NDLI: Rukia Begum Vs. State of Karnataka

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Murder disappearance of evidence
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: s.302, 201 r.w. s.34 - Murder and causing disappearance of evidence - Strained relations between the victims and the accused party - Assault on the victims resulting in their death - Trial court acquitted 'R' and 'N' and two other accused holding that circumstances did not point guilt towards them - However convicted 'I' and 'M' holding that the circumstantial evidence i.e. motive, presence of blood, recoveries and abscondence immediately after the occurrence pointed towards their guilt - High Court set aside the acquittal of appellants 'R' and 'N' and also upheld the conviction of appellants 'I' and 'M' - On appeal, held: The circumstantial evidence against appellants 'R' and 'N' were not such which would lead towards their guilt - Trial court, on appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, so far as 'R' and 'N' were concerned - The view taken by trial court was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and a possible view and, therefore, High Court erred in setting aside their acquittal - However, case of appellants 'I' and 'M' stood on an a/together different footing - Trial court had held them guilty - There was overwhelming evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they shared the motive with other accused persons. Recovery of wheel and tyre of the motorcycle belonging to the victim and knife was made on the statements made by appellants 'I' and 'M' - These two appellants were not found at the normal place of their work and their abscondence was proved by the Manager of the firm where they were working. The trial court as also the High Court on the basis of the circumstantial evidence rightly came to the conclusion. that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt so far as 'I' and 'M' were concerned.Evidence: Circumstantial evidence - Held: For bringing home the guilt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, he prosecution has to establish that the circumstances proved lead to one and the only conclusion towards the guilt of the accused - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn are to be cogently and firmly established - It should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion, that the crime was committed by the accused and none else - It has to be considered within all human probability and not in fanciful manner - In order to sustain conviction, circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of any explanation than the guilt of the accused.Appeal against acquittal: Acquittal by trial court. Interference by High Court - Scope of - Held: Where two views on the evidence are reasonably possible and trial court has taken a view favouring acquittal, High Court in an appeal against acquittal should not disturb the same merely on the ground that if it was trying the case, it would have taken an alternative view and convicted the accused - High court while hearing appeal against the judgement of acquittal is possessed of all the power of appellate court and nothing prevents it to appraise evidence and come to a conclusion different than that of trial court but while doing so it shall bear in mind that presumption of innocence is further reinforced by acquittal of the accused by the trial court - The view of trial Judge as to the credibility of the witness must be given proper weight and consideration - There must be compelling and weighty reason for the High Court to come to than that of trial court.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 265
Petitioner	Rukia Begum
Respondent	State Of Karnataka
SCR	[2011] 4 S.C.R. 711
Judgement Date	2011-04-04
Case Number	1519

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Rukia Begum Vs. State of Karnataka

Please Log-in to view this content

G. Parshwanath Vs. State of Karnataka

Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka

P. Nagesh and Another Vs. State of Karnataka

Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Jaikam Khan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. Etc. Etc.

Prem Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Kalinga @ Kushal Vs. State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli

Mallikarjun and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

Rukia Begum Vs. State of Karnataka

Rukia Begum Vs. State of Karnataka

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

G. Parshwanath Vs. State of Karnataka

Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka

P. Nagesh and Another Vs. State of Karnataka

Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Jaikam Khan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. Etc. Etc.

Prem Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Kalinga @ Kushal Vs. State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli

Mallikarjun and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

Rukia Begum Vs. State of Karnataka