Supreme Court of India
Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer vs The State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2024
Author: Abhay S. Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka
2024 INSC 838
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 291 OF 2023
Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer … Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Kerala ... Respondent
JUDGMENT
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. This Appeal is preferred against the judgment and
order dated 18.10.1996 passed by the High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as “the
impugned judgment”), upholding the order of
conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions
Court, of the Appellant/Accused No. 01 under
Sections 302 and 201 of IPC for the murder of one
Gouri during the night of 16th-17th August 1989, at
Signature Not Verified
the house of Accused No. 02. The sentence included
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2024.11.05
17:13:04 IST
Reason:
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 1 of 28
life imprisonment under Section 302 and seven
years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 of
IPC. The Accused No. 02 was found guilty under
Section 201 of IPC receiving a sentence of four year
rigorous imprisonment. Against the order of
conviction and sentence, two separate appeals were
preferred by the Appellant-Accused No. 01 and
Accused No. 02. These appeals came to be dismissed
by the impugned judgment, upholding the conviction
and sentence of both the accused/appellants
therein. However, the present Appeal is preferred by
Accused No. 01 only.
2. The story as made out by the prosecution is that the
body of a woman was discovered in a paddy field by
PW1-V.T. Manikandan, while he was going for work
in the morning of 17.08.1989. He informed the
police, and based on his statement, PW38-C.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 2 of 28
Vijayamani, a Sub Inspector, registered a case of
unnatural death at the Parappanangadi Police
Station. This witness visited the scene, took
photographs, and collected fingerprints. The
postmortem examination was conducted by PW33-
Dr. M. Kunjukrishnan, on 18.08.1989, at 10:30 AM.
He reported finding six antemortem injuries on the
left side of the head fractured into multiple
fragments, as well as abraded contusions on the
right wrist and left knee. Injuries on the head were
determined to be sufficient to cause death under
ordinary circumstances and could have been
inflicted with a weapon such as a coconut scraper
(MO-20). According to the medical expert, the time of
occurrence of death was approximately 30 to 35
hours before the postmortem examination. PW2-V.T
Lakshmi and PW3-V.T Ambika, mother and sister of
deceased with some local people identified the dead
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 3 of 28
body of Gouri. The case was investigated by PW39-
K.V Satheesan, who submitted the final report
against the Appellant and Accused No. 02.
3. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution
proceeded to establish motive for the murder by
asserting that there was illicit relationship between
the Appellant and Accused No. 02. This relationship
had developed for the reason that the husband of
Accused No. 02 was living abroad, leaving her to
reside alone with her two children, which lead to the
two accused coming close. The deceased, Gouri, was
related to Accused No. 02 and since this accused
was living alone, the deceased would frequently visit
her house and even stayed there overnight.
4. When the relationship between the Appellant and
Accused No. 02 was discovered and local opposition
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 4 of 28
increased, the Appellant at the suggestion of
Accused No. 02, entered into a registered marriage
with Gouri on 17.05.1989, in an attempt to cover up
his relationship with Accused No. 02. It is also
brought on record, that the said marriage was
dissolved by way of another deed dated 31.07.1989.
It was alleged that there were letters which were
exchanged between the two accused indicating their
intimacy and love for one another, albeit under
assumed names. However, there was no evidence
which was brought on record especially the factum
that these letters were indeed written by these two
accused in the form of some handwriting expert etc.
5. The narrative put forward by the prosecution is that
on the date of incident both the accused and
deceased Gouri were at the house of Accused No. 02.
An altercation occurred between the Appellant and
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 5 of 28
the deceased with reference to Appellant’s
relationship with Accused No. 02. It is alleged that
during this confrontation, Appellant grabbed a
coconut scrapper from the kitchen and hit Gouri on
the head multiple times, leading to her death. The
prosecution has further projected that the Appellant
dragged the body out of the room and thereafter
carried it outside the house to the paddy field, which
is about 1KM away, where it was left. He then came
back to the house of Accused No. 2 and left for his
destination the following morning.
6. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant
contends that the case is solely based upon
circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitness to the
occurrence of the incident. He asserts that the
courts below have misread the evidence and
misguided themselves in coming to the conclusion
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 6 of 28
that the prosecution established a convincing chain
of circumstances based on material evidence and
witnesses, leading to the Appellant’s conviction and
sentence. He argues that there exist glaring gaps in
the evidence produced by the prosecution, creating a
doubt regarding the incident much less the
Appellant’s involvement in the alleged offense.
7. He further submitted that for the prosecution to
establish a case based on circumstantial evidence,
must complete the chain of events that leads to an
inescapable conclusion of accused’s guilt, with no
room for alternative explanation(s). He points out
several shortcomings in the evidence presented by
the prosecution with regard to the sequential
occurrence of the incident and circumstances
surrounding the death of Gouri. He has highlighted
the said aspects with reference to the evidence
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 7 of 28
including deposition and cross examination of the
witnesses. Consequently, he asserts that the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the
Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Prayer has thus
been made for allowing the present Appeal
and acquittal of the Appellant.
8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the
State has made an effort to explain out the
circumstances supporting the prosecution’s case
based on evidence led by the prosecution. He thus
supported the findings of the courts below as also
the conviction and sentence awarded to the
Appellant. He prays for dismissal of the present
Appeal.
9. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties
and with their assistance having gone through the
evidence carefully as presented by the prosecution, it
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 8 of 28
is apparent and has not been disputed that there is
no eyewitness of the incident in question, and
therefore, the case of the prosecution is solely based
upon circumstantial evidence. This casts an
enhanced burden on the prosecution to demonstrate
an unbroken chain of events that establishes the
accused’s guilt for the alleged offense. The
prosecution is required to prove that there is
continuity in the sequence of events leading to an
ultimate conclusion of offense being committed by
the accused and no one else.
10. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to
mention the principles as have been enunciated and
settled by this Court, which would determine the
parameters within which the case of the prosecution,
if based on circumstantial evidence, is to be tested
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 9 of 28
with regard to the establishment of the offence
stated to be committed by the Appellant.
This Court in the case of Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna
Reddy and Another v. State of A.P.1 while referring
to the various earlier judgments which have been
passed by this Court from time to time, summarized
key principles which act as a guide for the courts to
come to a conclusion with regard to the guilt of an
accused in cases which are solely dependent on the
circumstantial evidence. The same have been
referred to as the “panchsheel principles” and are
discussed in paragraph 26 to 28 of the said
judgment, which read as follows:
26. It is now well settled that with a view to
base a conviction on circumstantial
evidence, the prosecution must establish
all the pieces of incriminating
circumstances by reliable and clinching
evidence and the circumstances so1 (2006) 10 SCC 172
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 10 of 28
proved must form such a chain of events
as would permit no conclusion other
than one of guilt of the accused. The
circumstances cannot be on any other
hypothesis. It is also well settled that
suspicion, however grave it may be,
cannot be a substitute for a proof and
the courts shall take utmost precaution
in finding an accused guilty only on the
basis of the circumstantial evidence.
(See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of
Bihar [(2003) 9 SCC 67 : 2004 SCC (Cri)
1167] and Reddy Sampath
Kumar v. State of A.P. [(2005) 7 SCC
603 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1710] )
27. The last-seen theory, furthermore,
comes into play where the time gap
between the point of time when the
accused and the deceased were last seen
alive and the deceased is found dead is
so small that possibility of any person
other than the accused being the author
of the crime becomes impossible. Even
in such a case the courts should look for
some corroboration.
