{"id":55167,"date":"1999-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999"},"modified":"2016-01-24T05:00:37","modified_gmt":"2016-01-23T23:30:37","slug":"mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999","title":{"rendered":"Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, G.B.Pattanaik<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHD.ZAHID\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t20\/07\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nN.Santosh Hegde, G.B.Pattanaik\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\tJ U D G M  E N T
\nSANTOSH HEGDE, J.\n<\/p>\n
      The  appellant in the above appeal was charged with an
\noffence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.  before the VIth
\nAdditional  Sessions  Judge, Madras in S.C.  No.  83\/86\t who
\nfound  him  guilty of the said offence and sentenced him  to
\nundergo\t imprisonment  for  life.   His\t appeal\t before\t the
\nDivision  Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal  Appeal
\nNo.   1054  of\t1986 came to be dismissed and he is  now  in
\nappeal\tbefore\tus by special leave.  The  prosecution\tcase
\nstated\tbriefly against the appellant is that he was married
\nto  one Jabeena on 29th January, 1984 and after the marriage
\nfor  some time they resided in an independent house.  In the
\nyear 1985, Jabeena gave birth to a male child in her parents
\nhouse and thereafter the appellant came to live in the house
\nof  his\t father -in- law Mohd.\tAhamed (PW-1) in  the  house
\nbearing\t Door No.22, 11th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Madras.\t The
\nsaid  house contained one bed room in the ground floor which
\nwas  occupied by PW-1’s elder daughter and her husband.\t Out
\nof  the four bed rooms on the first floor, one bed room\t was
\noccupied  by PW-1 and his wife, the second bed room next  to
\nthat  was  occupied by the appellant and Jabeena with  their
\nchild, the third bed room was occupied by two unmarried sons
\nof PW-1 and the fourth bed room was lying vacant.\n<\/p>\n
      On 27.12.1985 at about 6.00 a.m.\tthe wife of PW 1, by
\nname  Maliga  Ahamed, (PW-3) heard the continuous  cries  of
\nJabeena’s  child,  hence,  she\tcame  to  the  room  of\t the
\nappellant  and\tknocked\t on  the door of the  room.   It  is
\nalleged that the appellant got up and opened the door and on
\nbeing asked by PW-3, he gave the child to her and closed the
\ndoor  of  his room.  A short while after, it is stated\tthat
\nthe  appellant shouted for PW-3 who went to the room of\t the
\nappellant,  when  the  appellant  pointed out  to  PW-3\t the
\nbathroom  where Jabeena was found lying with the upper\tpart
\nof  her body having become black on account of burning.\t The
\nappellant is supposed to have told her that Jabeena suffered
\nthe burns while heating the water on the stove.\t The further
\ncase  of the prosecution is that on hearing the cries of  PW
\n3,  PW\t1  came to the said room and he also  found  Jabeena
\nlying  on the floor and when he tried to find her pulse,  he
\nfound  her  to be dead.\t Immediately, thereafter the  family
\ntried to call a Doctor by name Dr.Aziz Rehman over the phone
\nbut  he\t was  not available.  It is further alleged  by\t the
\nprosecution that on the persuasion of the appellant, Jabeena
\nwas  given a bath by her mother PW 3 and her eldest  sister,
\nAbeeda\tAltaf  (PW-4)  during which time the  appellant\t was
\nfound  cleaning\t the bed and changing the bed-sheet.  It  is
\ncontended  by  the prosecution, thereafter, PW 1 along\twith
\nhis  friend Syed Asim went to Kumaran Nagar, Police  Station
\nand gave a report which is marked as Ex.  P.1.\tOn the basis
\nof  the said report the Officer In-charge of the said Police
\nStation\t who  has been examined as PW 10 registered a  Crime
\nNo.   981\/85 under Section 174 of the Cr.  P.C.\t PW-10\tthen
\nsent  the necessary report to the concerned authorities.  On
\ncoming\tto know of the incident, the Inspector of Police  PW
\n11  took  up  the  investigation and reached  the  scene  of
\noccurrence  about  9.50\t a.m.  and prepared  an\t observation
\nMagazar\t and  scene  sketch as per Ex.P-18 and\t19.   PW  11
\nthereafter  held  the  inquest of the dead body\t of  Jabeena
\n(Ext.P-20)  and\t seized MO’s 1 to 4 and 7 to 10.  It is\t the
\ncase  of the prosecution that on a request made by PW 1, the
\nfather of Jabeena, who believed that Jabeena had died due to
\nan  accident  no post-mortem was conducted and\thence  PW-11
\nreleased  the  body  of Jabeen to PW-.1.  On that  very\t day
\nJabeena’s body was buried in the Ammeeerunnissa Begum Muslim
\nBurial\tground.\t The prosecution further states that as\t per
\nthe  religious\tcustom, the third day rites of the  deceased
\nwere conducted.\t After these rituals, it is alleged that the
\nappellant  left\t the  house  of PW-1 and went  away  to\t his
\nparental  house\t taking\t all his belongings with  him.\t The
\nprosecution  further  alleges  that  the  behaviour  of\t the
\nappellant  during the third day rites was very peculiar\t and
\nwas  not  consistent with that of a caring husband.  It\t was
\nalso  stated that the relatives who attended the last  rites
\nas  well  as the third day ceremony were not convinced\tthat
\nJabeena\t had died due to an accident .\tThrough the evidence
\nof  PWs.1  to 7 prosecution then alleges that the  appellant
\nhad  earlier  demanded money for the purchase of  a  scooter
\nwhich  was not given by PW-1, and that his relationship with
\nJabeena was not very cordial because of his perverted sexual
\nhabits\tand also that the appellant was angry the day before
\nthe  death  due to the fact that he was not told  about\t the
\nvisit  of the other family members to Spencer & Company\t for
\nthe  purchase  of  a  washing  machine.\t  In  view  of\tthis
\nbackground, PW-1 and his family members doubted the cause of
\nthe  death of Jabeena.\tTherefore, on 3.1.1986 nearly 7 days
\nafter  the  death of Jabeena, PW-1 approached the  Assistant
\nCommissioner of Police (PW-12) around 7 p.m and gave another
\nreport\twhich  is  marked as Ex.  P.2.\tBased  on  the\tsaid
\nreport\tthe  Assistant\tCommissioner of Police\t(ACP)  PW-12
\nrequisitioned  the  file  pertaining   to  Cr.No.989\/85\t and
\nchanged\t the  cause of death as “suspicious death” and\tsent
\nexpress\t reports  in the form of Ex.  P-23 to the Court\t and
\nthe  authorities concerned.  PW-12 thereafter  requisitioned
\nas  per\t Ex.   P-14 the services of Madras  City  Additional
\nDistrict  Magistrate  for  exhumation of the  dead  body  of
\nJabeena\t and  for  holding a further  inquest.\t PW-12\talso
\nrequisitioned  the services of Medical Officers at the\ttime
\nof  exhuming  the  body and also for  conducting  the  post-
\nmortem\texamination.  On 4.1.86 the concerned Tehsildar\t was
\ninformed of the fact that the post-mortem would be conducted
\nat the burial ground itself.  Thereafter, in the presence of
\nwitnesses  and Panchayatdars the body of Jabeena was exhumed
\nbetween 4.15 and 5.45 P.M.  and the inquest was conducted by
\nthe Tehsildar PW-9.  The post-mortem itself was conducted by
\na   Medico  Legal  Expert  (PW.8)   with  the  help  of\t one
\nDr.Balakrishna\tRao  (not  examined).\tPW 8  was  then\t the
\nAdditional  Professor  of Forensic Medicine, Madras  Medical
\nCollege\t and the said Dr.  Balakrishna Rao was an  Assistant
\nProfessor  in the same college.\t The post-mortem report (Ex.
