- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mujeeb And Another v. State Of Kerala .
Factual and Procedural Background
The incident concerns the alleged murder and robbery of taxi driver Balan on 30-3-1991. According to the prosecution, Accused 1 (Mujeeb @ Mujeeb Rahman), Accused 2 (Johnson) and Accused 3 (Akbar) hired Balan’s taxi, travelled through various locations in Wynad district, incapacitated the driver with a “Fruity” soft drink purportedly laced with sleeping pills and liquor, strangled him, robbed his purse and watch, dumped his body near the 9th point curve at Wynad Ghat and thereafter drove the vehicle to Mysore and Bangalore, tampering with its registration and disposing of the deceased’s belongings.
In Sessions Case No. 9/1992 the learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode Division acquitted all three accused of charges under Sections 302, 392, 201 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC. The State of Kerala appealed. On 24-1-1997 the High Court of Kerala (Criminal Appeal No. 485/1993) reversed the acquittal and convicted all three accused. Two of the convicts (A-1 and A-3) filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court; A-2 did not appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution formed an unbroken, cogent and complete chain pointing inevitably to the guilt of the accused.
- Whether the High Court erred in law by reversing the acquittal despite missing links in the chain of circumstances and questionable recoveries.
- Whether medical evidence supported the prosecution’s case of death by ligature strangulation.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mohan Lal Pangasa v. State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 607 | In cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, every reasonable hypothesis must point to the accused’s guilt; courts must rely on rational deductions, not “fantastic possibilities”. | Reiterated as the governing standard; used to test whether the prosecution’s circumstances excluded every hypothesis consistent with innocence. |
| Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat, (1978) 1 SCC 228 | The totality of circumstances must inevitably and exclusively point to guilt; any missing link is fatal. | Cited to emphasise that cumulative consideration of circumstances showed critical gaps, making conviction unsustainable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court scrutinised each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution:
- Initial hiring of the taxi: Both the Sessions Court and High Court had disbelieved testimony (PWs 12 & 3) claiming A-1 hired the taxi; the Supreme Court agreed the identification was unreliable and belated.
- Alleged itinerary (Pookode Lake, Thirunelli Temple, Mananthavadi): Witnesses either turned hostile or failed to mention the accused to the investigating officer; thus no credible link placed the accused with the deceased during the journey.
- Administration of drug-laced soft drink and liquor: Rejected by both lower courts based on medical and chemical analysis; no evidence of intoxicants was found.
- Cause of death – strangulation: Autopsy doctor (PW 42) expressly stated no positive evidence of ligature strangulation and even “ruled out” that possibility; the High Court’s reliance on a towel (MO 14) and mere possibility was held legally untenable.
- Subsequent conduct – possession of vehicle and articles:
- Recoveries purportedly made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act lacked recorded verbatim disclosures; statements such as an accused “knows the person” with whom items were pledged were deemed insufficient to qualify as discovery statements.
- Panch witnesses were distant co-drivers of the deceased, reducing credibility.
- The Sub-Inspector (PW 47) failed to enter critical information in the general diary; his pocket notebook was not produced.
- Missing links in chain: Hiring of the taxi, continuous possession, drugging, cause of death and reliable recoveries were all absent, breaking the chain required for conviction on circumstantial evidence.
Applying the standards laid down in the cited precedents, the Court concluded that the established facts did not irresistibly point to the appellants’ guilt; rational hypotheses consistent with innocence remained.
Holding and Implications
Appeal ALLOWED – Conviction set aside; appellants to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Implications: The judgment reinforces the stringent requirements for conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence and underscores the need for precise compliance with Section 27 discovery procedures and medical corroboration. No new legal doctrine was created, but the decision reaffirms existing standards, ensuring that appellate courts carefully test each link before overturning an acquittal.
S.N Phukan, J.— This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24-1-1997 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No. 485 of 1993. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State by setting aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode Division dated 26-3-1993 in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1992.
2. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Mujeeb @ Mujeeb Rahman (A-1), Johnson (A-2) and Akbar (A-3) who were charged under Sections 302, 392, 201 and 120-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
3. The High Court as stated above allowed the appeal filed by the State and convicted all the three accused under the above sections. The present appeal has been filed only by two accused namely A-1 and A-3. A-2 is not before us.
