Mohamed Sameer Khan vs. The State Represented By Inspector Of Police

2025 INSC 1269
NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2069 OF 2024


MOHAMED SAMEER KHAN … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE REPRESENTED BY
INSPECTOR OF POLICE

…RESPONDENT(S)



J U D G M E N T


AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. The present appeal challenges the judgment passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Madras
(hereinafter, “High Court”) dated 28.10.2021,
whereby the appeal preferred by Mohamed Sameer
Khan (hereinafter, “Appellant”) against the order of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2025.10.29
18:35:16 IST
Reason:
conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 449,
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 1 of 30

376 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter, “IPC”) passed by the Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Special Court for Bomb Blast Case,
Coimbatore dated 17.11.2017, had been upheld and
the appeal dismissed.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has
asserted that the case of the prosecution is based
upon circumstantial evidence. There is no direct
evidence specifically connecting the appellant with
the offence for which he had been accused. Her
further submission is that the Appellant is falsely
implicated. The prosecution has failed to establish
the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt
and has also not probed in the right direction to find
out the truth. No scientific evidence has been led
connecting the Appellant with the crime, and some
important and relevant persons who would have shed
light on the incident have neither been associated in
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 2 of 30

the investigation nor produced in the court. On these
basic assertions, with reference to the facts of the
present case, the challenge is sought to be pressed to
the judgments of the courts below by the learned
Senior Counsel for the Appellant.
3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the
Respondent-State has submitted that there are
concurrent findings returned by the courts below
holding the Appellant guilty of the offences for which
he was charged and punishment has been handed
out in accordance with law. It has further been
submitted that the prosecution has been able to
prove the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence
leaving no unbroken link in string of events which
pinned down the Appellant to be the person who had
committed the offences. Recovery has been effected
from the Appellant of the two (2) gold bangles worn
by the deceased which he had taken after murdering
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 3 of 30

her. The said recovery has been proved on the basis
of the statement of Raghavan (PW-8) to the effect that
the Appellant produced the said bangles from his
pocket, which were seized and the mahazar report
was prepared. Reference has also been made to the
statement of Senthil Kumar (PW-5) to assert that the
Appellant was seen coming out of the compound
where the deceased was residing. On this basis, he
submits that judgments passed by the courts below
being based on proper appreciation and assessment
of the facts in accordance with law, do not call for any
interference and therefore, the present appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
4. Briefly, the facts in the present case which can be
summarized is that an 85-year-old lady, who lived
alone in a house opposite to the house of her
daughter Deivanai, Complainant (PW-1) who lives in
the same area, was found dead. On 19.12.2016 at
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 4 of 30

5:30 a.m. in the morning, when the son of the
complainant Karunakaran (PW-2) went to the house
where his grandmother resided, he saw the door open
and the deceased lying on the ground. He panicked
and called his mother/Complainant (PW-1) and they
found the deceased strangulated with a towel around
her neck with two gold bangles missing from her
hands. At about 06:30 a.m. on the same day, a
complaint was lodged and First Information Report
(FIR) in Crime No.1119/2016 was registered by Sub
Inspector of Police Padmavathi (PW-15) at Police
Station Rathinapuri, Coimbatore. The investigation
was taken over by Inspector of Police Gopi (PW-16),
who visited the place of occurrence at about 07:15
a.m. Along with him, he associated a fingerprint
expert, a sniffer dog and a photographer. He prepared
the mahazar (Ex. P.2) and specifically collected
samples of blood-stained cement mortar and blood-
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 5 of 30

stained green colour in-skirt. The statements of
witnesses were recorded and inquest report of the
deceased was prepared.
5. During the course of investigation, statements of the
people from around the place of occurrence were
recorded.
6. Statement of Deivanai, Complainant (PW-1) brings
out the factual position that her mother, the
deceased, was residing in the house situated in Door
No. 369 owned by her other daughter living abroad.
The Complainant’s house was Door No. 362 which
was situated in the same vicinity but on the other
side of the road. Every night after serving the
deceased with her dinner, she and her son
Karunakaran (PW-2) would lock the door from the
outside and the next morning the same would be
unlocked in order to enable her mother to come out
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 6 of 30