\nP.12)  along with the inquest report was dispatched by PW-11
\nto  the\t concerned authorities which ultimately reached\t the
\nCommissioner  of  Police on 26.2.1986.\tBased on  the  post-
\nmortem\tand  inquest  reports, the  Commissioner  of  Police
\naltered\t the Section of the offence in the concerned  record
\nto  Section 302 I.P.C.\tBased on the investigation conducted
\nthereafter,  the prosecution charged the appellant of having
\ncommitted the murder of Jabeena.  Before the Trial Court the
\nprosecution  examined 12 witnesses and produced 25  exhibits
\nincluding  Ext.P.12, the post-mortem report.  Both the Trial
\nCourt  as  well as the High Court accepted the case  of\t the
\nprosecution  and  found the appellant guilty of the  offence
\ncharged\t against  him.\tThe High Court while dismissing\t the
\nappeal\tof  the appellant and affirming the judgment of\t the
\nTrial Court has accepted as many as 14 circumstances pointed
\nout  by\t the  prosecution against the accused which  are  as
\nfollows :  “(1) Motive evidence plus the temperament\/conduct
\nof  the appellant at various stages.  (1a) Appellant and the
\ndeceased  were\tseen last together inside the bed room,\t the
\nbolt  of which room from inside, was opened by the appellant
\nto  help  PW  3\t to take away his  crying  son\tplus  facial
\nexpression of the appellant anguished and terrifying at that
\njuncture;  (2) Appellant having shouted for help calling his
\nmother-in-law,\ta  little  later after she  left,  with\t her
\ngrand-\tson.   The  conduct  of the  appellant\tpushing\t the
\nunbolted  bath\troom door and pointing out the\tfallen\tdown
\ndeceased inside the bath room with her hands on her back and
\nburn  injuries\ton  her fore-head;  cheeks, ears,  neck\t and
\nchest  together\t with burned cloth sticking on to her  right
\nthigh  and  left knee;\t(3) The availability of M.O.5  stove
\nand  M.O.  6 stand with a brass vessel and bucket inside the
\nbath  room  of\tthe appellant, though these  articles  would
\nnormally  be  found  in the kitchen;  (4) The reply  of\t the
\nappellant, when PW.3 questioned him as to what had happened,
\nthat the deceased had lifted boiled water and poured in into
\nthe  bucket,  before filling more water into the vessel,  to
\nboil it over again, in which process, accidentally her saree
\ncaught\tfire;\t(5)  P.W.1  having found  the  body  of\t his
\ndaughter  chill\t without possibility of feeling\t the  pulse,
\ntogether  with injuries already noticed, and the position in
\nwhich  the  body  was  lying.  Chillness  of  the  body\t was
\nsufficient  proof, that death must have occurred quite\tsome
\ntime  ago and not at or about the time when PW.\t 3 went out,
\nwith the infant;  (6) The conduct of the appellant in having
\ninformed PW 4 when questioned, that the deceased had slipped
\nand  fell  down resulting in her saree getting\tengulfed  in
\nflames.\t  This version is contrary to what the appellant had
\ntold to his mother-in-law;  (7) The conduct of the appellant
\nin  insisting that Jabeena should be given a bath, since she
\nwas  not  clean\t and  it   was\ta  Friday  and\tsuccessfully
\npersuading  both  the  witnesses to accede to  this  unusual
\nrequest;   The conduct of the appellant in refusing to\thelp
\nPWs.   3  and 4 to clean up his wife, stating that the\tlink
\nbetween\t him and his wife had got snapped.  (8) The activity
\nof  the\t appellant in cleaning the bed room by removing\t old
\nsheets\tand  replacing\tthem with fresh\t sheets\t within\t the
\nshort-while  when the body of his wife was taken inside\t the
\nbath  room,  in\t pursuance of his request.   The  subsequent
\nconduct\t of  the  appellant in cleaning the  bath  room\t and
\ncoming out fresh after bath, soon after his wife was laid on
\nthe cleaned bed;  (9) The information furnished by PWs 3 and
\n4  to PW.  1 when the latter scolded them for having  bathed
\nthe  body  when it was a police case, that they indulged  in
\nsuch  activity\ton  the cringing request of  the  appellant;
\n(10)  Seizure  of M.Os.\t 1 to 10 from the bath room and\t the
\ndead  body;   (11) The conduct of the appellant creating  an
\nimpression  that the death of his wife was accidental  which
\nwas  implicitly\t believed, leading to a request not to\tsend
\nthe  body for post-mortem;  (12) Conduct of the appellant on
\nthe  3rd  day  ceremony, his happy movements and  care\tfree
\neating,\t smoking  and singing habits noticed by P.W.5.\t The
\nfurther\t conduct  of the appellant duping PW 5 as though  he
\nwas looking for the Quran inside the Godrej bureau, when the
\nQuran  was easily available at its usual place and needed no
\nsearch.\t  Appellant leaving the house of his father-in-\t law
\nwith  his clothes soon after the 3rd day;  (13) The interest
\nexhibited  by  the  appellant  in a film  exhibited  in\t the
\nTelevision  relating  to  an Army  Officer  getting  himself
\nequipped  with\tinformation  to murder his wayward  wife  by
\ncompressing  her neck without the possibility of her raising
