Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ
Mohd. Zahid
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu
Decided on July 20, 1999
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302, INDIAN PENAL CODE - EVIDENCE - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - POST-MORTEM REPORT - INTERPRETATION - REASONABLE DOUBT - BENEFIT OF DOUBT - CONVICTION OVERTURNED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife, Jabeena, by strangulation and burning. The prosecution's case was based primarily on the post-mortem report, which indicated that Jabeena died of asphyxia and cerebral anoxia caused by compression of the neck and burns. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the post-mortem report was unreliable due to the advanced decomposition of the body and that there was a reasonable doubt as to the cause of death.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the post-mortem report was indeed unreliable due to the advanced decomposition of the body. The Court also found that there was a reasonable doubt as to the cause of death, as the medical evidence did not conclusively establish that Jabeena's death was homicidal. The Court further found that the prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence that was not sufficient to convict the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the post-mortem report was reliable. 2. Whether there was a reasonable doubt as to the cause of death. 3. Whether the prosecution's case was sufficient to convict the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the post-mortem report was unreliable due to the advanced decomposition of the body. The Court noted that the body had been buried for nearly 8 days before the post-mortem was conducted, and that the medical examiner had admitted that the decomposition had made it difficult to determine the cause of death. 2. The Court held that there was a reasonable doubt as to the cause of death. The Court noted that the medical examiner had identified two possible causes of death: asphyxia and cerebral anoxia. However, the Court found that the medical examiner's opinion was based on circumstantial evidence that was not conclusive. The Court also noted that the medical examiner had admitted that she could not rule out the possibility that the injuries to Jabeena's neck were caused by decomposition rather than strangulation. 3. The Court held that the prosecution's case was not sufficient to convict the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the prosecution's case was based primarily on circumstantial evidence, and that there was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The Court also noted that the appellant had an alibi for the time of the murder.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the appellant to be released.
( 1 ) THE appellant in the above appeal was charged with an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code before the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Madras in S. C. No. 83/86 who found him guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. His appeal before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1054 of 1986 came to be dismissed and he is now in appeal before us by special leave.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case stated briefly against the appellant is that he was married to one Jabeena on 29/01/1984 and after the marriage for some time they resided in an independent house. In the year 1985, Jabeena gave birth to a male child in her parents house and thereafter the appellant came to live in the house of his father-in-law Mohd. Ahamed (PW-1) in the house bearing Door No. 22, 11th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Madras. The said house contained one bed room in the ground floor which was occupied by PW-1s elder daughter and her husband. Out of the four bed rooms on the first floor, one bed room was occupied by PW-1 and his wife, the second bed room next to that was occupied by the appellant and Jabeena with their child, the third bed room was occupied by two unmarried sons of PW-1 and the fourth bed room was lying vacant.
( 3 ) ON 27-12-1985 at about 6. 00 a. m. the wife of PW-1, by name Maliga Ahamed, (PW-3) heard the continuous cries of Jabeenas child, hence, she came to the room of the appellant and knocked on the door of the room. It is alleged that the appellant got up and opened the door and on being asked by PW-3, he gave the child to her and closed the door of his room. A short while after, it is stated that the appellant shouted for PW-3 who went to the room of the appellant, when the appellant pointed out to PW-3 the bathroom where Jabeena was found lying with the upper part of her body having become black on account of burning. The appellant is supposed to have told her that Jabeena suffered the burns while heating the water on the stove.
( 4 ) THE further case of the prosecution is that on hearing the cries of PW-3, PW-1 came to the said room and he also found Jabeena lying on the floor and when he tried to find her pulse, he found her to be dead. Immediately, thereafter the family tried to call a Doctor by name Dr. Aziz Rehman over the phone but he was not available. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on the persuation of the appellant, Jabeena was given a bath by her mother PW-3 and her eldest sister, Abeeda Altaf (PW-4) during which time the appellant was found cleaning the bed and changing the bed-sheet.
( 5 ) IT is contended by the prosecution, thereafter, PW-1 along with his friend Syed Asim went to Kumaran Nagar Police Station and gave a report which is marked as Ex. P-1. On the basis of the said report the Officer-incharge of the said Police Station who has been examined as PW-10 registered a Crime No. 981/85 under Section 174 of the Cr. P. C. PW-10 then sent the necessary report to the concerned authorities. On coming to know of the incident, the Inspector of Police PW-11 took up the investigation and reached the scene of occurrence about 9. 50 a. m. and prepared an observation Mahazar and scene sketch as per Exs. P-18 and 19. PW-11 thereafter held the inquest of the dead body of Jabeena (Ext. P-20) and seized MOs 1 to 4 and 7 to 10.
( 6 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that on a request made by PW-1, the father of Jabeena, who believed that Jabeena had died due to an accident no post-mortem was conducted and hence PW-11 released the body of Jabeena to PW-1. On that very day Jabeenas body was buried in the Ameerunnissa Begum Muslim Burial ground.
( 7 ) THE prosecution further states that as per the religious custom, the third day rites of the deceased were conducted. After these rituals, it is alleged that the appellant left the house of PW-1 and went away to his parental house taking all his belongings with him.
( 8 ) THE prosecution further alleg
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