of the house. On 18.12.2016 at about 09:00 p.m., she
and her son had gone to the house where the
deceased was residing and served her dinner and
thereafter locked the door from outside as usual and
returned to their house. On 19.12.2016, her son
Karunakaran (PW-2) at about 05:30 a.m. went there
to open the door. He found the door already open and
his grandmother, lying on the floor with injuries. He
got scared and called his mother, the Complainant
(PW-1), who came there. She went in and saw her
mother lying dead with two gold bangles missing from
her hands. Similar was the statement of
Karunakaran (PW-2), her son.
7. As per the post-mortem report dated 19.12.2016 at
2:00 p.m., it came to light that the cause of death was
asphyxiation, as she had been killed due to
compression on the neck by a towel. Prior thereto,
she had been put to sexual assault, as per the
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 7 of 30

opinion of the doctor – Dr. Jaisingh (PW-14). The
viscera report as well as the vaginal and uterus
sample analysis were received, which did not really
reflect much as no semen was found.
8. The evidence which was further collected indicated
that Senthil Kumar (PW-5) on the night of the
incident on his way to his house in the
neighbourhood while coming back from Erode, saw
the Appellant coming out of the compound where the
deceased was residing. He questioned him, to which
he responded in Hindi and pointed to the
neighbouring house indicating his place of residence.
Senthil Kumar did not know Hindi and, thus, was
unable to understand as to what the Appellant was
saying but was aware of the fact that Hindi speaking
people were residing nearby. He did not question him
further.
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 8 of 30

9. Thulasi (PW-3) was a neighbour of the Complainant.
She informed that on the night of the occurrence, she
heard the deceased murmur ‘viruta, viruta’ meaning
‘leave me, leave me’ between 02:30 a.m. to 03:00 a.m.
Since the deceased was suffering from senility and
would often murmur in her sleep, she overlooked it.
10. It came to light in the statement of Akash Saksena
(PW-6) that he was residing on rent along with
Akhum and James in the compound near the place
of occurrence. At the request of the two ladies
residing next door on 16.12.2016, he permitted the
Appellant to stay in his room for some days. He was
told by the ladies that the Appellant was from
Manipur, known to them and had come in search of
work. Akash Saksena hosted his birthday party on
18.12.2016 in which he had invited his friends Alilie,
Vimeshite, Nisamo, Akhum, James, Rivas, Manivel,
Marcus. Appellant was also present. The said party
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 9 of 30

continued till late night and Rivas, Nisamo, Akhum,
James, Vikas and Manivel left at 12:00 a.m. in the
night.
10.1 At about 02:00 a.m., the Appellant and Marcus went
out to smoke and stated that they will be returning
soon. After about an hour, Appellant returned and
hurriedly took out an object from his pocket and kept
it in his bag. He looked perturbed and told that he is
going to his friend’s place as he had got a job.
11. In the light of the sudden moving out of the Appellant
from Akash Saksena’s house and that too at 03:00
a.m., he became the prime suspect as per the
prosecution. The State Police was thus, on the
lookout for him. On 22.12.2016 at about 04:00 a.m.,
an informant identified the accused near the over-
bridge of North Coimbatore. Seeing the police party,
Appellant jumped from the over-bridge and hurt
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 10 of 30

himself. The police party took him in custody and as
he was injured, he was taken to the Government
Hospital, Coimbatore at about 04:50 a.m. At about
06:00 a.m., witness Raghavan (PW-8) who knew both
Tamil and Hindi was requested by the police to help
communicate with the Appellant as he did not know
Tamil and knew only Hindi and Manipuri language.
During enquiry at the hospital, the Appellant gave
voluntary confession and produced the gold bangles
from his pocket taken by him from the deceased in
the presence of Raghavan. The bangles were seized
and the mahazar report prepared in front of him.
12. The Magistrate was requested to come, who visited
the hospital at about 11:47 a.m., took help of one Mr.
Prasath, who knew Hindi and enquired about the
injuries of the accused. He informed that he had
fallen down. The Magistrate, thereafter, proceeded to
remand the Appellant to judicial custody.
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 11 of 30

13. After the completion of the investigation, chargesheet
was filed under Sections 449 read with 457, 376, 302
and 394 IPC. On 17.03.2017, the Magistrate took
cognizance of the same and committed the case,
which was assigned for trial to the Additional
Sessions Judge.
14. After the charges were framed and the Appellant
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, sixteen (16)
prosecution witnesses were examined to bring forth
the charges against the accused.

15. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the
statement of the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
was recorded, wherein he denied the questions put to
him. A glaring issue which needs to be pointed out
here is that Appellant categorically stated that he was
picked up from Punjab Restaurant by the police. He
further stated that he received injuries on the left leg
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 12 of 30

because of torture at the hands of police. He denied
being taken into custody from the over-bridge of
North Coimbatore or that he had jumped from there
and injured his leg.
16. The trial court proceeded to hold the Appellant guilty
under Sections 302, 449, 376 and 394 IPC vide
judgment dated 17.11.2017 and sentenced him to life
imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 10 years
rigorous imprisonment under Sections 449, 376 and
394 IPC, which has been upheld by the High Court
vide judgment dated 28.10.2021, and is under
challenge herein.
17. On perusal of the above evidence, what is apparent is
that there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident.
This case, thus, is of circumstantial evidence. The
parameters laid down by the judgements of this
Court and the principles laid therein need to be
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 13 of 30

considered. The said principles have been culled out
in the judgment of this Court in Karakkattu
1
Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala ,
paragraphs 13 to 15 therein read as follows:
“13. Before proceeding further, it would be
appropriate to mention the principles as have
been enunciated and settled by this Court, which
would determine the parameters within which
the case of the prosecution, if based on
circumstantial evidence, is to be tested with
regard to the establishment of the offence stated
to be committed by the appellant.

14. This Court in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna
Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 172 :
(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 512] while referring to the
various earlier judgments which have been
passed by this Court from time to time,
summarised key principles which act as a guide
for the courts to come to a conclusion with regard
to the guilt of an accused in cases which are
solely dependent on the circumstantial evidence.
The same have been referred to as the
‘ panchsheel principles’ and are discussed in
paras 26 to 28 of the said judgment, which read
as follows : (SCC p. 181)

‘ 26 . It is now well settled that with a view to base
a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution must establish all the pieces of
incriminating circumstances by reliable and
clinching evidence and the circumstances so
proved must form such a chain of events as
would permit no conclusion other than one of
guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot
be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled
that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot

1
(2024) 10 SCC 813
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 14 of 30

be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall
take utmost precaution in finding an accused
guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial
evidence. (See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of
Bihar [(2003) 9 SCC 67 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1167]
and Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of
A.P. [(2005) 7 SCC 603 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1710] )

27 . The last seen theory, furthermore, comes into
play where the time-gap between the point of
time when the accused and the deceased were
last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is
so small that possibility of any person other than
the accused being the author of the crime
becomes impossible. Even in such a case the
courts should look for some corroboration.

28 . In State of U.P. v. Satish [(2005) 3 SCC 114 :

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 15 of 30

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 16 of 30

18. While considering the evidence as has been led by the
prosecution, these principles need to be taken into
consideration to analyse whether the prosecution has
been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
19. From the evidence before us, i.e the mahazar (Ex. P.2)
as prepared by the investigating officer (PW-16), it is
established that the deceased was staying in Door
no.369 and the house of the Complainant (PW-1) was
across the road i.e., Door no.362. The houses,
therefore, are near but not contiguous. According to
the post-mortem report dated 19.12.2016, the time
between the death and the post-mortem is between
12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. As the autopsy was
done at 02:05 p.m., so the death of the deceased
would be anywhere between 02:00 p.m. on
18.12.2016 to 02:00 a.m. on 19.12.2016. As per the
evidence of Complainant (PW-1) and her son (PW-2),
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 17 of 30

they had given food to the deceased at 09:00 p.m. on
18.12.2016 and after she took her food, they left by
closing the outer door. At 5:30 a.m. on 19.12.2016,
she was found dead when PW-2, his grandson, came
to open the door. So, the death would have taken
place between 09:00 p.m. and 02:00 a.m.
20. The evidence of Akash Saksena (PW-6) would indicate
that the Appellant alongwith Marcus had gone out of
the house to smoke at 02:00 a.m. So, the possibility
of the Appellant being there at the relevant time
cannot be ruled out, as the period within which the
death would have occurred as has been given by the
doctor in the post-mortem report is not far from what
has been said could be the time of death. According
to the testimony of Senthil Kumar (PW-5), the
Appellant was found going out of the compound
where the house was situated at around 02:45 a.m.
What is significant to note is that it was not said that
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 18 of 30