\nher  voice  to attract attention.  Appellant  having  keenly
\nvisited\t a picture – house to see the same film, when it was
\nscreened.   The\t connection between the manner of murder  in
\nthe  film  and\tthe  death of deceased\tJabeena;   and\t(14)
\nMedical\t evidence indicating homicide and excluding possible
\nsuicide;”\n<\/p>\n
      A\t careful  perusal of these circumstances would\tshow
\nthat  circumstances  1\tto  13\t either\t taken\ttogether  or
\nindependently  would not assist the case of the\t prosecution
\nto prove conclusively that the death of Jabeena is homicidal
\nand  is\t not either suicidal or accidental.  As observed  by
\nthe  High  Court itself the sheet anchor of the\t prosecution
\ncase  is  the medical evidence which is noticed as the\t14th
\ncircumstance  by the High Court.  If the medical evidence is
\naccepted, as has been done by the courts below, then reasons
\n1  to 13 would provide materials to establish that it is the
\nappellant  and the appellant alone who could have caused the
\ndeath  of  Jabeena.   On  behalf of  the  appellant,  it  is
\nstrongly  contended  by\t Mr.  U.R.   Lalit,  learned  senior
\ncounsel, that the prosecution has not been able to establish
\nthat Jabeena’s death was homicidal.  It is contended, at any
\nrate  the evidence of PW-8 creates a reasonable doubt as  to
\nthe  real  cause  of  death  of\t Jabeena.   It\twas  further
\ncontended  that\t from the material available at the time  of
\nthe  post-mortem,  it  would not have been  possible  for  a
\ndoctor\tto establish the real cause of death in view of\t the
\nhigh  stage of decomposition of the body.  On behalf of\t the
\nState, Mr.  R.\tMohan, learned senior counsel, supported the
\njudgments  of the courts below and contended that there\t was
\nno reason whatsoever why the evidence of PW- 8 should not be
\naccepted.   Since  the entire prosecution case rests on\t the
\nevidence  of  PW-8,  we will examine the  said\tevidence  in
\ndetail.\t  During the course of the post mortem\texamination,
\nPW- 8 noticed high decomposition of the body.  She noted the
\nfollowing injuries on the dead body :\n<\/p>\n
      1.   Singeing of scalp hair over middle of frontal and
\nparietal regions 8 cm x 6 cm.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   Reddish  black discolouration of skin over  face,
\nfront  of chest, left breast, right shoulder, right side  of
\nabdomen\t front of upper and middle third of left leg,  front
\nof left leg, front of left thigh, inner aspect of left thigh
\nand  upper,  middle  and  lower\t part  of  back.   3.\tDeep
\nsplitting  of  the skin over lower part of right breast\t and
\nupper  thrid of front of right thigh exposing the underlying
\nfatty tissue.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   Blackening  of skin over front and both sides  of
\nneck,  the  skin  on the back of the neck did not  show\t any
\ndiscolouration.\t  The  skin  on\t front\t of  neck  showed  a
\nhorizontal  and uniformly hardened and thickened area.\t1  \u00ab
\ncm.   In  width, 0.5 cm in thickness and 0,5 cm\t in  length,
\nsituated  5 cms.  below the right ear lobe on right side  of
\nfront of neck, 6 cm, below the left ear lobe on left side of
\nfront  of  neck.   On dissection of the tissue\tof  neck,  a
\ncontusion  reddish  black in colour 4 cm x 3 cm was seen  on
\nright side over the right side of hyoid bone and a contusion
\n3 cm x 2 cm on left side near the left lobe of thyroid.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   Dark reddish black contusion 14 cm x 12 cm x 1 cm
\nwas seen on front of right side of chest.  6.  There were no
\nburns  on  left\t shoulder below the neck and back  of  neck,
\nupper  part  of\t right breast middle of\t chest\tbetween\t the
\nbreasts,  left\tside of abdomen, genitals, outer  aspect  of
\nchest  and abdomen on both sides, both upper and lower limbs
\nfully, middle and lower part of right thigh, both ankles and
\nfeet, buttocks and back of both lower limbs fully.”\n<\/p>\n
      On  an internal examination of the body, PW-8  noticed
\nthat\t     the  lungs\t were decomposing.   Mucosa  reddish
\nblack  in colour was found in the trachea.  Very teeth.\t few
\nblack  soot  particles were seen inside the Hyoid  bone\t was
\nintact.\t  Stomach was empty.  Mucosa in the stomach did\t not
\nshow any discolouration.\n<\/p>\n
      Liver,  spleen  and kidney were decomposing.   Bladder
\nand Uterus were empty.\tBrain was found liquefied.”\n<\/p>\n
      On  the basis of the above observations, PW-8 recorded
\nher  opinion  of  Jabeena’s  death as follows  :-  “Died  of
\nasphyxia  and  cerebral anoxia due to cumulative effects  of
\ncompression of neck and burns.”\n<\/p>\n
      In  her  oral  evidence, she opined that\tinjury\tNo.4
\nnoticed\t by her could be caused by compression of neck\twith
\nminimal\t pressure and the said injury, according to her, was
\nante-mortem  in nature.\t She opined that the hyoid bone\t was
\nnot  fractured because the pressure on the neck was minimal.
