Back
2009(4) Supreme 429
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Shaikh Maqsood — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 690 of 2008)
Decided on : 04-05-2009
AIR 1953 SC 468 – Relied upon.
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – The provisions must be observed faithfully – The accused must be questioned separately about each material substance which is intended to be used against him. (Para 9)
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – No question was put to the accused which could establish that he was the author of the crime – Therefore, conviction cannot be maintained. (Para 10)
Facts of the case :
1. The appellant was married to Shaheeb Begum (the ‘deceased’) in the year 1994.
2. The appellant used to ill-treat her on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
3. On 22-10-2000 at 03.00 hours the appellant informed his father-in-law that Shaheen died due to burns.
4. Trial court found that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to hold him guilty.
5. In appeal the stand that the circumstances do not present a complete chain to warrant his conviction was rejected.
6. High Court upheld the conviction.
Finding of the Court :
Provisions of section 313 not having been observed faithfully, conviction cannot be maintained.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) as recorded by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, Maharashtra. Appellant faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 498 A, 304(B) and 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife Shaheen Begum (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’). Trial court acquitted the appellant of the charges relatable to Sections 498A and 304B while recording conviction under Section 302 IPC.
3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
The appellant was married to Shaheeb Begum (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in the year 1994. She was resident of Degloor. After marriage she started residing with her husband at village Hanegon for some period. But they shifted to Degloor and started residing in Line Galli Degloor, District Nanded. The appellant used to ill-treat her on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. He was threatening her that he would undergo a second marriage. The financial position of the parents of Shaheen was weak and they could not satisfy the demands of the appellant and she was subjected to ill-treatment by the appellant.
On 22-10-2000 at 03.00 hours the appellant informed his father-in-law that Shaheen died due to burns. Thereafter the father-in-law and other family members went to the house of the appellant. There they noticed that Shaheen Begum was lying on the ground and was dead. Appellant had poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and set her on fire. Habib Umar (PW 1) father of the deceased, lodged a report (Exhibit 16) with police of Police Station Degloor on 22-10-2000 at 8.30 a.m. The complaint was registered at Crime No.120/2000 under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC. PW 5 Assistant Police Inspector Anandrao Badare proceeded to the spot. Spot panchanama (Exhibit 20) and Inquest panchanama of the dead body (Exhibit 21) were prepared. Five articles were seized from the place of occurrence and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The investigating officer recorded statements of five persons on 22-10-2000 and arrested the appellant. He recorded statements of 16 persons on 23-10-2000 and of 6 persons on 8th November 2000. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis examination. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed on 28.2.2001.
After committal of the case to the Sessions Court charge was framed at Exh.8 on 18th March, 2004 under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to further prosecution version, six witnesses were examined. The appellant examined himself and also examined three witnesses to prove his innocence. Trial court found that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to hold him guilty.
In appeal the stand that the circumstances do not present a complete chain to warrant his conviction was rejected.
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Sections 304B and 302 are conceptually different. In any event in the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) no question was asked even remotely regarding existence of any material to hold the appellant guilty.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent State on the other hand submitted that the circumstances show that the deceased died due to 80% burn and the death was homicidal has been established as also role of accused and, therefore, the conviction as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity.
6. The purpose of Section 313 of the Code is set out in its opening words- ‘for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circu
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
