MOHIBUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM
LAWS(SC)-2002-8-41
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
August 21,2002
MOHIBUR RAHMAN
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
UDAYA KUMAR VS. STATE REP [LAWS(MAD)-2003-7-134] [REFERRED TO]BHARAT VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2003-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
TENDERLYWELL HYNNIEWTA VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2017-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
PARDEEP SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2013-12-11] [REFERRED TO AND]
DEVENDER KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-407] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHEY AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
MEMBER SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-320] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHNAWAJ @ SONU VS. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-280] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN CH NATH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2006-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
T VENKATESHWARLU VS. SHO, ONGOLE II TOWN P. S. [LAWS(APH)-2020-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
MALLESHAPPAA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2007-9-90] [REFERRED TO]
GUDMOHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(UTN)-2004-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER PRASHAD VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-130] [REFERRED TO]
JABIR ALI @ SONU VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-360] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR SARKAR AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-3-575] [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIRA SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-1-264] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. MILAN KUMAR DIYALI [LAWS(SIK)-2005-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH JALLI @ GEDU SURIA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2013-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAMZAN DHOBI VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2014-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
V.V.HAMZA, VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-10-581] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH SON OF SHRI BRAHAM SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-5-152] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT ALIAS AMMU VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2003-8-108] [REFERRED]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. RAJENDRA NATH GHARAI [LAWS(SIK)-2012-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. RAJAN ALIAS NASAM [LAWS(KER)-2003-7-60] [REFERRED TO : (2002) 6 SCC 715 : 2002 AIR SCW 3523 11]
MANI KAMAT VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-244] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY AND ORS. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2020-3-114] [REFERRED TO]
MOUNI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. SANTOSH KUMAR NAT [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
C VELU VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-210] [REFERRED TO]
JALLI RADHA KRISHNA VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2017-11-90] [REFERRED TO]
GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF J. & K. [LAWS(J&K)-2014-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
DIWAN CHAND ALIAS CHHOTU VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2013-11-78] [REFERRED TO]
ABUL ALIAS SK KARIM BOX VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2002-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE BHADKE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2017-1-154] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. SANJAY THAKRAN [LAWS(SC)-2007-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-5-80] [REFERRED TO]
PARMINDER KAUR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
PALVINDER SINGH AND ANR. VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-339] [REFERRED TO]
SHRINIVAS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-11-46] [REFERRED TO]
NAND RAM VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-566] [REFERRED TO]
TRILOCHAN VERMA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-176] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDER KUMAR PAL VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-3-80] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA MOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [LAWS(UTN)-2003-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
RISHIPAL VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2013-1-68] [REFERRED TO]
FATIMA KHATUN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMVEER SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-10-173] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2008-3-88] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2018-5-99] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDER SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-231] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-68] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL ALIAS MANU VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-4-380] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA DEVI VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-421] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL BUDHANAND THORAT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
TILLU SAHU VS. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-259] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. SAMSON D'SOUZA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-401] [REFERRED TO]
JANARDAN SADA ALIAS MATUA VS. STATE N C T OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-4-378] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-7-76] [REFERRED TO]
BHUWAN @ SONU VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. JANU BALU ADE [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-191] [REFERRED TO]
TEK CHAND VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2013-11-47] [REFERRED TO]
BUDHA AND ORS. VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-197] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN MEHLAWAT VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-63] [REFERRED TO]
MARISAA ADINARAYANA VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2020-5-58] [REFERRED TO]
BABAN TUKARAM KAPSE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-2-78] [REFERRED TO]
NAGA @ NAGARAJ @ NAGESH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT JHA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-133] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDER @ NANDA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-11-507] [REFERRED]
PRAMOD KUMAR @ PINTOO VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-260] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND ALIAS CHHOTU VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-172] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SHAHID ALAM VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-1-441] [REFERRED]
DHARANI PATOR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2003-5-11] [DISTINGUISHED]
RADHA @ ASHTHA D/O VITTHAL TAKARAS VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
MD.ABRAR @ JOOHI VS. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-325] [REFERRED TO]
AMZAD VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-210] [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEV VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-401] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK CHADHA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-73] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP ALIAS SANJAY VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-115] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-253] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHANDER VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-127] [REFERRED TO]
INDAR VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2020-11-99] [REFERRED TO]
SIYA RAM NISHAD (IN JAIL) VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-642] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-200] [REFERRED TO]
VARIKUPPALA VENKATESH VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2013-12-159] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATI BALAJI JADHAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-4-136] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR JHA VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-403] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-1-651] [REFERRED]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. KHAGESWAR @ SANTOSH BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
DABLA @ RINGA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)The two accused-appellants have been held guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC. Each of the accused-appellants has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one year and seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months respectively for the two offences. The substantive terms of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently. The conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court have been upheld by the High Court.
(2.)There were in all seven accused persons put up for trial out of which five were acquitted by the trial Court and their acquittal has achieved a finality. There is no eye-witness to the crime. The conviction rests on circumstantial evidence. Without entering into very many details of the prosecution story and the nature of evidence coming through the mouth of several prosecution witnesses at the trial, it would suffice for our purpose, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to set out the circumstances which in the opinion of the High Court are incriminating and form such chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence as would fasten beyond reasonable doubt the finding of guilt against the accused-appellants. The circumstances are :-
(i) the deceased Rahul was last seen in the company of the two accused-appellants;
(ii) The deceased was having an affair with the sister-in-law of the accused Taijuddin which was not to the liking of the accused which had caused strained relationship between the deceased and the accused;
(iii) The accused Taijuddin visited the house of the deceased Rahul after his disappearance and told the family members that Rahul might have eloped with his sister-in-law or might have been killed by ULFA;
(iv) The trunk of the body of the deceased, the severed head, the clothes and shoes of the deceased were recovered on being pointed out by the two accused-appellants.
(3.)It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that in order to find conviction on circumstantial evidence each of the incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence should be proved by cogent and reliable evidence and the Court should be satisfied that the proved pieces of circumstantial evidence taken together forge such a chain wherefrom no inference other than of guilt can be drawn against the accused person or, in other words, the proved pieces of circumstantial evidence should not be capable of being explained on any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. Based on these parameters we proceed to examine the evidence in the case.
(2.)There were in all seven accused persons put up for trial out of which five were acquitted by the trial Court and their acquittal has achieved a finality. There is no eye-witness to the crime. The conviction rests on circumstantial evidence. Without entering into very many details of the prosecution story and the nature of evidence coming through the mouth of several prosecution witnesses at the trial, it would suffice for our purpose, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to set out the circumstances which in the opinion of the High Court are incriminating and form such chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence as would fasten beyond reasonable doubt the finding of guilt against the accused-appellants. The circumstances are :-
(i) the deceased Rahul was last seen in the company of the two accused-appellants;
(ii) The deceased was having an affair with the sister-in-law of the accused Taijuddin which was not to the liking of the accused which had caused strained relationship between the deceased and the accused;
(iii) The accused Taijuddin visited the house of the deceased Rahul after his disappearance and told the family members that Rahul might have eloped with his sister-in-law or might have been killed by ULFA;
(iv) The trunk of the body of the deceased, the severed head, the clothes and shoes of the deceased were recovered on being pointed out by the two accused-appellants.
(3.)It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that in order to find conviction on circumstantial evidence each of the incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence should be proved by cogent and reliable evidence and the Court should be satisfied that the proved pieces of circumstantial evidence taken together forge such a chain wherefrom no inference other than of guilt can be drawn against the accused person or, in other words, the proved pieces of circumstantial evidence should not be capable of being explained on any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. Based on these parameters we proceed to examine the evidence in the case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.