Full Judgment Text
1
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. The appellant has been held guilty of the offences
Digitally signed by
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.