SHEIKH ABDUL HAMID AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF MADHYPRADESH

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 546 · Decided: 04-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHEIKH ABDUL HAMID AND ANOTHER 
v. 
STA TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
FEBRUARY 4, 1998 
B 
[G.T. NANA VAT! AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302134-Murder of wife and 
children-Circumstantial evidence-Body exhumed from inner room of 
Dhaba-Not accessible to outsiders-Trial Court convicted the appeilants 
C and sentenced them to death-Conviction upf,2ld by High Court and sentence 
confirmed-On appeal, Held, circumstantial evidence is consistent with the 
guilt of the accused as all the links of chain of circumstances are unbroken 
and complete-Conviction justified 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 5-Murder-Conviction based on 
D circumstantial evidence-,--Validity of 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sec1ion 354(3)-Death sentence-No 
evidence to show how the .murder has taken place-Held, special reasons to 
be recorded by Court for offence punishable with death semence-Life sentence 
E 
is the rule and death sentence an exception-Not rarest of rare case-
Sentence for imprisonment of life imposed-Section 302134 of Indian Pe_nal 
Code, 1860. 
The appellants were charged and convicted for an offence under s.302/ 
34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to death. The prosecution case 
F was that the accused appellant No. I was living with ltis deceased wife 'M', 
deceased daughter of 'M' from her former husband and deceased son in a 
Dhaba. Appellant No. 2, the co-accused was a friend of accused appellant No. 
I. PW-9, brother of deceased • M' lodged a report in the police station that 
his sister and her children had disappeared since 2¥. months and that he 
G suspected that the accused appellant No. I had either killed or sold them. 
The prosecution machinery was set in motion and the police exhumed the 
dead bodies by digging the earth in the inner room ofthe Dhaba. There was 
no eye witness and the prosecution case was based only on the circumstantial 
evidence that (i) the inner room of the Dhaba where bodies were buried was 
locked and its key was found with the appellant No. 1; (ii) the room in the 
H Dhaba was accessible only to appellants and no outsider would have access 
546 
SHEIKH ABDUL HAMID v. ST A TE OF M.P. 
547 
to it; (iii) the injuries caused to the deceased were by sharp object like A 
Basula which was found kept under the bench in the inner room of Dhaba; 
(iv) the accused has not shown any interest to find out the whereabouts of 
the deceased and continued to run the Dhaba. The Trial Court !~lying on the 
circumstantial evidence convicted the appellants for the offence and sentenced 
them to death. The High Court upheld the judgment of the Trial Court and 
confirmed the death sentence awarded to the appellants. Hence the present B 
appeal. 
Tht! contention of the appellants was that the chain of circumstantial 
evidence was not complete as to convict them and therefore their conviction 
deserved to be set aside. 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The circumstantial evidence is consistent with the guilt 
of the two accused as all the links of chain of circumstances are unbroken 
c 
and complete. It were the appellants who committed the murder of the three D 
deceased persons and were rightly convicted. [ 551-G] 
1.2. It is true that there was no eye witness to the murder of the three 
deceased persons and the prosecution case was based only on circumstantial 
evidence. But the circumstances established in the present case speak for 
themselves and candidly point out that it were the appellants who committed E 
the murder of the three deceased persons. [550-D] 
2. The prosecution machinery was set in motion only after 2Y:z months 
of the incident and only on the report of the brother of the deceased 'M'. This 
shows that the appellant although living in the Dhaba with deceased persons 
did not take any interest to find out their whereabouts and continued to run F 
the Dhaba. The body was found locked and its key was found with appellant 
No. I. [550-E] 
3. The High Court rightly concluded that there was no possibility of 
any outsider committing the murders. Had any outsider committed the murder 
of these three deceased persons, he could have thrown the dead bodies G 
somewhere in a lonely place and surely would not have undertaken the risk 
of burying the dead bodies in the Dhaba. The situation of the room in the 
Dhaba also indicates that it was accessible only to the appellants who were 
living therein and no outsider had access to it. It is, therefore, not at

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