The Supreme Court of India, acquitted the appellants, reversing their convictions for the murder of Hamida Parween under Section 302 IPC. The Court emphasized the failure of the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, particularly the "last seen together" theory and the motive. It highlighted that suspicion alone cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

1. Case Overview:

The case involved the alleged murder of Hamida Parween. The appellants, her relatives, were convicted by the Trial and High Courts based on circumstantial evidence, including a motive linked to property disputes and the "last seen together" theory.

2. Allegations and Incident:

The prosecution alleged that the appellants, following property disputes, murdered Hamida on March 11, 1997. Her body was found in her house after a search initiated by her family.

3. Prosecution's Evidence and Arguments:

• Motive: A property dispute (Holding No. 13) was suggested as the motive.
• Last Seen Together: The appellants were claimed to have been the last with the deceased.
• Medical Evidence: The postmortem indicated strangulation as the cause of death.
• Section 106 (Evidence Act): Prosecution argued the appellants failed to explain the circumstances of her death.

4. Defense's Arguments:

• No direct evidence linked the appellants to the crime.
• Prosecution failed to prove exclusive presence in the house at the time of death.
• The property dispute lacked concrete proof.
• Non-production of vital witnesses, such as the deceased's daughter, undermined the case.

5. Court's Observations and Findings:

• Failure to Prove Motive: The alleged property dispute was inadequately supported by evidence.
• "Last Seen Together" Invalid: Testimonies failed to establish the appellants' presence in the house at the critical time.
• No Basis for Burden Shift (Section 106): Without primary proof of presence, the burden of proof could not be shifted to the accused.
• Procedural and Evidential Gaps: The prosecution’s reliance on unverified complaints and unexplained witness absences weakened its case.

6. Decision:

The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence presented failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. All three appellants, including Abdul Rahman Khan (who had not appealed), were acquitted.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC):

   • Section 302: Punishment for murder.
   • Section 34: Common intention (considered but not substantiated).

2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

   • Section 106: Facts within the knowledge of the accused.
   • Section 114: Presumptions of fact.

3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):

   • Section 107 read with 116(3): Previous complaint regarding property disputes.

Ratio Decidendi:

Convictions in cases based on circumstantial evidence require the prosecution to establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that conclusively links the accused to the crime. The absence of direct evidence, failure to prove key circumstances, and reliance on conjectures do not satisfy the standard of proof required in criminal cases.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Circumstantial Evidence, Burden of Proof.

Murder Acquittal, Property Dispute, Last Seen Theory, Section 302 IPC, Evidence Act Section 106, Benefit of Doubt.