LexMUNISH MUBAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 193 MUNISH MUBAR V. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 2010) OCTOBER 4, 2012 [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302134, 201, 120-8 and 404 - Homicidal death - Injuries found on the person of the C deceased - Circumstantial evidence - Three accused - Conviction of accused-appellant - Justification - Held: Justified - Deceased was done to death after his arrival at the Delhi airport - Car belonging to appellant was parked at the airport for 3 hours, when the flight by which the deceased was D to arrive, was scheduled to land, and the said car left after the arrival of such flight - Telephone call records reveal the presence of appellant in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, at the relevant time of the incident - Recoveries were made upon the disclosure statement of the appellant - Some of the E articles found, had human blood on them and the same connects the appellant to the said crime - Appellant failed to furnish any explanation whatsoever in relation to any of the above, when examined uls.313 CrPC - The fact that there was no independent witness of recoveries and the panch F witnesses were only police personnel, did not affect the merits of the case - Merely making a bald statement that he was innocent and recoveries had been planted and the call records were false and fabricated documents, not enough as none of the said a/legations made by the appellant could be G established - Conviction of appellant accordingly sustained. Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Significance and importance of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence - Discussed. 193 H 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R. A Evir;Jence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of - Held: In a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances must be fully established and all the facts so established, must be consistent with the hypothesis regarding the guilt of the accused - The circumstances so established, s should exclude every other possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved - The circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313 - Case of C circumstantial evidence - Examination u/s.313 - Obligation of the accused - Held: It is obligatory on the part of the accused, while being examined u/s.313 CrPC to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation, even in a case of circumstantial evidence, so to D decide, whether or not, the chain of circumstances is complete. On 27.12.2002, PW10 noticed a dead body lying in a plot of land in Village Bhondsi, District Gurgaon in the State of Haryana. Seeing that the corpse had multiple E injuries, he. informed PW21, Inspector, who recorded the statement of PW10 and then recovered the dead body, and also lifted from the spot, blood stained earth; a blood stained vest; a boarding card issued by Jet Airways; an almond coloured button, one blood stained hammer and F a knife. One day later, the dead body so recovered was identified to be that of one 'A', a resident of Mumbai. Challan was submitted against the appellant- accused and two other accused- 'S' and 'SS'. 'SS' could not be put to trial as he was absconding at the time. G Placing reliance upon the circumstantial evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant and 'S' under Sections 302/34, 201 and 120-B IPC. In addition, the appellant was also convicted under Section 404 IPC. Both appellant and 'S' were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. H The conviction of appellant and 'S' was confirmed by the MUNISH MUBAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 195 High Court. Aggrieved, 'S' filed an S.L.P before this A Court, which was dismissed in limine. The S.L.P. filed by the appellant, however, was admitted. The appellant challenged his conviction before this Court contending that there was no evidence against him; that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive is of paramount importance, which was not established in the instant case; that the recoveries relied upon by the courts below, alleged to have been made at the instance B of the appellant were in fact, all planted and the appellant C was falsely enroped into the matter; that furthermore, no independent witness was examined so far as the recoveries were concerned and all the witnesses of reco
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.