ALAMGIR versus STATE (NCT. DELHI)

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 12-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ALAMGJR 
v. 
ST A TE (NCT. DELHI) 
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 
B 
[UMESH C.. BANERJEE AND B.N. AGRA WAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder-Circumstantial evidence-
Conviction by Courts below-On appeal, held, the chain of events of the 
C present case pointedly point out to the guilt of the accusei-Evidence Act, 
1872-Circumstantial evidence. 
Criminal Trial: 
Interested witness-Evidentiary value of-Held, interested witness by 
itself cannot be a ground to reject the evidence on record-Test of its 
' D creditworthiness or acceptability ought to be the guiding factor. 
Expert opinion-Evidence of Handwriting expert-Reliability on-Jn 
absence of corroboration-Held, there is no rule of law or rule of prudence 
that opinion must never be a~ted upon unless substantially corroborated 
E 
The appellant-accused came to visit Delhi alongwith his wife 
(deceased) and stayed in a hotel on 18th September, 1991. On 19th 
September appellant left the hotel, locking his wife in the.room. When the 
appellant did not return and there was no response from the room, PW1 
in the presence of PW3 opened the room with duplicate key and found 
F 
the deceased dead in the room. There were two slips of paper, handwriting 
whereon was identified by the handwriting expert as that of the appellant. 
The appellant, thereafter was arrested at Bombay and key of the room 
and ticket from Delhi to Bombay dated 19th September, 1991 was 
recovered from him. During trial PW6 in her evidence deposed that the 
appellant had telephonically informed her that the deceased had died in 
G a bus accident and had been hurried at Nizamuddin. However, this 
statement of hers was not in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Trial 
Court convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC. The conviction was 
confirmed by High Court. 
H 
In appeal to this Court it was contended by appellant that the present 
88 
.. 
ALAMGIR v. STATE (NCT. DELHI) 
89 
case was a case of blind murder and the prosecution has fabricated the A 
case against the appellant; that prosecution has failed to link up the chain 
of events; that the evidence of PWs I and 23 could not be relied on as 
none of them had identified the appellant; that evidence of PW6 could not 
be relied on since she was interested witness and since her evidence was 
not available in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; and that opinion 
of handwriting expert was not admissible. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. In view of the law as regards acceptability of 
circumstantial evidence and in view of the facts and circumstances of the 
present case, the events pointedly point out the guilt of the accused. The C 
circumstances of the instant case, if read with the evidence of PW.6, as to 
the date of departure of the accused with his wife from Bombay to Delhi 
and the telephonic message after two days that the deceased had died in 
a bus accident and that she had been cremated at a cremation ground in 
Nizamuddin-would form a chain without there being any snap. 
D 
[93-E; 94-G] 
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 
AIR (1952) SC 343; MG Agarwal and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 
(1963) SC 200; Pawan Kumar v, State of Haryana, [2001] 3 SCC 628 and 
Sudama Pandey and Ors. v. State of Bihar, [2002[ I SCC 679, relied on. 
E 
2.1. Interested witness by itself cannot possibly be a ground to reject 
the evidence on record. The test of creditworthiness or acceptability, ought 
to be the guiding factor and if so, question of raising an eye - brow on the 
reliability of witness being an interested witness would be futile-in the event 
the evidence is otherwise acceptable, there ought not to be any hindrance 
in the matter of prosecutor's success. The evidence must inspire confidence 
and in the event of unshaken credibility, there is no justifiable reason to 
reject the same. [95-A-CJ 
F 
2.2. Though the piece of evidence of PW6 was not available in the G 
statement of the witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but it does not take 
away the nature and character of the evidence in the event there is some 
omission on the part of the police official. This cannot be taken recourse 
to as amounting to rejection of an otherwise creditworthy and acceptable 
evidence. The evidence of PW.6 ought to be treated as creditworthy and 
acceptable. 
H 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
J .. TIJ~re i~ _11() nile of Jaw, nor any rule of prudence which has 
cryst;11ljzqd Into !I rule pf la

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.