Rukia Begum vs State Of Karnataka

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

3

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.

4 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

5

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

6

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.

7 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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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.

13 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.