he was going out of the house of the deceased, but
that he was seen going out of the compound. Further,
Senthil Kumar’s testimony does not indicate that the
Appellant looked nervous or shaky, in contrast to the
testimony of Akash Saksena (PW-6), who stated so.
In light of the fact that it has not come on record that
the Appellant was in any manner involved in any
other offence anywhere, his calm and composed
response to the question put to him by Senthil
Kumar, a stranger, without getting perturbed and
that too right after having committed a gruesome
crime appears to be unnatural.
21. In this light, an aspect, which marks itself as a
contradiction and may cast doubt on the efficiency,
sincerity and fairness of the investigation is the non-
recording of the statement of Marcus, who is the
person, who had been with the Appellant and had
last seen him. Both of them came out of the house
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 19 of 30

to smoke after the party was over at 2:00 a.m. His
statement was not recorded nor was he associated
with the inquiry or the investigation. Strangely,
explanation of the prosecution in this regard is that
he was not a material witness. This creates a doubt
as he could be a suspect and in any case the person
who would have indicated as to how long he and the
Appellant were together, throwing some light as to
whether the Appellant had the opportunity or time to
go to the site of incident and/or commit such an
offence. This doubt is further fortified from the fact
that Marcus was a friend of Akash Saksena (PW-6)
and could have been visiting the place and so would
have known the area well. The possibility of he
knowing about the vicinity, and the residents of the
area and their social status etc. along with other
aspects, cannot be ruled out. Whereas, the Appellant
had come to the house of Akash Saksena only on
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 20 of 30

16.12.2016 which is just two (2) days prior to the date
of occurrence. The benefit of doubt with regard to this
has to be given to the accused.
22. Another aspect which needs to be highlighted herein
is that the statement of the Investigating Officer Gopi
(PW-16) mentions that at 4:00 a.m. on 22.12.2016
when the police party was on patrol, the Appellant,
who was identified by the informant, saw them and
jumped from the over-bridge of North Coimbatore,
injuring his left leg leading to he being taken to
hospital and then there his arrest. Nothing has come
on record, either in the form of any document or in
the statement of any of the witnesses including the
investigating officer with regard to the identity of the
informant. The said informant’s statement has also
not been recorded by the investigating officer nor has
he been produced as a witness. Moreover, the
evidence does not indicate that a sketch of the
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 21 of 30

suspect was prepared or any photograph was seized
which could be taken as a reference for trying to
search for the said suspect. The Complainant (PW-1)
and her son (PW-2) did not know the Appellant nor
have they met him ever so the question of them
identifying the Appellant does not arise. As a matter
of fact, no Test Identification Parade had been carried
out of the Appellant after his arrest.
23. In this light, the prosecution story regarding the
Appellant being found at the over-bridge of North
Coimbatore and arrested in the hospital becomes
doubtful. Rather, the stand of the Appellant with
regard to he having been taken into custody earlier
and tortured could be a possibility. The Appellant
could have been in the custody of police much prior
to being taken to the hospital, where according to the
prosecution, Raghavan (PW-8) was stopped outside
the hospital while he was going on a two-wheeler and
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 22 of 30

was asked to help the investigating officer (PW-16) in
communicating with the Appellant as he knew Hindi.
It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to this,
the Appellant confessed to the crime and produced
the two gold bangles from his pocket at the hospital.
It appears to be unreasonable that the Appellant
would be carrying the bangles with him at these odd
hours i.e. 4:00 a.m., and that too, two days after the
incident. Therefore, planting of the gold bangles
upon the Appellant cannot be ruled out, casting
serious doubt upon the alleged recovery.
24. The unfortunate incident had taken place where an
old lady of 85 years was not only robbed but was
raped and murdered brutally, but the question would
be as to whether the Appellant is the person who has
committed the offence. The medical evidence would
only point to the offence having been committed but
unfortunately prosecution has not been able to
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 23 of 30

