Supreme Court Reportable judgment:
Case Name: Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. The State of Kerala
Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 498
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: November 5, 2024
Judges: Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Facts of the Case
1.Incident Overview: A woman’s body was discovered in a paddy field on August 17, 1989, leading to the registration of a case of unnatural death.
2.Deceased: Identified as Gouri, related to Accused No. 2, who often visited her house.
3.Prosecution Narrative: Alleged motive was an illicit relationship between the accused. The accused allegedly killed Gouri and disposed of her body.
4.Allegations: The main accused, Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer, was accused of murdering Gouri with a coconut scraper and disposing of the body.
5.Key Evidence: Circumstantial evidence included witness statements, recovery of articles, and medical reports.
6.Timeline: Gouri was last seen alive on the night of August 16, 1989, leaving Accused No. 2’s house.
7.Witness Accounts: Witnesses provided conflicting testimonies about the presence of the accused at the crime scene.
8.Prosecution Gaps: Recovery of evidence, including a blood-stained bag, was contested as fabricated or planted.
9.Chain of Circumstances: The prosecution failed to conclusively establish the accused’s guilt, with significant gaps in evidence.
10.Lower Court Judgments: The Sessions Court and High Court convicted the accused based on the circumstantial evidence.
Issues for Consideration
1.Was the conviction and sentence of the accused sustainable given the lack of direct evidence?
2.Did the prosecution prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as required for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence?
Arguments by Both Sides
•Defense Arguments:
•Insufficient evidence to establish the accused’s presence at the crime scene.
•Witnesses’ testimonies were inconsistent and unreliable.
•Circumstantial evidence did not conclusively point to guilt.
•Recovery of evidence was suspect and lacked corroboration.
•Prosecution Arguments:
•Established motive due to illicit relations.
•Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of articles and medical reports, pointed to guilt.
•Chain of events was sufficient to convict the accused.
Legal Principles and Case Laws
1.Circumstantial Evidence:
•The chain of circumstances must conclusively point to the accused’s guilt.
•Referenced Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 172], establishing the “Panchsheel Principles.”
2.Last Seen Theory:
•The time gap between the deceased being last seen with the accused and the discovery of the body must be minimal to rule out other possibilities.
•Referenced State of U.P. v. Satish [(2005) 3 SCC 114].
3.Benefit of Doubt:
•Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof.
•Referenced Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [(2003) 9 SCC 67].
Judgment:
•Verdict: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.
•Reasoning:
•The prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
•The chain of circumstances had significant gaps, and the evidence was unreliable.
•The benefit of doubt was given to the accused.
Judgement: admin_judgement_file_judgement_pdf_2024_volume 11_Part II_2024_11_498-509_1732526990
Bengali
Gujarati
Hindi
Malayalam
Marathi
Tamil
Telugu