28. In State of U.P. v. Satish [(2005) 3 SCC
114 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 642] this Court
observed: (SCC p. 123, para 22)
“22. The last-seen theory comes into
play where the time-gap between
the point of time when the accused
and the deceased were last seen
alive and when the deceased is
found dead is so small that
possibility of any person other than
the accused being the author of the
crime becomes impossible. It would
be difficult in some cases to
positively establish that theCriminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 11 of 28
deceased was last seen with the
accused when there is a long gap
and possibility of other persons
coming in between exists. In the
absence of any other positive
evidence to conclude that the
accused and the deceased were last
seen together, it would be
hazardous to come to a conclusion
of guilt in those cases. In this case
there is positive evidence that the
deceased and the accused were
seen together by witnesses PWs 3
and 5, in addition to the evidence of
PW 2.”
(See also Bodhraj v. State of
J&K [(2002) 8 SCC 45: 2003 SCC
(Cri) 201].)
11. Thereafter, the above principles have been reiterated
in the subsequent judgments of this Court and hold
the field till date.
Thus, these basic established principles can be
summarized in the following terms that the chain of
events needs to be so established that the court has
no option but to come to one and only one
conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused person. If an
iota of doubt creeps in at any stage in the sequence
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 12 of 28
of events, the benefit thereof should flow to the
accused. Mere suspicion alone, irrespective of the
fact that it is very strong, cannot be a substitute for
a proof. The chain of circumstances must be so
complete that they lead to only one conclusion that
is the guilt of the accused. Even in the case of a
conviction where in an appeal the chain of evidence
is found to be not complete or the courts could reach
to any another hypothesis other than the guilt of the
accused, the accused person must be given the
benefit of doubt which obviously would lead to his
acquittal. Meaning thereby, when there is a missing
link, a finding of guilt cannot be recorded. In other
words, the onus on the prosecution is to produce
such evidence which conclusively establishes the
truth and the only truth with regard to guilt of an
accused for the charges framed against him or her,
and such evidence should establish a chain of
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 13 of 28
events so complete as to not leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of accused.
12. It needs a mention here that although both the
accused were put to trial to face charges under
Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, but
they were acquitted of the charge of Section 34 of
IPC, as it has been not established rather finding
was returned that there was no common intention
prior to the commission of the offence. Accused No.
02 was held guilty under Section 201 of IPC (causing
disappearance of evidence) only, and was thus,
sentenced to four years of imprisonment.
13. At this point, it is apposite to discuss the relevant
testimonies and evidence presented by the
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 14 of 28
prosecution aimed at establishing the guilt of the
Appellant and Accused No. 02.
14. The prosecution presented the testimony of PW2-V.T
Lakshmi and PW3-V.T Ambika (mother and sister of
deceased respectively) who in their testimonies
stated that the deceased Gouri told them that she
was going to the house of Accused No. 02 and they
saw the deceased going till the turn towards the
house of Accused No. 02 at around 7:30 PM on the
date of incident i.e., 16.08.1989. They also
acknowledged the fact that Accused No. 02 is related
to them and they regularly visited each other’s house
and had cordial relations.
15. The factum that the deceased had gone to the house
of Accused No. 02 at around 7:30 PM on the date of
incident is not disputed as the two children of
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 15 of 28
Accused No. 02 who are PW10-T.K. Ramya and
PW11- T.K. Radhesh have also stated in their
statement that deceased was present in their house
in the evening of 16.08.1989. However, they have
added that she had left the house at around 9:00 PM
and did not return thereafter.
16. As regards the Appellant, the evidence which has
been brought on record by the prosecution to
establish his presence in the house of Accused No.
02 is the statement of PW14-K.V. Raman, who had
stated that he had seen the Appellant entering the
house of Accused No. 02 at around 11:30 PM on the
date of incident.
PW20-K. Majeed, a taxi driver has been produced by
the prosecution, who had stated that he saw the
Appellant at 5:30 AM on 17.08.1989 at
Parappanangadi bus stand, heading towards the
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 16 of 28
railway station. He further stated that the Appellant
was wearing a coffee brown shirt, white spotted lungi
and a bath towel was tied around the head.
17. These are the two witnesses who have been
produced to establish presence of the Appellant in
the house of Accused No. 02 on the date of incident.