4. The prosecution case was that on 30-3-1991 at about 11.30 a.m A-1 reached Koyilandy Taxi Stand, hired the tourist taxi (Ambassador car) driven by Balan of Thazha Valappil. A-1 went in that car to Ashar Lodge in Koyilandy where the other accused were staying and all of them proceeded in the car to Wynad and spent some time at Pookode Lake. Thereafter, they visited Thirunelli Temple and Mananthavadi. While they were returning to Thamarassery, it was alleged by the prosecution that soft drink “Fruity” mixed with sleeping pills was given to the driver Balan and also intoxicating liquor. After immobilising and removing him from the driver's seat, A-1 drove the car to Thamarassery and Eangampuzha. At about 11.30 p.m they strangulated the driver Balan with a thorthu and proceeded to Puthuppadi. They also took away a purse and watch from deceased Balan and with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence of murder and robbery they threw the dead body of the deceased at one kilometre west of the 9th point curve at Wynad Ghat Section. The accused took the car to Mysore and Bangalore and altered the registration number and also sold the watch and some other things of the deceased at Mysore and stayed there. They returned to Sultan's Battery and on 4-4-1991 in the evening they entrusted the car for service to an automobile workshop informing that they would take the car the next day morning. The owner of the workshop found that there was alteration of registration number of the car and getting suspicious he informed the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sultan's Battery. In the morning of 5-4-1991 the Sub-Inspector along with other police personnel came to the workshop in mufti and when the accused came to the workshop they were apprehended and taken to the police station.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. In the absence of direct evidence the prosecution tried to prove the case through circumstantial evidence.
7. When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must be cogently and firmly established. These circumstances should form a chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the same should be so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. If any link in the chain is missing the guilt of the accused cannot be established.
8. In Mohan Lal Pangasa v. State of U.P (1974) 4 SCC 607, AIR 1974 SC 1144 this Court held that it is trite law that when the evidence against an accused person, particularly when he is charged with a grave offence like murder, if it consists of only circumstances and not direct oral evidence, it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty; not fantastic possibilities nor freak inferences but rational deductions which reasonable minds make from the probative force of facts and circumstances.
9. In Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat (1978) 1 SCC 228, AIR 1978 SC 424, (1978) 2 SCR 471 this Court held that it is well settled that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution, must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. It was further held that in case of circumstantial evidence, the court will have to bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Any missing link may be fatal to the prosecution case.
10. Before we consider the other circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution we may at the outset take note of the fact that both the trial court and the High Court rejected the prosecution version of the story that the accused gave soft drink “Fruity” mixed with sleeping tablets and also intoxicating liquor in view of the evidence of the doctor and the chemical analysis report (Exh. P-25). Moreover, no evidence was on record to prove that intoxicating liquor was given to the deceased.
11. According to the prosecution on 29-3-1991 A-1 wanted to hire a taxi from the taxi stand to go to Wynad and he talked to PW 12 who was the driver of a tourist taxi and as A-1 wanted to visit places at Wynad and then return, PW 12 did not agree to undertake the trip. Thereafter the car was handed over to the deceased by PW 12 on 30-3-1991. On that date it was alleged by the prosecution that A-1 talked to the deceased and hired the taxi and drove away.
12. The trial court as well as the High Court disbelieved the above version of the prosecution story that A-1 approached PW 12 on 29-3-1991 and on the next day PW 3 saw A-1 talking to the deceased Balan for hiring the taxi. Both the courts below also did not accept the identification of A-1 by PW 12 in the belated test identification parade conducted by PW 35 and the evidence of PW 3 that he saw A-1 talking to the deceased at 11.30 a.m on 30-3-1991 as PW 3 did not disclose this fact to the investigating officer. We are of the opinion that both the courts below rightly discarded the above version of the prosecution story.
13. According to the prosecution the accused took the car driven by the deceased first to Pookode Lake in Wynad for boating. PW 31 was examined to prove this fact but he turned hostile. From the lake they went to the temple and PWs 4 and 29 who had gone to the temple saw the deceased and the car near the temple. The High Court took note of the fact that PWs 4 and 29 did not disclose this fact to the investigating officer and did not claim to have seen the accused. However, according to the High Court it was quite probable that the car went to the temple. But nobody saw the accused in the car or in the temple and therefore in our opinion this fact would not link the accused to the alleged crime.
14. Both the courts below also did not believe the story of the prosecution that the deceased along with the accused went to the shop of PW 33 for repair of the dynamo of the car who could not set it right and thereafter it was taken to an autoelectrician, PW 32. According to the courts below both PWs 32 and 33 could not have identified the accused. Moreover PW 32 became a hostile witness. The car was taken to PW 40 who was the owner of Excel Autos in Mananthavadi for purchasing diesel. According to the courts below the prosecution also could not prove this fact as PW 40 turned hostile.
