SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 718

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mohd. Zahid
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu
Decided on : July 20, 1999

Headnote:Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Appreciation of Evidence - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence by trial court conviction affirmed by High Court - Medico Legal expert expressing to opinions diametrically opposed to each other in text books - Much credence should not be given to the evidence Doctor, where Supreme Court finding medical evidence self contradictory - Deceased death not proved by prosecution to the homicidal-Reasonable doubt must be given to the accessed - Conviction set aside.

       (Paras 25, 26 & 28)

Judgment

SANTOSH HEGDE, J.

( 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


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top