PW-14 is stated to have seen the Appellant going to
the house of Accused No. 02 at 11:30 PM in the
night of incident and PW-20 has seen the Appellant
leaving the town, the following morning. They are the
two witnesses who can be said to be the star
witnesses as far as the presence of the Appellant in
the house of Accused No. 02 is concerned at the
night of incident.
18. Another witness who can be said to be crucial for the
prosecution case is PW18-Sirajudheen from whose
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 17 of 28
possession and presence, recovery of a bag allegedly
belonging to the Appellant was made on 27.08.1989.
Blood-stained clothes, a blanket and a head towel
belonging to the Appellant are said to have been
recovered from this bag. The prosecution claims that
these articles belong to the Appellant and the
recovery was made on his behest in the presence of
PW-18 on 27.08.1989. This witness has actually
blown off the lid and falsified the case of prosecution
by stating that a police constable visited his shop on
23.08.1989 and took away the bag in question from
him. Subsequently, on 27.08.1989 police came in a
police jeep and handed him the same bag which was
taken from him earlier and opened it, showing
articles as stated above, and got his signatures on
the prepared Mahazar. It was at this moment he saw
the Appellant sitting in the police jeep. This
discrepancy casts a serious doubt on the
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 18 of 28
prosecution story regarding recovery of bag and
articles contained therein at the behest of the
Appellant in the presence of PW18 and that too on
27.08.1989.
19. As regards the discovery of blood stains, cloth
stained with blood and coconut scrapper (MO 20)
from the house of Accused No. 02 in the presence of
of the three witnesses i.e., PW-26 to 28 is concerned,
none of them have categorically stated that the
police has seized anything in their presence, rather
to the contrary they have stated that they were not
taken to the spot and were only shown the cotton
swabs stained with blood and other clothes which
were said to have been recovered from the house of
Accused No. 02. PW27-M. Muhammed in his
statement stated that police showed him the coconut
scrapper and cotton swab and he was told that same
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 19 of 28
were taken from the rooms of Accused No. 02’s
house. A similar statement was made by PW28, V.
Dasan, who stated that he did not know where the
police obtained these material objects from.
20. When the evidence, as has been presented by the
prosecution is tested on the standard of proof and
parameters discussed above, we are unable to accept
the conclusions as reached by the courts below
while convicting and sentencing the Appellant.
21. As regards Accused No. 01-the Appellant, the first
and foremost evidence which is required to be
established is with regard to his presence in the
house of Accused No. 02 at the time when deceased
Gouri was also there. It is then and only then that it
would have been possible for the Appellant to have
committed murder of Gouri. Apropos, Gouri’s
presence in the house of Accused No. 02, there is
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 20 of 28
ample evidence to that effect, including the
statements of PW10 and PW11, both children of
Accused No. 02, who were very much present in the
house. Their evidence, which has gone unchallenged
clearly establishes the factum that deceased Gouri
had left the house at around 9:00 PM on
16.08.1989. Nothing has come on record which
would indicate to the contrary, that is with regard to
she having returned or continued to stay back at the
house of Accused No. 02.
22. The evidence which has been brought on record by
the prosecution in the form of statement of PW14,
who has claimed to have seen the Appellant entering
the house of Accused No. 02 at 11:30 PM on
16.08.1989, belies the aspect of the Appellant having
committed the murder of deceased, as prior thereto,
the deceased had already left the house in question.
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 21 of 28
Another aspect which needs to be pointed out is that
this witness has not come face to face with the
Appellant rather he stated that he had only seen the
back of the Appellant. This witness acknowledges
that he assumed that the person he had seen on the
date of incident entering the house of Accused No.
02 was the Appellant as the Appellant typically has
been doing so at odd hours. This creates doubt in
the story of prosecution, as the presence of deceased
and the Appellant in the house of Accused No. 02, at
the same time on the day of the incident which was
essential for commission of the murder of deceased
by the Appellant in the said house, is not
conclusively proved by the evidence led by the
prosecution.
