On September 29,2022, the supreme court in a Division bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed that Factors of Trivial Nature do not take away the substance of the matter in a Criminal Case. (NAZEER @ NAZEER MOHAMMED v. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE)
Facts of the case:
The appellant on 20.01.2009 was convicted of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was awarded varying punishments, including the life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein, filed a criminal appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The HC found the entire chain of circumstances connecting the appellant with the killing of the victim Ravi, who was a driver on the car belonging to PW-1 Marumaiyan, hence, dismissing the appeal. The high court said that, “though, there had not been any eye-witness to the incident but, the Courts have found that the evidence led by the prosecution clearly established the connectivity of the appellant with the deceased with regular communications at the material point of time between them; and they having been seen together in the car in question. Moreover, the dead body was identified to be of the deceased Ravi by his brother PW-10 Meganathan with reference to the photographs; and the evidence established the dealings of the appellant with the car and its stepney after demise of the victim car driver Ravi and the driving licence of the victim was also recovered with the dead body”.
Contentions of the Appellant:
Contentions of the respondent:
The counsel for the respondent submitted that, “on 02.09.2006, in the morning and noon hours, precisely the date and time when the deceased had taken the vehicle of PW-1 on the pretext of receiving the guests of PW-2 at Bangalore, the appellant was regularly communicating with the deceased.” Learned counsel further pointed out that even the doubts as suggested with reference to the testimony of PW-7 stand quelled by the other part of her statement where she made it clear that later on, she could realise that the call made on 05.09.2006 from a different mobile number, was not from his brother Ravi (the deceased) but from some stranger.
Observations and judgement of the court:
The apex court observed that, “even when the prosecution has not examined the person who firstly informed about the location of dead body by way of his information Ex. P-1; and even if the Mahazar Ex. P-2 as such does not show the seal of jurisdictional Court in the State of Karnataka, these factors remain trivial in nature and do not take away the substance of the matter. It is 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.”
The appeal was dismissed and the judgement by the Trial Court and the High Court were upheld.
CASE: NAZEER @ NAZEER MOHAMMED v. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CITATION: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1216 OF 2011
BENCH: JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI AND JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
DATE: SEPTEMBER 29,2022
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.
0 Comments