connect the Appellant to the offence on the basis of
medical evidence except to the extent that the
Appellant was found to be potent and thus capable of
committing the said offence. But that would not
suffice nor would it connect or associate him to the
offence. No hair or skin sample has been collected
from the site which would connect the Appellant in
any manner with the place of the incident or the
offence. Merely because the medical evidence proves
the unfortunate loss of life would not be enough to
convict a person since he happened to be in the
vicinity. In the absence of any forensic evidence when
there is no eyewitness and the case is of
circumstantial evidence, benefit would go to the
accused.
25. As it is apparent from the statement of the
investigating officer (PW-16), a sniffer dog, a
fingerprint expert and a photographer had visited the
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 24 of 30

place of occurrence with him and that too in quick
succession, rather simultaneously on the visit of the
investigating officer at 07:30 a.m. on 19.12.2016.
Nothing has come on record which would indicate
any fingerprint of the Appellant having been found at
the place of occurrence. The sniffer dog has also not
been able to guide them to the house where the
Appellant was residing. It may not be out of the way
to mention here that the place where the Appellant
was staying with Akash Saksena (PW-6) was not far
off from the place of incident and that is one of the
reasons which has been taken by the prosecution as
a possible factor for the commission of the offence by
the Appellant.
26. The prosecution evidence raises doubts regarding the
involvement of the accused. In the judgement of this
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 25 of 30

2
Court in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh ,
it has been held that in cases wherein the guilt of the
accused is sought to be established by circumstantial
evidence, if two views are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the view
which is favourable to the accused should be
adopted.
27.
In the present case, the prosecution has failed to
connect the Appellant to the offence through medical
or forensic evidence as no blood, hair or skin sample,
or fingerprint belonging to him has been found on the
body of the deceased, the recovered articles, or at the
place of occurrence.
28. The testimony of Senthil Kumar (PW-5) has also failed
to link the Appellant to the place of occurrence as it

2
(1973) 2 SCC 808
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 26 of 30

has only established his proximity to the place, with
him merely been seen coming out of the compound,
and not specifically out of the house of the deceased.
29. Further, the factum of finding the Appellant on the
over-bridge of North Coimbatore at 4 am on
22.12.2016 is doubtful due to the undisclosed
identity of the informant, creating uncertainty as to
how the police identified the Appellant when none of
the police officials had any occasion to see him.
Consequently, doubt is also cast upon the cause of
the injury on his left leg, with the Appellant denying
the incident at the bridge and claiming that he was
tortured in police custody. In this light, the
subsequent recovery of the two gold bangles from the
pocket of the Appellant also becomes doubtful.

30. Another aspect which casts a serious doubt upon the
investigation is the non-association and non-
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 27 of 30

examination of Marcus, who had accompanied the
Appellant for a smoke at 2:00 a.m. from the house of
Akash Saksena and therefore, was the only person
with whom the Appellant had last gone out of the
house. The Appellant returned alone to the house
and therefore left from there. It is rather strange for
the prosecution to claim that Marcus was not a
material witness, when it is the case of the
prosecution that the offence had been committed
between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m.; this creates a

strong possibility of false implication.
31. All the above aspects when seen in the context of the
case being dealt with by us, a case of circumstantial
evidence, it would be difficult to bring it within the
parameters set out in various judgments of this Court
as mentioned in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer
case (supra) .
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 28 of 30

32. The prosecution has failed to bring forth reliable
evidence forming a complete string of events, leading
to the guilt of the Appellant. The chain of events
being sought to be projected is laden with deficiencies
creating significant gaps, leading to other possible
hypotheses as aforementioned. Due to such missing
links, a finding of guilt cannot be recorded. The
benefit of the doubt with regard to this must flow to
the accused. In this light, the guilt of the accused has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the
impugned judgments are, thus, liable to be set aside.
33. The present appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras dated 28.10.2021 and the judgment dated
17.11.2017 passed by the Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Special Court for Bomb Blast Case,
Coimbatore, convicting and sentencing the Appellant
under Sections 302, 449, 376 and 394 of the Indian
Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 29 of 30

Penal Code are thereby set aside. The Appellant
Mohamed Sameer Khan is acquitted of the charges
and is ordered to be released forthwith from Central
Prison Kovai, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, if not required
in any other case.
34. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


.……..………..……………………..J.
[ DIPANKAR DATTA ]



.……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]


NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 29, 2025.

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 30 of 30