BASHEERA BEGAM versus MOHAMMED IBRAHIM & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 31-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
562
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
BASHEERA BEGAM
v.
MOHAMMED IBRAHIM & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2010)
JANUARY 31, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B & s.302 r/w s.34 – Case based
on circumstantial evidence – Case of prosecution that D2 (son of
A4) and D1 (nephew of A3) were friends – Brother of A3 & A4 and
uncle of D2, who lived in Malaysia, had properties in India, which
were managed by A3 – Enmity arose between A3 & D2 after the
aforesaid brother took back properties from A3 and entrusted D2
with their management– D2’s demand for partition of family
properties held and/or controlled by A4 gave rise to property
disputes between D2, his brother (A1) and their father (A4) – As
per prosecution, the accused booked a room at a Hotel on 21.6.90,
where they hatched conspiracy to kill D2 – A1 purchased a lorry
on or about 20/21.12.90 – On 28.12.90, A1 hit the motor cycle on
which D2 & D1 were riding, with his lorry – A2 & A7 got off the
lorry and attacked D2 & D1, who had fallen from their motor cycle,
with iron rods and caused their death– All the accused (A1-A8)
were convicted u/s.120B– A1, A2 & A7 were also convicted u/s.302
r/w s.34 – High Court acquitted all the accused persons – Held:
Prosecution has only been able to conclusively establish that on
28.12.90 at around 8.30 p.m., D2 rode motorcycle owned by A4
with D1 on pillion – Two were seen lying dead on road, in a pool of
blood and their motorcycle lying close by – Prosecution miserably
failed to prove that D2 & D1 were beaten to death with rods by A2
& A7 – It was also not able to rule out the possibility of D1 & D2
being killed in a ‘hit and run’ accident involving some unknown
vehicle – There are inherent improbabilities and inconsistencies in
evidence – It is not the case of prosecution that the accused had
any motive to kill D1– There was no eyewitness to the incident – It
would be preposterous to attribute the purchase of the lorry to the
sinister motive of murdering D2 – To establish motive for murder,
the prosecution tried to build up a case of enmity between A3 & D2
and also of disputes between A1, A3 & D2 – Property disputes
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 562
562
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
563
amongst family members is not uncommon – There may also be
quarrels between them however, to attribute motive to a father to
plot the murder of his own son, there have to be more compelling
reasons – Prosecution failed to prove that there was any conspiracy
to kill D2 at the hotel or anywhere else – When there is circumstantial
evidence pointing to the guilt of accused, it is necessary to prove a
motive for the crime – However, motive need not be proved where
there is direct evidence – In this case, there is no direct evidence –
Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons
beyond reasonable doubt – High Court rightly acquitted the accused
– Code of Criminal Procedure – ss.161, 313 – Constitution of India
– Art.136.
Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – Proof beyond
reasonable doubt – Held: Suspicion however strong cannot
substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt – Burden of proving an
accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution
– If upon analysis of evidence two views are possible, one which
points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent
with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred – When
there is circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused,
it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime – However, motive
need not be proved where there is direct evidence.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Prosecution has only been able to
conclusively establish that, on 28.12.1990 at around 8.30 p.m.,
D2 rode out of Arsarkulam, towards Aranthangi on Motorcycle
No. TN 55/1406 owned by his father, A-4, with D1 on the pillion.
The two were seen lying dead on the road, in a pool of blood, a
few furlongs away from the level crossing at Sarayanenthal,
Pappakulam and their motorcycle was lying close by. On a careful
analysis of the post mortem reports and the oral evidence of the
post mortem doctors, it is found unlikely that the deceased were
beaten to death with an iron rod. PW-22 was of the opinion D2
fell off the motor cycle after a collision and got run over. The
Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the deceased were
beaten to death with a rod. The Prosecution has also not been
able to rule out the possibility of D1 and

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