STATE OF U. P. versus MOHD .. IQRAM & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 1017 · Decided: 13-06-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 6 S.C.R. 1017 
STATE OF U. P. 
v. 
MOHD .. IQRAM & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1693-1694 of 2005) 
JUNE 13, 2011 
[DR. B. S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
s.302134 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Shrieks c 
of victim heard in the night by police party on general 
patrolling - Three persons seen scaling down the wall near 
the room of victim - Two of them (accused) apprehended -
Accused led the police and witnesses to the room of victim 
where she was found lying unconscious - She died in hospital 0 
- Accused totally strangers to the area - Medical evidence 
that death could be caused by strangulation by hands -
Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - HELD: 
Circumstantial evidence is so strong that it points 
unmistakably to the guilt of accused and incapable of any 
E 
other hypothesis - Accused were identified as the persons 
scaling down the wall and apprehended upon immediate 
chase - High Court erred in holding that the finding of 
identification was doubtful - Findings recorded by High Court 
are perverse being based on irrelevant considerations and 
inadmissible material - Judgment of High Court set aside 
F 
and that of trial court restored - Circumstantial evidence -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Appeal against 
acquittal. 
Evidence: 
Burden of proof - HELD: Once presence of accused at 
the scene of crime where they were apprehended is 
established, onus stood shifted on the defence to have 
1017 
G 
H 
1018 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 6 S.C.R. 
A brought forth suggestions for their presence there at the dead 
of night - They were under an obligation to rebut the burden 
discharged by prosecution - High Court erred in concluding 
that prosecution had failed to discharge its burden - Penal 
Code, 1860 - s.302134. 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.313 - Affording of opportunity to accused to explain 
incriminating material against him -
Conviction of two 
accused and acquittal of third one by trial court - High Court 
C in the appeal filed by convicts making observations that 
greater possibility was that the acquitted accused committed 
the murder after he had forcible sexual intercourse with the 
victim, and acquitted both the accused - HELD: Court cannot 
place reliance on incriminating material against accused, 
D unless it is put to him during his examination u/s 313 - This 
prohibition is mandatory in nature - Besides, the trial court 
did not frame any charge uls 376 - Observations in post-
mortem report cannot be termed to be substantive piece of 
evidence when the doctor did not say anything about the same 
E in his statement in court which only is the substantive piece 
of evidence in law - Evidence - Proving of contents of post- ' 
mortem report. 
Appeal against Acquittal ,_ HELD: In exceptional cases 
where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment 
F under appeal is found to be perverse leading to miscarriage 
of justice, the appellate court should interfere with the order 
of acquittal - In the instant case, the circumstantial evidence 
is so strong that it points unmistakably to the guilt of the 
respondents and is incapable of explanation of any other 
G hypothesis than that of their guilt - Therefore, findings of fact 
recorded by the High Court are perverse, being based on 
irrelevant considerations and inadmissible material. 
JUDGMENT: 
H 
Observations by High Court against acquitted person -
STATE OF U. P. v. MOHO. IQRAM & ANR. 
1019 
Trial court convicted two accused and acquitted the third one 
A 
-
Convicts filed appeal - High Court acquitting the two 
accused made observation that it was possible that the 
accused acquitted by trial court committed the crime - HELD: 
It was not permissible for the High Court to castigate the 
person who had been acquitted by the trial court and whose 
8 
acquittal had not been challenged before it. 
Accused-respondents nos. 1 and 2 along with 
another accused 'SK', were prosecuted for causing the 
death of the wife of accused 'SK'. The prosecution case 
was that 'SK' obtained a decree of divorce against his C 
wife 'R' who, as per the decree was permitted to reside 
in a room with an enclosed open area belonging to 'SK' 
and was granted maintenance of Rs.150/- per month. 'R' 
had challenged the decree in an appeal. On 15.5.1980 at 
about 9 p.m., when the Sub Inspector of Police (PW.6) 
D 
alongwith the Head Constable (PW.7) and two constables 
was on general patro

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