Supreme Court of India
KARAKKATTU MUHAMMED BASHEERversusTHE STATE OF KERALA
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 838
- Decided
- 5 November 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
A conviction cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Summary
The appellant, Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer, was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC for the murder of Gouri, based solely on circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The prosecution alleged an illicit relationship between the appellant and another accused, motive for the murder, and attempted to link the appellant to the crime through witness statements, recovered items, and a coconut scraper as the weapon. The Supreme Court examined whether the chain of circumstances was complete and unbroken, applying the established principles for convictions on circumstantial evidence. It found significant gaps: the victim had left the house before the appellant was allegedly seen entering, the key witnesses' identifications were uncertain, and the recovered bag and weapon were not shown in the presence of independent witnesses. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the appellant's acquittal.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the chain of circumstances is incomplete.
- Whether the prosecution proved the appellant's presence at the scene and his participation in the murder beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the recovered items (bag, blood‑stained clothes, coconut scraper) can be reliably linked to the appellant.
- Whether the principles governing circumstantial evidence, as laid down in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., were satisfied.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 34
Subjects
MurderCircumstantial evidenceMotiveIllicit relationChain of circumstancesStatement of witnessesPresence of victim and accusedRecovery of bag and articlesDiscovery of blood stained clothesBeyond reasonable doubt
Judgment
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 498 : 2024 INSC 838
Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer
v.
The State of Kerala
(Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2023)
05 November 2024
[Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue as regards sustainability of the order of conviction and
sentence of the accused, when the case not proved beyond
reasonable doubt against the accused.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 201 – Murder – Circumstantial
evidence – Main accused convicted and sentenced u/ss. 302,
201 for murder of one lady during night, at the house of other
accused – Other accused convicted and sentenced u/s. 201 –
Prosecution case that motive for murder was illicit relation
between the two accused – Order of conviction and sentence
upheld by the High Court – Sustainability:
Held: When the evidence, as presented by the prosecution is
tested upon the anvil of the principles and parameters laid down,
the prosecution miserably failed to indicate the involvement of
the appellant in the commission of the offence, for which he
was charged – Chain of circumstances as regards statement
of witnesses, presence of victim and the accused, recovery of
bag and articles; discovery of blood stains, blood stained clothes
and coconut scrapper used for murder, which were being sought
to be projected by the prosecution to be complete has glaring
holes and significant gaps, which leads to the conclusion that the
prosecution failed in its endeavour of bringing home the guilt against
the appellant – Thus, the case having not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt against the appellant, the impugned judgments
cannot sustained and are set aside. [Paras 20-28]
Case Law Cited
Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Another v. State of A.P.
[2006] 3 SCR 348 : (2006) 10 SCC 172 – referred to.
* Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 499
Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. The State of Kerala
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Murder; Circumstantial evidence; Motive; Illicit relation; Chain of
circumstances; Statement of witnesses; Presence of victim and
accused; Recovery of bag and articles; Discovery of blood stained
clothes; Beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 291
of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.1996 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRLA No. 679 of 1993
Appearances for Parties
Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Adv., Dr. Linto K.B., Tom Joseph, Dinny Thomas,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Mrs. Ashly Harshad,
Farhad Tehmu Marolia, Amar Nath Singh, Shivam Sai, Advs. for
the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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 the house of Accused No. 02. The sentence included
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-
500 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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. 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 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 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
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 501
Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. The State of Kerala
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
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 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 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.
502 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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
1 [2006] 3 SCR 348 : (2006) 10 SCC 172
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 503
Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. The State of Kerala
and the circumstances so 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 the 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
504 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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 prosecution aimed at establishing the
guilt of the Appellant and Accused No. 02.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 505
Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. The State of Kerala
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 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 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 possession and presence,
recovery of a bag allegedly belonging to the Appellant was made
506 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 507
Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. The State of Kerala
is 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. 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 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
508 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
whereas, as per the 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 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, 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,
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 509
Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. The State of Kerala
someone would have most likely seen him on the way, especially
when there was a 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 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.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Murder"Sign in to search