NDLI: Basheera Begam Vs. Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Criminal Law Circumstantial Evidence Prosecution Penal Code
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B & s.302 r/w s.34 – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Case of prosecution that D2 (son of A4) and D1 (nephew of A3) were friends – Brother of A3 & A4 and uncle of D2, who lived in Malaysia, had properties in India, which were managed by A3 – Enmity arose between A3 & D2 after the aforesaid brother took back properties from A3 and entrusted D2 with their management– D2’s demand for partition of family properties held and/or controlled by A4 gave rise to property disputes between D2, his brother (A1) and their father (A4) – As per prosecution, the accused booked a room at a Hotel on 21.6.90, where they hatched conspiracy to kill D2 – A1 purchased a lorry on or about 20/21.12.90 – On 28.12.90, A1 hit the motor cycle on which D2 & D1 were riding, with his lorry – A2 & A7 got off the lorry and attacked D2 & D1, who had fallen from their motor cycle, with iron rods and caused their death– All the accused (A1-A8) were convicted u/s.120B– A1, A2 & A7 were also convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34 – High Court acquitted all the accused persons – Held: Prosecution has only been able to conclusively establish that on 28.12.90 at around 8.30 p.m., D2 rode motorcycle owned by A4 with D1 on pillion – Two were seen lying dead on road, in a pool of blood and their motorcycle lying close by – Prosecution miserably failed to prove that D2 & D1 were beaten to death with rods by A2 & A7 – It was also not able to rule out the possibility of D1 & D2 being killed in a ‘hit and run’ accident involving some unknown vehicle – There are inherent improbabilities and inconsistencies in evidence – It is not the case of prosecution that the accused had any motive to kill D1– There was no eyewitness to the incident – It would be preposterous to attribute the purchase of the lorry to the sinister motive of murdering D2 – To establish motive for murder, the prosecution tried to build up a case of enmity between A3 & D2 and also of disputes between A1, A3 & D2 – Property disputes amongst family members is not uncommon – There may also be quarrels between them however, to attribute motive to a father to plot the murder of his own son, there have to be more compelling reasons – Prosecution failed to prove that there was any conspiracy to kill D2 at the hotel or anywhere else – When there is circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime – However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence – In this case, there is no direct evidence – Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt – High Court rightly acquitted the accused – Code of Criminal Procedure – ss.161, 313 – Constitution of India – Art.136.Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Suspicion however strong cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt – Burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution – If upon analysis of evidence two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred – When there is circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime – However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence.
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 116
Petitioner	Basheera Begam
Respondent	Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors.
SCR	[2020] 3 S.C.R. 562
Judgement Date	2020-01-31
Case Number	417

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

Basheera Begam Vs. Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar

Khim Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Jaharlal Das Vs. State of Orissa

Shaikh Sattar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Manivel & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Nizam & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Rishipal Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Basheera Begam Vs. Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors.

Basheera Begam Vs. Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar

Khim Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Jaharlal Das Vs. State of Orissa

Shaikh Sattar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Manivel & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Nizam & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Rishipal Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Basheera Begam Vs. Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors.