Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Nazeer vs State (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 29 September 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 865
Judges: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld solely on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Nazeer @ Nazeer Mohammed vs. State Rep by Inspector of Police. The court examined whether the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was strong enough to link the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The bench comprised Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who delivered the unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Ravi, a car driver employed by PW-1 Kumar @ Marumaiyan. The prosecution argued that the accused, Nazeer, was responsible for Ravi’s death. There were no eyewitnesses to the murder. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence. The key pieces of evidence included:
✓ The accused and the deceased were in communication on the day of the incident.
✓ The accused and the deceased were seen together in the car.
✓ The accused’s driving license was found near the deceased’s body.
✓ The accused was later found to be in possession of the car and its stepney.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal, convicted the accused-appellant of the offences under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Trial Court’s decision. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with punishment for murder, and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender. The court also considered the principles of circumstantial evidence, which require that the chain of circumstances must be complete and point only to the guilt of the accused.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the circumstantial evidence was incomplete and did not conclusively prove his guilt.
• The ‘last seen’ evidence was weak, with the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6 being insufficient to establish his involvement.
• The recovery of the driving license near the dead body was suspicious, as the seizure mahazar lacked a seal from the jurisdictional court in Karnataka.
• The identification of the dead body by PW-10 based on photographs was unreliable, and there was no corroboration.
• The testimony of PW-7 Kalarani suggested that she spoke to the deceased on 05.09.2006, while the dead body was found on 04.09.2006, raising doubts about the identity of the deceased.
• The accused No. 2 in the case was given the benefit of doubt, and the same should have been extended to the appellant.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the prosecution had presented a complete chain of circumstances that linked the appellant to the murder.
• The mobile communication records between the appellant and the deceased on 02.09.2006, as established by PW-22 and Ex. P-29, were crucial.
• The doubts raised by PW-7’s testimony were clarified by her later statement that the call on 05.09.2006 was not from her brother.
• The recovery of the appellant’s driving license near the dead body was a significant piece of evidence.
• The identification of the dead body by PW-10 as that of Ravi was reliable.
• The appellant’s dealings with the car and its stepney after the victim’s death further implicated him.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the core question of whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or books. The court primarily relied on the established principles of law regarding circumstantial evidence.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court relied on the principles of circumstantial evidence to assess the completeness of the chain of circumstances.
• The court applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to determine the punishment for murder.
• The court applied Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to determine the punishment for causing disappearance of evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the strength of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The court emphasized the following points:

• The regular communication between the appellant and the deceased on the day of the incident.
• The fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant in the car.
• The recovery of the appellant’s driving license near the dead body.
• The identification of the dead body as that of the deceased by his brother.
• The appellant’s dealings with the car and its stepney after the death of the deceased.

The court found that these factors, when taken together, formed a complete chain of circumstances that pointed towards the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the minor discrepancies and doubts raised by the appellant as trivial and not sufficient to undermine the prosecution’s case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court stated:

“In an overall appreciation of evidence, it is but clear that the entire chain of circumstances is complete, starting from the deceased Ravi taking the vehicle of PW-1 on the pretext of receiving the guests at Bangalore; the appellant having been in connectivity with deceased Ravi on his mobile at the material time on the material date; the deceased having been found in the company of the appellant in the same car by PW-5 and PW-6; the driving licence of the appellant having been found near the dead body; the said dead body having been identified by PW-10 to be that of Ravi; and the appellant having been found dealing with the car in question and its stepney, as established by the testimony of PW-11 Chandru @ Chandrasekar and PW-16 Prabakar.”

The court further observed:

“When all the circumstances and factors are taken together, they lead to the result that the findings of fact as recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court are cogent findings and do not suffer from any such infirmity as to call for interference by this Court in this appeal.”

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

The court did not have a minority opinion, and the judgment was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete and points only towards the guilt of the accused.
• Mobile communication records can be crucial evidence in criminal cases.
• The recovery of personal belongings of the accused near the crime scene can be significant evidence.
• Identification of the deceased by a close relative based on photographs can be considered reliable evidence.
• The court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts unless there is a significant infirmity.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the established principle that a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete and points only towards the guilt of the accused. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the court can convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete and there is no other reasonable hypothesis.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, Nazeer, for the murder of Ravi. The court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment underscores the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases and reinforces the principle that a complete chain of circumstances can lead to a conviction even in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony.