LexSANAULLAH KHAN versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 1079 SANAULLAH KHAN v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal Nos. 94 - 95 of 2011) FEBRUARY 15, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B ss. 302 and 201 - Triple murder - Circumstantial c evidence - Conviction and sentence of death awarded by trial court confirmed by High Court - Held: Chain of circumstances proved by prosecution establishes beyond reasonable· doubt that it was the appellant who had eliminated three persons - Therefore, conviction of appellant u/s 302 for each of the three 0 offences of murder is upheld - However, as regards the sentence, motive for crime was not established - Further, though deceased persons appear to have been brutally killed, what exactly happened leading to their murder by appellant is not known - There is no evidence to establish the gravest E case of extreme culpability of appellant and there is also no evidence to establish his circumstances - Therefore, imprisonment for life for each of the three offences of murder and the sentences to run consecutively would meet the ends of justice - Ordered accordingly - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.31 - Sentence/Sentencing - Criminal F law - Motive. The appellant and another were prosecuted for committing offences punishable ulss. 364134, 302, 120-B and 201 IPC. The prosecution case was that regarding G the quality of milk supplied by the appellant at the tea stall of 'R' the father of the informant, there arose a dispute between the two. On 16.12.2002 at about 8 p.m. 'A', the worker of the appellant came at the tea stall and told 'R' 1079 H 1080 SUPREME COl,.JRT REPORTS [2013) 1 S.C.R. A that the appellant was calling him. 'R' went along with 'A'. After some time 'A' again came to the tea stall and said that the appellant was calling 'S', the other son of 'R'. 'S' also accompanied 'A'. However, both 'R' and 'S' did not return till the following morning. On the basis of the B 'fardbeyan' given by the informant, an FIR was registered for the offence of kidnapping. During the investigation three dead bodies, of 'R', 'S' and 'A', were recovered from the 'Khatal (a cattle shed)' of the appellant. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death. The c other person was acquitted. The High Court confirmed the conviction as also the death sentence. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, three circumstances D have been established by the prosecution. Firstly, 'A' came to the tea stall on 16.12.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. and told 'R' that he was being called by the appellant and 'R' went with 'A' and within an hour thereafter 'A' again came to the tea stall and told 'S' that he was being called by E the appellant and 'S' also went along with 'A'; secondly, on 17 .12.2002 the dead bodies of the three deceased were recovered from a room in occupation of the appellant; and thirdly, pursuant to the information divulged by the appellant, the incriminating materials F were recovered by the 1.0. Thus, the chain of these three circumstances establishes beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who had eliminated the three deceased persons. Therefore, the 5 golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda* apply in the instant case and the only hypothesis that the Court can conclude G from the chain of three circumstances is that it is the appellant who has committed the murder of the three deceased persons. [Para 17-18] [1091-E-H; 1092-D-E] *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra H SANAULLAH KHAN v. STATE OF BIHAR 1081 1985 (1) SCR 88 = (1984) 4 SCC 116 - relied on A 1.2. The evidence of PW4 may create some doubt with regard to the motive of the appellant to kill 'R' ·and ?S?. Where other circumstances lead to the only hypothesis that the accused has committed the offence, 8 the court cannot acquit the accused of the offence merely because the motive for committing the offence has not been established in the case. [Para 19] [1093-B-C] Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab 2007 (13) SCR 653 = (2007) 13 sec 90 - relied on. c Javed Masood and Another vs. State of Rajasthan 2010 (3) SCR 236 = (2010) 3 SCC 538; and Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari vs. State 2005 (3) SCR 797 = (2005) 5 SCC 258 - cited. D 2.1. As regards the sentence, motive for the appellant to commit the murder of three persons has not been established. There is also no eyewitness to the manner in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.