Case Note & Summary
The present appeals arise from a judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi which upheld the conviction of Nusrat Parween and Ahmad Khan under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of Hamida Parween. The deceased was the wife of the late Abdul Hamid Khan, brother of Ahmad Khan and Abdul Rahman Khan. The accused-appellants resided jointly with the deceased in Holding No. 13 at Dhatkidih. After the death of her husband, the accused pressured the deceased to give up her share in the property, leading to frequent quarrels and a prior complaint by the deceased under Section 107 read with Section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On 11th March 1997, the deceased sent her sons to school; when they returned, the house was locked from outside and their mother was missing. The sons informed their maternal uncle Md. Firoj, who searched for her and eventually reported to the police. On 12th March 1997, the police broke open the lock and found the dead body of Hamida Parween inside the room. The post-mortem revealed injuries including a fractured hyoid bone, and the cause of death was asphyxia due to pressure on the neck. The trial court convicted the appellants and Abdul Rahman Khan for murder, while acquitting others. The High Court affirmed the conviction. The appellants challenged the conviction on the ground that the prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and that the chain of circumstances was incomplete, particularly regarding motive and last seen evidence. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had established motive through the property dispute and the prior complaint, that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused on the morning of the incident, and that the dead body was recovered from a house locked from outside, which the accused had access to. The Court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellants. The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused - In present case, motive (property dispute), last seen (quarrel on morning of incident), and recovery of dead body from locked house were proved - Held that conviction was sustainable (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence Law - Motive - Proof of Motive - Section 8 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Motive need not be proved by direct evidence; can be inferred from conduct and prior complaints - Complaint under Section 107 CrPC filed by deceased against accused was admissible to show motive - Held that prosecution established motive (Paras 2-3). C) Criminal Procedure - Complaint under Section 107 CrPC - Admissibility - Section 107 read with Section 116(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Complaint not formally proved but its existence and contents were referred to by witnesses - Held that such complaint can be considered as part of circumstances (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the prosecution failed to prove motive and the chain of circumstances was incomplete.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- motive
- last seen theory
- recovery of dead body
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 107 CrPC
- Section 116(3) CrPC