15. Regarding the death by strangulation of the deceased while they were going from Mananthavadi towards Thamarassery the trial court did not accept this version of the story of the prosecution in view of the medical evidence. It is true that at the time of conducting autopsy the dead body was decomposed. PW 42 who conducted the autopsy clearly stated that during post-mortem he did not find any positive evidence of ligature strangulation. This witness gave the opinion that the possibility of death resulting from ligature strangulation as per police history can be ruled out.
16. The High Court held as follows:
“It is here the theory of strangulation with MO 14 found on the dead body became relevant and acceptable particularly in the context that the medical evidence did not totally rule it out as the case of death.”
17. We are of the opinion that the High Court erred in law in not giving a clear finding inasmuch as the medical evidence is clear. The evidence of the doctor that the possibility of death resulting from ligature strangulation as per police history could not be ruled out, is not a positive medical evidence to come to the conclusion that death was caused by strangulation.
18. We find from the impugned judgment that the High Court laid too much stress on the subsequent alleged conduct of the accused. According to the prosecution after dropping the dead body the accused went to Mysore and Bangalore in the same car and they stayed there till 3-4-1991. At Bangalore they stayed at Manjunatha Lodge which fact was sought to be proved by the prosecution by examining PW 15. The prosecution has led evidence to prove disposal of articles belonging to the deceased by the accused.
19. We find from the evidence of the investigating officer, PW 13 that the accused were taken to various places for the alleged recovery of the above articles. Though according to the investigating officer the recovery was made on the basis of the statement of the accused but we find from the evidence that actual words in verbatim leading to recovery were not recorded by the investigating officer. For example in case of the recovery PW 49 deposed in the following words:
“Thereafter, based on the statement of the same accused that he knows the person who runs a blade company and provision shop at Ambalavayal with whom he had pledged the gold bangles and that he could show the same place as led by the accused we reached the same place questioned the witness and recorded his evidence.”
20. In our opinion such a statement by the accused cannot be treated as statement of the accused leading to recovery. Moreover witnesses to the recoveries were co-drivers of the deceased residing far away at a distance of about 100 km. Therefore, such recoveries are not legally acceptable.
21. According to the prosecution on 4-4-1991 in the evening the accused entrusted the car for service to the automobile workshop informing that they would take the car the next day and while trying to do so they were apprehended by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sultan's Battery on 5-4-1991. From the evidence of PW 47, the Sub-Inspector who apprehended the accused persons, we find that this witness did not record the information given by the owner of the workshop and the fact that he apprehended the accused in the general diary of the police station. According to PW 47 these facts were recorded in his pocket notebook which was not proved. We are unable to accept the above version of the story of the prosecution, and therefore, hold that the High Court erred in law in accepting it.
22. On the following material circumstances the prosecution tried to bring home the charges against the accused namely: (i) A-1 hired the tourist taxi driven by deceased Balan; (ii) all the accused went in the car driven by deceased Balan to Wynad and spent some time at Pookode Lake and thereafter they visited Thirunelli temple and Mananthavadi; and (iii) while returning to Thamarassery the accused gave soft drink “Fruity” mixed with sleeping pills to deceased Balan and after immobilising and removing him from the driver's seat A-1 drove the car and the accused strangulated the driver Balan to death and thereafter proceeded to Puthuppadi.
23. Both the courts below did not accept the above circumstances except the fact that the High Court did not rule out the possibility of death of deceased Balan by strangulation which finding is not tenable in law as stated above.
24. The High Court giving considerable importance to the subsequent events of recovery of the vehicle from the service station, taking into custody of the accused by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sultan's Battery, recovery of articles belonging to the deceased and parts of the car, found the appellants guilty. We have already held that the prosecution has failed to prove the above circumstances. We hold that the High Court erred in law in not considering whether the circumstances proved, formed a complete chain. In this chain of circumstances the following links are missing namely — hiring of taxi driven by the deceased by A-1, visiting the lake and the temple by the accused in the taxi driven by the deceased, giving soft drink mixed with sleeping tablets, intoxicating liquor and death of the deceased due to strangulation. In view of the above missing links in the chain of circumstances we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused cogently and firmly. A reasonable person on the facts of this case cannot come to the conclusion that the accused were guilty. Taking into account the cumulative effect of all these circumstances and weighing them as an integrated whole we have no hesitation to come to the finding that the accused were not guilty.
25. For the reasons stated above we find merit in the present appeal and accordingly allow the same by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Both the appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in connection with any other offence.
Alert