the impugned 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.   

……….………………………………..J.                              (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

..........………………………………..J.                                           (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI, APRIL 04, 2011.  

13