NAUSHAD Vs STATE OF KERALA
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001691-001691 / 2005
Diary number: 25064 / 2005
Advocates: JAIL PETITION Vs
RAMESH BABU M. R.
Crl.A. No. 1691 of 2005 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1691 of 2005
NAUSHAD ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of
the High Court of Kerala whereby the appellant has been
convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to imprisonment for life for having committed
the murder of one Ashraf. There were four other
accused as well who were tried for offences punishable
under Sections 201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code and
they were acquitted by the trial court. The trial court
as well as the High Court have noted that the entire
prosecution story was based on circumstantial evidence
and had found seven circumstances against the appellant;
Crl.A. No. 1691 of 2005 2
they being the animosity between the deceased and the
appellant which was supported not only by oral evidence
but even documentary evidence inasmuch as that two
representations had been filed in the police station
interse them; secondly, the extra judicial confession
made over phone to P.W. 7 who was the President of the
Local Panchayat; thirdly, the evidence of last seen
before the incident by P.W. 8 the wife of the deceased
who had seen the deceased and the accused together at
about 6:00p.m. and the murder had been committed between
7:30p.m. and 8:00p.m. that evening, the Chemical
Examiner's report that blood of the blood group of the
deceased had been found on the clothes MO/4 and on the
murder weapon Exhibit MO/3 and finally the suspicious
conduct of the appellant as he allegedly absconded from
the date of the murder i.e. 26th April, 1999 to 29th
April, 1999, the date on which he was finally arrested.
2. Mr. Feroze Ahmed, the learned Amicus for the
appellant has pointed out that these circumstances taken
as a whole did not lead to the only conclusion that the
appellant was guilty of the offence of murder. He has
urged that the observtions of the courts below that the
deceased and the appellant had been seen together before
the alleged time and murder was not borne out by the
Crl.A. No. 1691 of 2005 3
evidence more particularly as semi-digested food had
been found in the stomach of the deceased which
indicated that the murder would have taken place much
before 7:30 or 8:00p.m. He has further submitted that
the story of the extra judicial confession allegedly
made to P.W. 7 could not be believed as P.W. 7 in his
cross examination stated that he had not been able to
completely identify the person who had talked to him.
He has further pointed that the recovery of the blood
stained clothes Exhibit MO/4 had not found favour with
the High Court. He has, accordingly, pleaded that the
several links in the chain of circumstances which could
lead to the only conclusion that the appellant was
guilty of murder, were missing. Mr. G. Prakash,
learned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala has,
however, supported the judgment of the courts below.
3. We have considered the arguments of the learned
counsel for the parties very carefully.
4. Every case of circumstantial evidence is based on
various links in a chain. It is not only the number of
circumstances that are important but the quality of the
evidence which comes about. We are of the opinion that
in the present case there are a large number of
Crl.A. No. 1691 of 2005 4
circumstances which are proved by cogent evidence. The
first circumstance is the documentary and oral evidence
with regard to the strained relationship between the
appellant and the deceased which is borne out by the
fact that even the police had been called in. Likewise,
the evidence of last seen referred to by P.W. 8 the wife
of the deceased is also of great importance. It is
true, as contended by Mr. Feroze Ahmed, that the
presence of semi-digested food in the stomach of the
deceased would indicate that the deceased would have had
his food about 3 or 4 hours before his death which
would bring it to about 3:00/4:00 p.m. and as such the
murder could not have been committed at 7:00p.m. There
is, however, no evidence to indicate as to when the
last meal had been taken. We also find absolutely no
reason to doubt the deposition of P.W. 7 to whom the
appellant had made an extrajudicial confession. The
fact that the telephone call had indeed been made is
supported not only by P.W. 7 but also the note book
entry maintained in the telephone booth which indicates
that such a call had been made to the telephone number
of P.W. 7. In this view of the matter, the attempt of
P.W. 7 to help the appellant by giving a stray statement
in his cross-examination that he had not been able to
identify the voice of the appellant, is to no avail.
Crl.A. No. 1691 of 2005 5
Both courts have considered this fact in detail and
opined that it could not be held for certain that it was
the appellant who had made the call although there were
very strong indications that it was he who had done so.
5. We, accordingly find no merit in the appeal which
is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. The learned Amicus Curiae will have his fee of
`7,000/-.
..............................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
..............................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI MARCH 29, 2011.