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

2013 Supreme(Bom) 741

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
P. D. KODE, V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
Abbasali Khajbhai Sayyad
Vs
The State of Maharashtra
Decided on: 2-4-2013

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300 - Conviction for murder. - Since non-explanation of circumstances by accused under which deceased died, leads to sole conclusion that accused was perpetrator of crime hence conviction of accused under Section 300, IPC just and proper. - Though Court finds some substance in the submission canvassed that in a case involving the evidence of circumstantial nature, non-explanation on part of the culprit assumes importance only in event of said circumstances within themselves forming a complete chain leading to sole inference of the guilt of the said culprit and otherwise the said non-explanation being inconsequential due to the right of silence conferred upon the culprit by the Constitution, still Court finds that the same would not be of any advantage to the appellant in the instant case.

       The APP was very much right in submitting that all the said facets denote that the crime in question was committed with planning against the hapless victim leaving them no opportunity to escape. Thus the APP was further right in submitting that the act on part of the appellant, which has led to the death of both the deceased as established by the evidence of PW 3 would be squarely covered by Section 300 of the IPC as the said act would not be covered by any of the Exception provided to said section. In the criminal cases intent of culprit has to be decided by taking into consideration all relevant circumstances connected with it and also inclusive of the results ensued. Hence, the result ensued in the instant case, the absence of evidence of there being quarrel and/or sudden fact and/or pre-meditation on part of the wife and daughter clearly denotes that the appellant was intending to cause the death of his wife and daughter. Having regard to the same, Court does not find any substance in the submission canvassed that the offence occurred at the hands of the appellant would not transcend beyond the offence under Section 304, part-I of IPC.

       

JUDGMENT

KODE P.D, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the learned Vth Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur, convicting the appellant for committing the murder of his wife Najma Abbasali Sayyad and daughter Anjum Abbasali Sayyad on 29th September, 2005 at about 3.00 hours in the house of his brother-in-law PW9 Hassan Shaikh by inflicting blows of stone on their head and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. According to prosecution, the appellant after his marriage with Najma, daughter of PW2 Gulab Babu Gadiwan resident of Limbichincholi, Solapur, in the year 2001 was residing alongwith Najma and his parents at Swagat Nagar, Solapur. A daughter Anjum was born out of said wedlock. After happy married life for two years, the appellant started quarreling with Najma and beating her due to suspicion about her character. 2.1 About 1 and ½ years prior to occurring of the incident, i.e., 29th September; the appellant left Najma and Anjum at the house of PW2 and went to Haider by assuring to return immediately, but did not return. Najma since then resided with PW2. The whereabouts of the appellant were not known for a period of about 1 and ½ years. 2.2 About 8 days prior to the incident, PW2 learnt about return of the appellant at Mohol. PW2 went to Mohol and brought the appellant to his house at Limbichincholi. He also called parents of the appellant, and maternal uncle of the appellant Hasanbahi resident of Rampur and the appellant in presence of said persons assured that he would properly treat Najma and would not suspect about her character. Najma was sent alongwith the appellant at his house at Rampur. Thereafter the appellant alongwith his wife Najma and daughter resided in a room at rear side of the house of his sister Jamalbi Hasan Shaikh, wife of PW9 Hasan Shaikh at Rampur. 2.3 According the prosecution, in intervening night of 28th and 29th September, the appellant alongwith his wife and daughter was sleeping in a room at the rear side of the house of PW9. The daughter of PW9 by name Shabana was sleeping in the room at front side while PW9 was sleeping in courtyard. At about 3.00 hours, PW9 heard a noise “Dhap Dhap'. He awoke and knocked the door of a room in which the appellant was sleeping. However, the appellant was not ready to open the door. Hence, PW9 sent his daughter Shabana in the said room through window. Shabana opened the door and PW9 entered in the room. He found that the appellant was standing near the corpses of Najma and Anjum. Both of them had sustained bleeding injuries. A pata-grinding stone was seen nearby them. 2.4 The people gathered at the said place due to hue and cry raised by PW9 and his children. The police Patil of Rampur informed about the happenings to PW11 API Laxman Borate of Valsang Police Station. The said police patil and one of his relative also went to the house of PW2 at about 5.30 a.m. and informed them about the incident occurred. PW2 alongwith them and the other villagers rushed to the spot and noticed his daughter and grand-daughter lying in injured dead condition in the room where they were sleeping. The oral report (Exh.18) lodged by PW2 regarding commission of the murder of wife and daughter by the appellant was reduced in to writing by PW11 on the spot. 2.5 PW11 registered the crime No.86 of 2005 thereon for the offence of murder against the appellant. PW11 arrested the appellant present at the spot and carried out the investigation in the crime, which included drawing of inquest panchanamas of dead bodies (Exh.31 and 32) in presence of panch PW6 Shrimant Kondiba Gaikwad and others, drawing of spot panchanama (Exh.16) and seizure of the articles and sealing the same at the spot in presence of panch PW-1 Tukaram Dilpake and one another, seizure of the bloodstained shirt of the appellant in presen

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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