REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1028 OF 2006
MOHD. USMAN MOHD. ISLAM SHAIKH
& ORS. .....Appellants
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .....Respondent
JUDGMENT
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
1. The facts leading to this appeal are as under:-
Deceased Noorjahan was married to appellant No.1-
Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh but no children had been
born to the couple. All the accused that is Mohd. Usman, his
mother and sisters were accordingly misbehaving with the
intention of forcing her to leave the house so that appellant
No.1 could re-marry. The relations between the accused and
the deceased had become strained on this account and there
were frequent quarrels between them.
On 28th April, 1997, a quarrel took place in the family on
this issue during which the deceased allegedly consented to
her husband’s second marriage provided she too was
permitted to stay on with him. This arrangement was,
however, not acceptable to the accused with the result that the
Crl. Appeal
No.1028/2006
quarrel continued late into the evening during which the
deceased was beaten which resulted in severe injuries to her
head. It is the prosecution case that thereafter the deceased
was murdered by first inserting a handkerchief into her mouth
to stifle her cries and suffocate her and she was then
strangulated and set on fire. The Fire Brigade received a
message about a fire on which it rushed to the house of the
accused and extinguished the flames. Information was also
conveyed to Kurla police station by one Suleman Patel about
the incident on which a police party immediately rushed to the
site. A complaint was, accordingly, lodged against all the four
accused and they were arrested and on the completion of the
investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences punishable
under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The accused claimed innocence and were brought
to trial.
The prosecution in support of its case relied on the
evidence of PW-5-Dr. Manohar Shivsharan, who had
performed the post-mortem, and had certified the cause of
death as “Asphyxial death due to throttling and gagging
associated with head injury and burns”. The doctor also
noticed contusions on the face, bleeding on the lips and
congestion of the throat and also recovered a handkerchief
that was deeply embedded in the mouth of the deceased
blocking the mouth opening. The doctor further opined that
the contusions could have been caused by blows given by a
Crl. Appeal
No.1028/2006
hard and blunt object and the injuries to the lips had been
caused while gagging the deceased.
The Trial Court noted that there were no eye-witnesses to
the defence but from the evidence of PWs.4, 6 and 8, it was
apparent that the relations between the accused and the
deceased had become strained because the deceased was
unable to give birth to a child and there were frequent quarrels
between them on that account. PW-6-Naseem Virani further
stated that on the date of the incident at about 1:30 p.m. or
2:00 p.m she had heard Hashmi Begum, the mother of the
accused, quarreling with the deceased in the presence of
accused Nos.3 and 4. PW-6 further stated that accused No.1
had also come to the house after a short while and the quarrel
had again erupted which continued till about 4:30 p.m. and
that she (PW-6) had thereafter left her house and when she
had returned at about 8:30 p.m., Noorjahan was dead.
The fact of the family quarrel was also confirmed by PW-
8-Sayyed Ali who further deposed that the accused were
beating the deceased and, thereafter Mohd. Usman had dealt
blows on her chest and stomach while his sisters had caught
hold of her by her hands. The trial Court also relied on the
statement of PSI-Avinash Bhamre (PW-9) who had recovered
certain items from the spot including a stove, a half burnt
kerosene plastic cannister containing two litres of kerosene oil,
and PW-10-PI Rajan Shrikant Gaikwad, the Investigating
Officer who had taken into possession the blood stained
Crl. Appeal
No.1028/2006
clothes of the accused when he had arrested them on the 30th
April, 1997.
The Trial Court, after examining the evidence, concluded
that in the light of the fact that as there were no kerosene oil
or blood stains on the accused-Hashmi Begum, the mother of
accused Nos.1, 3 and 4, there was some doubt as to her
presence. The court also found that no case under Section 201
of the Indian Penal Code was made out. The Trial Court,
however, convicted the other three accused of the offence
under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
them to imprisonment for life. This judgment has also been
confirmed by the High Court in an appeal.
2. The present matter arises as a result of the grant of
special leave by this Court.
3. Mr. Chetan Sharma, the learned senior counsel for the
appellants, has raised several arguments before us. It has
been submitted that in a case of a prosecution relying solely
on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the chain of
circumstances against the accused be complete leading to the
only hypothesis that the accused alone were guilty of the
offence alleged and no other conclusion could be drawn. He
has also pointed out that the evidence of the three witnesses
PWs-4, 6 and 8 who had come forward to support the
prosecution story, could not be believed as they being
Crl. Appeal
No.1028/2006
employed elsewhere had no cause to be present when the
quarrel had ensued on the fatal day and that in any case it
would have been difficult for them to have noticed as to what
was going on in the house of the accused on account of the
location of their houses vis-`-vis the house of the accused. It
has further been submitted that there was no evidence to
suggest that the relations between the parties were strained or
that Mohd. Usman, accused no.1, was keen to get married a
second time as the deceased was unable to bear him a child.
4. Mr. Sushil Karanjakar, the learned senior counsel for the
State of Maharashtra has, however, supported the judgment of
the courts below.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
very carefully gone through the record. We see from the
evidence that the deceased had met a homicidal death. This is
clear from the evidence of PW-5, the doctor who observed that
the death was due to Asphyxial throttling, head injuries and
burns. The doctor also observed that a ladies handkerchief
had been stuffed deep into the mouth of the deceased with the
result that the protrusion of the tongue which was a symptom
of throttling, was absent. The Doctor also opined that the
injuries on the head were sufficient to cause death and that all
the injuries when seen together clearly proved the case of
Crl. Appeal
No.1028/2006
prosecution that the deceased had been severely beaten before
being burnt and killed.
6. We must first notice that the incident happened in the
matrimonial home of accused no.1 and the deceased. We have
also carefully examined the evidence of PWs-4, 6 and 8 who
are absolutely independent witnesses. They categorically
stated that the relations between the accused and the
deceased were strained on account of the inability of the
deceased to bear a child and that the accused were anxious
that she should leave so that accused No.1 could re-marry.
The offer given by the deceased to the effect that she had no
objection to the remarriage provided she too was permitted to
stay in the same house was not accepted by the accused and
they thought it fit to get rid of her. A perusal of the evidence of
these witnesses reveals that they had been witnesses not only
to the frequent quarrels within the family but even to the very
bitter fight on the day in question which continued for almost
the whole afternoon and ultimately led to the murder. It has
come in the evidence that the deceased was a stout and
healthy woman, perhaps physically stronger than her
husband, and it is, therefore, obvious that accused nos. 3 and
4 were also required to lend a helping hand. We also see from
the Report of the Chemical Analyst that there were kerosene
residues and blood stains on the shirts of accused nos. 3 and
4, the sisters of the accused no.1. We are, therefore, of the
Crl. Appeal
No.1028/2006
opinion that the chain of circumstances envisaged for a
successful prosecution, are present in the case before us.
7. We, thus, find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly
dismissed.
……………………………..J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
……………………………..J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
OCTOBER 26, 2010
NEW DELHI.
