Nazeer @ Nazeer Mohammed vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1216 OF 2011

NAZEER @ NAZEER MOHAMMED ……..Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE ………Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the accused-appellant has

questioned the judgment and order dated 09.11.2009 as

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in

Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2009, whereby the High Court,

while dismissing the appeal, affirmed the judgment and

order dated 20.01.2009, as passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal in S.C. No. 56 of

2007, convicting the accused-appellant of the offences

under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’)

and awarding varying punishments, including that of life

imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Signature Not Verified

2. Digitally signed by The appellant has been held guilty of the offences SNEHA DAS Date: 2022.10.01 18:25:36 IST Reason:

aforesaid after the Trial Court and the High Court have

concurrently found proved the entire chain of circumstances 2

connecting the appellant with the killing of the victim

Ravi, who was a driver on the car belonging to PW-1 Kumar @

Marumaiyan. Though, there had not been any eye-witness to

the incident but, the Courts have found that the evidence

led by the prosecution clearly established the connectivity

of the appellant with the deceased with regular

communications at the material point of time between them;

and they having been seen together in the car in question.

The Courts have further found that later on, a dead body

found on the road-side was ultimately identified to be of

the deceased Ravi by his brother PW-10 Meganathan with

reference to the photographs; and the evidence established

the dealings of the appellant with the car and its stepney

after demise of the victim car driver Ravi. One of the

strong circumstances relied upon by the prosecution has

also been of the recovery of driving licence of the

appellant with the dead body of the victim.

3. We have heard Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned senior

counsel, ably assisted by Ms. Tanvi Kakar and Mr. A.

Radhakrishnan for the appellant and Mr. Aravindh S.,

learned counsel for the respondent-State at some length.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously

argued that conviction of the appellant, based on the

alleged last seen evidence with reference to the testimony

of PW-5 Natarajan and PW-6 Bala @ Balasubramanian; on the

alleged recovery of his driving license with the dead body 3

of an unknown person; and on the alleged identification of

the said dead body being that of the victim Ravi by PW-10,

carry several shortcomings and lacunae, and do not provide

a complete chain of circumstances so as to rule out any

other hypothesis.

5. It is also submitted that even the seizure of driving

licence of the appellant, as allegedly found near the dead

body of the victim is not free from doubt, particularly

when the Seizure Mahazar Ex. P-2 does not show any seal of

the jurisdictional Court in the State of Karnataka, from

where it was allegedly sent to Puducherry. It has also been

pointed out that the person who allegedly gave the

information about dead body was never examined by the

prosecution.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our

attention to a fact occurring in the testimony of PW-7

Kalarani, sister of the deceased, that she had a

conversation with the deceased on 05.09.2006. If this fact

is taken into account, according to the learned counsel,

the unknown dead body recovered on 04.09.2006 could not

have been of Ravi, brother of PW-7. It has also been argued

that the dead body was allegedly identified by PW-10 only

by looking at the photographs and the assertions so made

remain suspicious and then, there had not been any

corroboration in that regard. It is also submitted that the

chain of circumstances, being either incomplete or carrying 4

such factors which do not provide necessary links, is not

decisive in nature and hence, the appellant cannot be held

guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC

beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel would contend that

the accused No. 2 in this case was rightly extended the

benefit of doubt and the same benefit ought to have been

extended to the appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has duly supported

the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the

Trial Court. Apart from other pieces of evidence, the

learned counsel has particularly drawn our attention to the

testimony of PW-22 G.Vengadachalapathy, S.I. read with the

document Ex. P-29 establishing that on 02.09.2006, in the

morning and noon hours, precisely the date and time when

the deceased had taken the vehicle of PW-1 on the pretext

of receiving the guests of PW-2 at Bangalore, the appellant

was regularly communicating with the deceased. Learned

counsel has further pointed out that even the doubts as

suggested with reference to the testimony of PW-7 stand

quelled by the other part of her statement where she made

it clear that later on, she could realise that the call

made on 05.09.2006 from a different mobile number, was not

from his brother Ravi (the deceased) but from some

stranger.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having scanned through the record, we are not persuaded to 5

consider interference in the concurrent findings of fact as

recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court in this

case.

9. We have taken note of the totality of circumstances

of the case and are clearly of the view that even when the

prosecution has not examined the person who firstly

informed about the location of dead body by way of his

information Ex.P-1; and even if the Mahazar Ex. P-2 as such

does not show the seal of jurisdictional Court in the State

of Karnataka, these factors remain trivial in nature and do

not take away the substance of the matter.

10. In an overall appreciation of evidence, it is but

clear that the entire chain of circumstances is complete,

starting from the deceased Ravi taking the vehicle of PW-1

on the pretext of receiving the guests at Bangalore; the

appellant having been in connectivity with deceased Ravi on

his mobile at the material time on the material date; the

deceased having been found in the company of the appellant

in the same car by PW-5 and PW-6; the driving licence of

the appellant having been found near the dead body; the

said dead body having been identified by PW-10 to be that

of Ravi; and the appellant having been found dealing with

the car in question and its stepney, as established by the

testimony of PW-11 Chandru @ Chandrasekar and PW-16

Prabakar.

6

11. When all the circumstances and factors are taken

together, they lead to the result that the findings of fact

as recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court are

cogent findings and do not suffer from any such infirmity

as to call for interference by this Court in this appeal.

12. In view of the above, this appeal fails and is,

therefore, dismissed.

13. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

……………………………………………………J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

……………………………………………………J. [BELA M. TRIVEDI] NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 29,2022.