IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. Gadkari, Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.
Nabi Hasan Noor Hasan Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 821 of 2015 with Interim Application No. 2784 of 2022
Decided On : 28-09-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction - Section 302 IPC - Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. - [STRANGULATION] - [CRIMINAL LAW] - [Section 302 IPC, Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the 'last seen together' and 'motive' theories supported by circumstantial evidence, extra judicial confession, and medical evidence. The Supreme Court's interpretations of the 'last seen together' theory and the principles for convicting based on circumstantial evidence were considered. The chain of circumstances was found conclusive, leading to the affirmation of the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant convicted for strangulating and committing culpable homicide amounting to murder of his wife. Prosecution relied on 'last seen together' and 'motive' theories supported by circumstantial evidence, extra judicial confession, and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the chain of circumstances conclusive, upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence and the interpretations of the 'last seen together' theory by the Supreme Court.
Issues: Circumstantial evidence, 'last seen together' theory, motive, burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The chain of circumstances must be conclusive to sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The 'last seen together' theory applies even with a time gap if supported by other evidence. The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act lies with the accused for facts exclusively within their knowledge.
Final Decision: Criminal Appeal No.821 of 2015 dismissed, upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
JUDGMENT
Milind N. Jadhav, J. - This Appeal challenges the Judgment and order dated 05.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') in Session case No.62 of 2011 convicting Appellant under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. Appellant stands convicted for strangulating and committing culpable homicide amounting to murder of his 19 year old wife Santoshi (deceased) in the night of 28.10.2012.
3. Prosecution case in brief is thus:
3.1. Appellant got married to Santoshi one year prior to the incident. He was a hawker. After marriage both resided in a hutment near Moinia Masjid, Malwani, Malad along with Appellant's two brothers and their spouses. According to prosecution, Appellant was addicted to vices and used to quarrel with her. A few months before the incident Appellant assaulted Santoshi and injured her left hand. Santoshi was treated in Rajawadi hospital. Appellant sought forgiveness from PW-1 - First Informant/mother of Santoshi and tendered apology for his behavior. Hence PW-1 did not lodge any complaint against him. Two days before incident, on 26.12.2010, Santoshi reached PW-1's house situated nearby in Bismillah Chawl near Moiniya Masjid, Malwani, Malad and informed her that Appellant had assaulted her severely under the influence of alcohol. Santoshi stayed in PW-1's house for the next two days and did not return back to Appellant's house.
3.2. On 28.10.2012, at around 8:00 p.m. Appellant visited PW-1's house and requested her and other family members present, to send Santoshi back to her matrimonial house, assuring them that he would treat her properly. On his assurances PW-1 sent Santoshi back with him.
3.3. Santoshi's dead body was discovered lying in a nearby forest area by local people at about 07:30 a.m. on the following morning. PW-10, first Investigating Officer (for short 'I.O.'), received a phone call about spotting of a dead body at about 8:20 a.m. in the morning of 29.10.2012. He reached the spot of incident, 300 feet away Moiniya Masjid along with PW-1 and PW-9 (photographer).
3.4. PW-1 and PW-10 along with other persons gathered at the spot and saw that Santoshi's neck was strangulated with her dupatta, her tongue had protruded outside her mouth and her nostrils were bleeding.
3.5. PW-10 conducted Spot cum Inquest panchanama (Exh.33) in the presence of PW-8, pancha witness. PW-6 Dr. Maurya, was summoned to the spot and after examining Santoshi at around 9:15 a.m. declared her dead. He issued the death certificate (Exh.30). Santoshi's body was sent to the hospital for autopsy. PW-5 conducted autopsy and prepared postmortem Report (Exh.15). Articles and samples collected from the spot were sealed and sent for obtaining Chemical Analyzer's report, CA Reports were received (Exh.25 to Exh.28) and prove in evidence. The 'dupatta' found strangulated around Santoshi's neck was recovered and seized and marked as article A. PW-5 in the PM Report has opined the cause of death being asphyxia due to strangulation (unnatural). He has notified the following injuries in the PM Report (Exh.15):-
External injuries:
1) Total neck circumference of at mid thyroid level is 28 cm.;
2) Evidence ligature mark over neck, anteriorly it is horizontal 6 cm. vertically below tip of chin. It is continuous and passes on both the side of neck laterally and horizontally encircling complete neck 6 cm below left year lobule and 7 cm below right ear lobule respectively. Posteriorly it is 3 cm below posterior hair line, ligature mark is more prominent on anterior aspect and faint on posterior aspect of neck. Ligature mark is 28 cm long and 2 cm wide. It is reddish colored.;
3) Both side superior horn of thyroid cartilage ruptur
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Ors. v/s State of Gujrat and Ors.
The chain of circumstances must be conclusive to sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act lies with the accused for ....
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proving the chain of circumstances in a case based on circumstantial evidence, and the consideration of the accused's conduct i....
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the application of the Last Seen Together Theory were central to the judgment. The court emphasized the need fo....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.