NASEEM AHMED versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 12-12-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

694 
NASEEM AHMED 
'· 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
December 12, 1973 
[M. H. BEG AND Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Penal Code-M11rder-Circ1unstanlial 111tde11ct. 
The appellant and the deceased who were friends, came to Delhi to purebuo 
a motor-cycle and stayed in a hotel. The decelSOd fell ohort of money and Ibo 
appellant promised to get it from 11omeone known to bim. Two J)J'OleCQ.tlon 
witnesses saw the dec~ased and the appell111t enterill1 the robm of the bolel 
on the night of the occurrence and the 11>pelfant leavina the hotel room In Ibo 
morning on the followin1 day, Two day1 later the room· wu broken open and 
the dead body of the deceased 'waa recovered. The appell111t wu lm&led at 
Gaya in his sister's house and an "&ttaclle cue c:ontainina clotha, a apanaet 11t. 
an allenkey set and a connectina rod were recovered from him. 1b.e' appellant 
wa• convicted under s. 302 Penal Code by the Sessions JudF. In appeal th• 
Hi&h Court reduced th)' s~nteq~.,to.llf~.imprisarumnt 
Dismissing the appeal tr this Court, 
HELD : In a case of circumstantial evidence it Is n .... ary to find whether 
the circumstances on Which the prosecution relies are 'capable of auPDOdinl the 
•ole inference that.the appellant is. auillY' of.tho crime ol which be la dWFd· 
The circumstances have to be established by the prooeeutlcm by clear and 
cogent ev.idence and those circumstances ·must not be cOaibtent wfth tbe iDDo-
<:ence of the accused. For determinina:whethcr the clrwmstan.Cel eetablllhed On 
evidence raise but One infere"nce· consistent with the auUt of the accuaed, naard 
must be had to the to~lity of the circumstances. Individual circumstances 
considered in' 'iSOtttion ·arid divorced .from 'the context of the overatt pictute 
cmergin~ from a consideratiOn of the diverse circumstan~s and their confoint 
effect may by th.en15elves appear innocuou,. It is only when the various circum-
stances are considered'"'coniointl\'.. that _it becomes wssible to understand and 
appreciate their trUe effect.· [696G~Hf ._;·., 
., . 
·V~ ff' 
In the instant case, the circuinstances thai, the appellant and tbe-deceaacd 
who occupied a room in th. e hotel were seen enterinsc: the room:. ;~:er at mid .• 
night on the night of the occurrence, the appellant wu seen 1 
.the room 
and leaving the hotel, the .dead body was recovered from tho room. · the appe1. 
Jan~ was found indulgihg in what for a man of his means was a Spree °'-:atra-
vagance, and a _blood stained connectina: rod was reCQvered from the house of 
the appellant's sister where he was found, all Point to 
the 
,Wlt of 1he 
accused. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELV•TE JURISDICTION : 
Criminal Appeal No .. 80 
G 
of 1970. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judglnent and Order dated the 
23rd October, 1969 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 
61 of 1969 (Murder Reference No. 3 of. 1969) 
· 
Harjinder Singh and S. Sodhi, for the appellant 
G. Das and R. N. Sachthty, for the respondent. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
NASE~M v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION (Chandrachud, !.) 
695 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, J .-This appeal by special leave is 
directed 
against a judgment of the High Court of ·Delhi confirming the con-
viction of the appellant under section 302 of the Penal Code but re, 
ducing the sentence of death imposed on him by the leamed Additional 
Sessions Judge, Delhi to life imprisonment. 
The charge against the 
appellant is that on the night between the 17th and 18 August, l 968 
he committed the murder· of one Ram Kumar. 
On April 11, 1968 Ram Kumar, his brother Shiv Kumar, their 
mother and the appellant left Kanpur for Moradnagar. On April IS 
Ram Kumar, Shiv Kumar and the appellant left Moradnagar for Delhi 
for purchasing a secondhand motor-cycle. Shiv Kumar went back to 
Morndnagar for catching a bus to Kanpur. 
At about 7·15 p.m. on April 15, 1968 Ram Kumar and the appel· 
!ant .booked a room at Hindustan Hotel, Ballimaran, Delhi. 
They 
signed their names in the )tote! register and entered therein 
their 
Kanpur address. 
On the 16th they were admittedly together 
and 
while in search of a motor-cycle they met Abdul Hafeez, Babu Khan 
and Om Prakash. 
On the 17th morning Ram Kumar and the appel· 
!ant struck a deal with Bahu Khan and 
Om Prakash agreeing 
to 
purchase from them a motor-cycle 
for Rs. 1,000/·. Ram Kumar 
paid a sum of Rs. 25/. by way of advance and the sends agreed to 
deliver the motor-cycle in the evening. 
At about 6 p.m. on the 

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