MUJEEB AND ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 16 · Decided: 29-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
MUJEEB AND ANR. 
v. 
ST A TE OF KERA LA 
NOVEMBER 29, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, M. SRINIVASAN AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: Section 34, 120-B, 201, 302 and 392-Decision 
based on circumstantial evidence alone-The evidence should be strong and 
such that, within all human probability, no conclusion other than the guilt 
of the accused is possible, to convict the CfCCused-lf there is any shortcoming 
in the evidential chain linking the various circumstances leading to the 
crime, accused cannot be held guilty. 
The case against the appellants was that they hired the taxi of the 
deceased, killed him and disposed off his body. When they took the car to a 
garage for repair, it was found that the registration number was tempered 
with and police on being informed arrested the appellants. The Sessions Court 
acquitted them but on an appeal by the State, the High Court convicted them. 
Hence this appeal 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The High C9urt erred in law in not considering whether the 
circumstance$ proved, formed a complete chain. In this chain of circumstances 
the missing links were : hiring of taxi driven by the deceased by Al, visiting 
lake and temple by the accused in the taxi driven by the deceased, giving soft 
F drink mixed with sleeping tablets, intoxicating liquor and death of the deceased 
due to strangulation. In vi~w of the above missing links in the chain of 
circumstances, the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused 
cogently and firmly. A reasonable person on the facts of this case cannot come 
to the conclusion that the accused were guilty. Taking into account the 
G cumulative effect of all these circumstances and weighing them as an integrated 
whole, the Court has no hesitation to come to the finding that the accused 
were not guilty. [23-A-C] 
Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1978) SC 424 = SCR 
(1978) (2) 471 and Mohan Lal Pangasa v. The State ofU.P., AIR (1974) SC 
H 1144, relied on. 
16 
~ 
-
; 
J 
,_ 
, 
, ...
MUJEEB v. STATE OF KERALA 
17 
2. The High Court giving considerable importance to the subsequent A 
events of the recovery of the vehicle from the service station, taking into 
custody of the accused by the sub-inspector of police, recovery of articles 
· belonging to the deceased and parts of the car, found the appellants guilty. 
The prosecution has failed to prove the above circumstances. When a case 
rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must be cogently and firmly 
established. These circumstances should form a chain pointing towards the B 
guilt of the accused and the same should be so complete that there is no escape 
from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed 
by the accused and none else. If any link in the chain is missing the guilt of 
the accused cannot be established. Both trial court and the High Court rejected 
the prosecution version of the story that the accused gave soft drink "Fruity" C 
mixed with sleeping tablets and also intoxicating liquor in view of the evidence 
of the Doctor and Chemical analysis report. Moreover, no evidence was 
recorded to prove that intoxicating liquor was given to the deceased. The trial 
court as well as the High Court disbelieved the version of the prosecution 
story that Al approached PW 12 on 29.03.91 and on the next day PW 3 saw 
Al talking to the deceased for hiring the taxi. Both the Courts below also do D 
not accept the identification of Al by PW 12 in the belated test identification 
parade conducted by PW 35 and the evidence of PW 3 that he saw Al talking 
to the deceased at 11.30. a.m. on 30.03.91 as PW 3 did not disclose this fact 
to the Investigating Officer. Nobody saw the accused in the car or in the temple 
and therefore this fact would not link the accused to the alleged crime. Both E 
the Courts also did not believe the story of the prosecution that the deceased 
along with the accused went to the shop of PW 33 for repair of dynamo of the 
car who could not set it right and thereafter it was taken to an auto-electrician. 
According to the Courts below both PW 32 and 33 could not have identified 
the accused. It is. true that at the time of conducting autopsy the dead body 
was decomposed. PW 42 who conducted autopsy clearly stated that during F 
post-mortem he did not find any positive evidence of ligature strangulation. 
This witness gave the opinion that possibility of death resulting from ligature 
_,.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.