IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vibha Kankanwadi, Y.G. Khobragade, JJ.
Syed Wahab - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2016
Decided On : 28-04-2023
MURDER - DOUBLE MURDER OF CHILDREN - Sec. 302 IPC, Sec. 25 Indian Evidence Act, Sec. 31, 427, 432-433-A CrPC - The court discussed the provisions of Sec. 302 of the IPC concerning murder, emphasizing the gravity of the crime of killing one's own children. It interpreted Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the inadmissibility of confessions made to police officers, while also considering the admissibility of conduct under Sec. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court analyzed the implications of Sec. 31 and 427 of the CrPC regarding consecutive versus concurrent sentences, ultimately deciding that consecutive life sentences are not permissible.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the double murder of his children, Mariya (4 years) and Syed Kaif (1.5 years), based on the testimony of the children's mother, who alleged that the accused had a motive rooted in his suspicion of her fidelity. The children were found dead with their throats slit shortly after being taken by the accused under the pretext of going to a circus.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution established a strong circumstantial case against the accused, despite the absence of direct eyewitnesses. The testimony of the mother and other witnesses, along with the circumstances surrounding the children's deaths, led to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of murder. The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to run concurrently.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the accused of murder, and whether the sentences for the two murders could run consecutively or concurrently.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the conduct of the accused and the timeline of events, established a clear link to the murders. It also concluded that consecutive life sentences are not permissible under the law, as a person can only serve one life sentence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but the order for consecutive sentences was modified to run concurrently.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. - Present appeal has been filed by the original accused who has been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar in Sessions Trial No.31/2013 on 31/8/2015, wherein he has been held guilty of committing offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code twice for committing murder of his daughter Mariya and son Syed Kaif. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.1, 000.00, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, for both the offences and both the sentences have been directed to be run consecutively.
2. The prosecution story, in short, is that informant Reshma Begam is the wife of present appellant - original accused. They got married about six years prior to 3/1/2013 i.e. the date on which the First Information Report was lodged. They were having daughter Mariya aged 4 and son Syed Kaif aged 1 1/2 on that day. Accused used to raise suspicion over her character and was of the impression that the children begotten to the wife are not from him. He used to assault and abuse the informant. Informant had told about the said ill-treatment to her father and brother as well as other relatives. They had tried to pacify accused but there was no positive response from the accused. The ill-treatment got intensified just prior to the First Information Report. Accused had come to Basmath around 7.30 a.m. on 3/1/2013 from Nanded through railway and told informant that he would leave her as well as children to the house of her father. He told that he does not require her and she should not return to his house. He quarreled with the informant. Her father-in-law Mir and mother-in-law Abedabee had pacified the accused and then accused told informant around 11.00 a.m. that he would take children to watch circus. He took the children on his motorcycle. Thereafter around 2.40 p.m. informant was told by police that her daughter and son have been killed near railway gate which was near Sai Mandir in Basmath. Therefore, informant along with her in-laws and other relatives went to the said place. They found that Mariya and Kaif's throat was slit by some sharp weapon. Informant says that as her husband used to raise suspicion over her character and used to give threat that he would kill the children, as they have not begotten from him, her husband has committed their murder. On the basis of said First Information Report offence vide Crime No.2/2013 came to be lodged with Basmath Police Station around 3.50 p.m. on 3/1/2013, for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further investigation was undertaken.
3. It is also the prosecution story that PW 1 Sheshrao Lakhade with PW 19 Police Inspector Mr. Surjerao Patil had gone to Bahirji College around 1.00 p.m. They were in the college up to 1.45 p.m. and thereafter they came out of the college campus in jeep. They found one person on motorcycle bearing MH-22-A-6586. It was noticed that the clothes of that person were blood stained and, therefore, PW 19 PI Mr. Surjerao Patil stopped him and made inquiry with him. He gave his name as Syed Wahab Syed Mir i.e. accused and also told about the incident. Thereafter, the fact was informed to the Police Station and further staff was called. Accused then took all of them to the spot i.e. by the side of railway track on Jawala Khandarban road. They saw two children on the ground, whose throats were cut. The blood had come out and those children were already dead, and the information was then sent to the house of accused to the relative and that is how PW 13 informant Reshma came to the spot.
4. During the course of the investigation the inquest panchnama of both the dead bodies was executed and it appears that prior to the lodging of First Information Report, Station Diary entry No.21 was taken around 1.45 p.m. and then the spot panchnama was executed between 3.10 to 3.50 p.m. Accused came to be arrested at 3.50 p.m. on 3/1/2013 and in pres
Consecutive life sentences for multiple murders are not permissible under Indian law, as a life sentence implies imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's life.
Direct eyewitness testimony sufficient for murder conviction under Section 302 IPC despite no motive; absence of motive not fatal if evidence reliable and conclusive.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
The burden of proof shifts to the accused to explain what happened to the deceased when the prosecution establishes that the deceased and the accused had left the house together and soon thereafter t....
The court established that procedural fairness, particularly the proper application of Sec. 313 of the CrPC and the judicious use of Sec. 154 of the Evidence Act, is crucial in ensuring a fair trial ....
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the need for conclusive proof, and the requirement to prove motive beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The importance of proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
It would always be open for prosecution to decide on quality and quantity of evidence that they wish to lead in order to establish charge and this Court cannot comment on such aspect of matter, as lo....
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.