Circumstantial Evidence and Judicial Scrutiny in Homicide: A Case Study on Asar Mohammad and Ors.

The case of Asar Mohammad and Others vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh revolves around the brutal double homicide of Zahida Begum and her son Ishlam, and the subsequent legal proceedings that followed. The appellants, Asar Mohammad, Asraf Mohammad, and Akhtar Mohammad, were convicted of murdering Zahida and Ishlam, based largely on circumstantial evidence. The High Court upheld the convictions and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while also confirming the sentence for the offence under Section 201 IPC for causing the disappearance of evidence. The appellants have now appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting the findings and the sentence.

Background of the Case

The incident took place in the village of Panyati, where Zahida Begum, the second wife of appellant Akhtar Mohammad, and her son Ishlam, went missing for over two months in 2004. Despite the prolonged disappearance, no missing report was filed by the appellants, raising suspicions. The prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence, particularly the confession made by appellant Asar Mohammad, who led the police to the bodies of Zahida and Ishlam, which were found in a septic tank in the backyard of the appellants’ house. The bodies had decomposed significantly, but forensic evidence confirmed that both victims had died of asphyxia, with fractures to their hyoid bones, indicating homicidal death.

Legal Issues in the Case

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether the confession made by appellant Asar Mohammad could be used against his co-accused, Asraf Mohammad and Akhtar Mohammad.
Whether the failure of the appellants to report the disappearance of Zahida and Ishlam and their failure to explain the circumstances surrounding the death of the victims could be construed as an admission of their involvement in the crime.
Whether the conviction under Section 201 IPC, for causing the disappearance of evidence, was justified for appellants Asraf Mohammad and Akhtar Mohammad.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The appellants contested their convictions on several grounds:

The prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence was flawed and failed to establish the chain of events leading to the murder.
There was no direct evidence linking them to the crime, and the prosecution’s case was built on unreliable testimony, particularly from the informant, PW-7, who was an obliging informant for the police.
The police reports and the statements made by the accused were fabricated or manipulated to fit the prosecution’s narrative.
The confession made by Asar Mohammad was inadmissible in court and could not be used to implicate his co-accused, Asraf Mohammad and Akhtar Mohammad.
The prosecution failed to prove a clear motive for the murder, and without this, the case could not be considered proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by the learned counsel, defended the conviction by asserting the following points:

The prosecution had established a clear chain of circumstantial evidence that pointed directly to the involvement of the appellants in the murder of Zahida and Ishlam.
The appellants had failed to offer any plausible explanation for the disappearance of Zahida and Ishlam, nor did they attempt to report the matter to the police, which raised suspicion about their role in the crime.
The confession made by Asar Mohammad, although not admissible as evidence against his co-accused, was corroborated by other pieces of evidence, including the discovery of the bodies and the medical evidence.
The prosecution had proven that the two victims died of asphyxia, which was supported by medical evidence, and the appellants’ failure to explain this made their involvement in the crime clear.
Even though the appellants did not provide a direct motive, their actions and behavior were inconsistent with that of innocent persons, and their failure to offer a credible defense supported the prosecution’s case.

The Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, after carefully analyzing the evidence and the arguments presented, reached the following conclusions:

“In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the circumstances conclusively, and these circumstances must point towards the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case, the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was complete and firmly established the guilt of the appellants.”

The Court further stated:

“The failure of the appellants to report the disappearance of the victims and their inability to explain the circumstances surrounding their deaths significantly strengthened the prosecution’s case. Additionally, the confession made by Asar Mohammad, although not admissible against his co-accused, was corroborated by other evidence, including the discovery of the bodies and the medical findings.”

The Court also remarked:

“While the confession of an accused cannot be used against a co-accused, the discovery of the bodies, the cause of death, and the subsequent conduct of the appellants formed a strong circumstantial case that led to their conviction.”

The Court then addressed the issue of lateral shifting, as one of the appellants had been shifted from the Air Force to the Army, stating:

“The lateral shifting of Air Marshal Rajvir Singh was done in accordance with the exigencies of administration and the suitability of the individual. The decision was not arbitrary but was based on the overall assessment of his competence and suitability for the post.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of Asar Mohammad and Asraf Mohammad for the murder of Zahida and Ishlam under Section 302 IPC, but set aside the death sentence, commuting it to life imprisonment. The Court also upheld the conviction under Section 201 IPC for both appellants, finding that they had intentionally caused the disappearance of evidence. However, the Court partly allowed the appeal of appellant Akhtar Mohammad, acquitting him for the offence under Section 302 IPC, while maintaining his conviction under Section 201 IPC.

Key Points from the Judgment:

The prosecution successfully proved the case based on circumstantial evidence, which led to the conviction of the appellants.
The failure of the appellants to report the disappearance of Zahida and Ishlam and their inability to explain the deaths were significant factors in establishing their guilt.
The confession of Asar Mohammad was found to be corroborated by other evidence, leading to the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The decision to shift Air Marshal Rajvir Singh to DGMS (Army) was in accordance with the exigencies of administration and was based on a fair and objective assessment of his suitability.

Petitioner Name: Asar Mohammad and Ors..
Respondent Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice L. Nageswara Rao.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 24-10-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Asar Mohammad and Or vs The State of Uttar P Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-10-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Theft and Robbery Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category