ASAR MOHAMMAD AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 248 · Decided: 24-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
ASAR MOHAMMAD AND ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1617 of 2011)
OCTOBER 24, 2018
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302 and 201 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence –
Prosecution of three accused – Confessional statement of one
accused (appellant No.1) – Recovery of dead bodies at his instance
– FIR lodged on the basis of missing report filed by PW7 – Conviction
by trial court awarding death sentence to all the three accused –
High Court affirmed the conviction, but reduced the death sentence
to imprisonment for life – On appeal, held: In view of the entire
evidence and totality of the proved circumstances, courts below were
right in holding appellant No.1 guilty of the offences u/ss. 302 and
201 – Except the confession of appellant No.1 there is no other
independent substantive evidence to show involvement of other two
accused (Appellant Nos.2 and 3) for having caused murder – It is
not permissible to proceed against them solely on the confessional
statement – Therefore, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted of the
offence punishable u/s. 302 – However, from the proved
circumstantials it is apparent that they had the knowledge of the
murder and whereabout of the dead bodies and despite that they
did not disclose the same with an intention to screen appellant No.1
– Therefore, they are liable to be convicted for offence punishable
u/s.201 – Evidence Act, 1872  - s.27.
Evidence Act, 1872:
s.27 – Scope of – The word ‘fact’ as contemplated in s. 27 is
not limited to ‘actual physical material object’ - It includes discovery
of an object, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge
of the accused as to its existence.
Evidence:
Confession – Of co-accused – If can be used against other
co-accused – Held: Confession of co-accused by itself cannot be
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 248
 248
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
249
the basis to proceed against the other accused unless something
more is produced to indicate their involvement in the commission of
crime.
Dismissing the appeal of appellant No.1 and partly allowing
the appeal of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, the Court
HELD: 1. No direct evidence has been produced by the
prosecution regarding the involvement of the appellants in the
commission of the crime.  The prosecution rests its case solely
on circumstantial evidence.  The fact that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
became hostile and the prosecution could not establish the factum
of motive cannot be the basis to doubt the correctness of the
finding of guilt recorded by the two courts against the accused on
the basis of other proved circumstances including the confession
of the accused No.1 about the murder of the deceased persons
and more importantly, having dumped the dead bodies in the septic
tank in the backyard of their house and to have led the police to
that place from where the two dead bodies, whose identity also
has not been disputed, came to be recovered, coupled with the
medical evidence that the cause of death of the two dead
persons was due to the ante-mortem injury caused on the neck
resulting in their death due to asphyxia and is a homicidal death.
[Paras 8 and 11][257-F]
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Ors. (1989) Supp. (2) SCC 706; Mulakh Raj & Ors. v.
Satish Kumar & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 43 : [1992] 2 SCR
484; Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1972) 2
SCC 80 : [1973] 1 SCR 428 – relied on.
2. After perusing the entire evidence and taking the totality
of the proved circumstances into account, the Court is in
agreement with the conclusion reached by the trial court, which
came to be affirmed by the High Court, regarding finding of guilt
against appellant No.1, who had confessed to the police and also
led the police party to the place where the dead bodies were
dumped. [Para 12][261-H; 262-A]
3. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house
where the accused have all the opportunity to plan and commit
the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it
ASAR MOHAMMAD AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF U.P.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to
establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of
circumstantial evidence, is insisted upon. [Para 12][262-C-D]
Trimukh Moroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006)
10 SCC 681 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156 – relied on.
4. The facts need not be self-probatory and the word 

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