23. As regards the recoveries which have been
affected especially with regard to the weapon of
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 22 of 28
offence from the house of Accused No. 02, suffice to
say that those being made not in the presence of
independent witnesses, as has been so deposed by
PW26 to PW28 and discussed above, the same
cannot be relied upon.
24. Similar is the position with regard to the recovery of
the bag from PW18, which contained the Appellant’s
blood-stained clothes, as well as a blanket with
blood stains and other articles. PW18, the witness
of recovery, has expressed a doubt with regard to the
contents of the bag. He has testified that the bag
was handed over to him by the Appellant, 2-3 days
prior to 23.08.1989, and on this very date a police
constable came and had taken the bag, and he was
not shown the contents of the said bag. Thus, as per
this witness the bag in question was handed over by
him to the police on 23.08.1989 whereas, as per the
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 23 of 28
recovery memo, this bag was recovered and seized
on 27.08.1989, when the police party came along
with the Appellant in a police jeep and opened it
showing the articles contained therein and the
witness was made to sign the Mahazar. The said
recovery which is alleged to have been made at the
instance of Appellant, thus cannot be accepted as
the same is not borne out from the evidence of the
witness. Rather the possibility of the articles having
been planted in the bag cannot be ruled out.
25. Additionally, relying on the testimony of PW20, the
prosecution suggested that after killing Gouri, the
Appellant left the town in between 5:00-5:30 AM on
17.08.1989. As per the case of the prosecution, the
Appellant having disposed of the body in the paddy
field, returned to the house of Accused No. 02 and
thereafter left again for his destination. A perusal of
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 24 of 28
the testimony of PW20, does not indicate as to from
where the Appellant was actually coming from when
this witness saw him. Additionally, this witness has
stated that he had seen the Appellant from a
distance, that too very early in the morning.
Assuming this testimony to be true, it is not
established that the Appellant was coming from the
house of Accused No. 02.
26. Another aspect that further casts a doubt with
regard to the identity of Appellant is that the clothes
which are alleged to have been worn by the
Appellant while going to the house of Accused No. 02
as per PW14, and clothes he was wearing while
returning as per PW20, were not produced in the
court to be identified by these witnesses. It is not the
case of the prosecution that these clothes were put
to these two witnesses for identification thereof,
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 25 of 28
which are alleged to have been worn by the
Appellant at the time of commission of the offence.
27. As per the case of prosecution, the time of death of
the deceased Gouri has got to be after 11:30 PM, as
it has been held by the courts that it is the Appellant
alone who had committed her murder. The body
obviously would have been disposed of prior to 5 AM
on 17.08.1989. It has come on record that the
distance between the house of Accused No. 2 and
the paddy field where the body was found is about 1
KM; in between there is a sawmill which runs 24
hours. If the case of the prosecution is to be
accepted, according to which the Appellant had
carried the dead body of the deceased Gouri on his
shoulder from the house of Accused No. 02 to the
paddy fields, someone would have most likely seen
him on the way, especially when there was a
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 26 of 28
running mill in between from where the Appellant is
said to have crossed. This further raises a doubt
with regard to the credibility of the case as has been
projected by the prosecution.
28. In the light of the above, when tested upon the anvil
of the principles and parameters laid down by this
Court, as referenced earlier, the prosecution has
miserably failed to indicate the involvement of the
Appellant in the commission of the offence, what to
say of establish, for which he was charged. The
chain of circumstances which are being sought to be
projected by the prosecution to be complete has
glaring holes and significant gaps, which leads this
Court to come to the conclusion that the prosecution
has failed in its endeavour of bringing home the guilt
against the Appellant. The case having not been
proved what to say of beyond reasonable doubt
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 27 of 28
against the Appellant, the impugned judgments
cannot sustain and are set aside.
29. The Appellant is acquitted of all the charges. In case
the Appellant has been released on bail, the bail
bonds and the sureties, if any, are hereby
discharged. The Appellant be set free forthwith.
30. The Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
…………………………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
……………………………………..J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
New Delhi;
November 05, 2024.
Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023 Page 28 of 28