\nShe  further  opined that injury Nos.1 to 3 and the  changes
\nfound  in  the\ttrachea\t along with  the  presence  of\tsoot
\nparticles  inside  the trachea could have been due to  burns
\nand  that these burns would have been ante-mortem.  She\t was
\nvery  specific\tthat neither the injury to the neck nor\t the
\nburn injuries could have been accidental or suicidal.  Thus,
\nit  is seen that as per the evidence of PW-8, there are\t two
\ncauses\tof death, namely, asphyxia and cerebral anoxia which
\ncumulatively   caused  the  death  and\t this  was  due\t  to
\ncompression of neck and burns.\tDuring her cross-examination
\nthe defence has suggested to her, that the contusion noticed
\nby  her as injury No.4, was not caused by external  pressure
\nbut  due to swellings that were caused during the process of
\ndecomposition  of  the body.  Hence, she could have  wrongly
\nconcluded  that\t the death was partly due to  asphyxia.\t  To
\nestablish  that\t there was a reasonable possibility of\tPW-8
\nmistaking   the\t  swelling  caused   by\t  decomposition\t  as
\ncontusions,   the  defence  confronted\t her  with   certain
\nwell-recognised\t text-books  on the subject.  Firstly,\tPW-8
\nwas  confronted\t with  the statement appearing in  the\ttext
\n“Lyon’s\t Medical Jurisprudence” wherein, at pp.\t 149 and 150
\n(1953  Edn.),  the following statement was found  :   “Other
\neffects of pressure of gas are :  “Distension of the tissues
\nof  the neck resulting in accentuation of the natural groove
\nand  frequently\t giving\t rise to appearances  suggestive  of
\nstrangulation.”\t PW-8 accepted the fact that “Lyon’s Medical
\nJurisprudence”\twas  one of the authoritative books  on\t the
\nsubject.   But,\t she  still  disagreed\twith  the  statement
\nextracted  from the said book without assigning any reasons.
\nHowever,  she  did  not support her opinion with  any  other
\nacceptable  material.\tThis  opinion  of  PW-8\t has  to  be
\nscrutinised in the following background :  Firstly, the fact
\nthat  she had not seen any external injury corresponding  to
\nthe  internal  contusion  which, according to her,  was\t the
\nbasis  of  her\topinion that asphyxia by  strangulation\t was
\ncaused.\t Secondly, in view of the specific statement made by
\nher  in the course of her evidence that she had not seen any
\nligature   marks.   Thirdly,  that   the  hyoid\t bone  which
\nordinarily would be damaged if external pressure is applied,
\nwas  found to be intact.  During further  cross-examination,
\nPW-8  recognised  Keith\t Simpson  as a\tworld  authority  on
\nmedical\t jurisprudence.\t But she did not agree with the said
\nKeith\tSimpson’s   opinion   that   Parikh’s  book   is   a
\ncomprehensive  and  outstanding book on reference for  court
\nwork.\tThis  reference\t to Keith Simpson’s opinion  in\t Dr.
\nParikh’s book was put to PW-8, to suggest to her that if the
\nhypostasis  extends  to\t the head, it may be mistaken  as  a
\nviolence  to the neck or smotherings as found at page 159 of
\nDr.   Parikh’s\ttext-book (4th Edn.  1995).   She  disagreed
\nwith  this statement as found in Parikh’s book, solely based
\non  her\t personal experience and not supported by any  other
\nauthority.   While  so disagreeing with Parikh’s  book,\t she
\ninsisted  on  stating  that  the  horizontal  and  uniformly
\nhardened  and thickened area mentioned by her as injury No.4
\nmust  be due to ligature, even though according to her\tpost
\nmortem\treport\tand evidence in the court, she had not\tseen
\nany  ligature marks on the body of Jabeena.  The defence has
\nfurther confronted PW-8 with the statement found in the book
\n“The Essentials of Forensic Medicine” by Dr.  K.S.  Narayana
\nReddy  to  establish  the fact, that on decomposition  of  a
\nbody,  the  gas\t collects  in the  subcutaneous\t tissue\t and
\nbecomes\t emphysamatous.\t  This\twould then  create  a  false
\nimpression  of ante mortem obesity (stout).  PW-8  disagreed
\nwith  this  opinion also, without supporting her opinion  on
\nthe basis of any other authority.  From the statements found
\nin various text-books referred to above, notwithstanding the
\ndisagreement of PW-8, we will have to conclude that there is
\na  possibility of the existence of swellings occurring in  a
\ndecomposing  body, similar to the one noticed by PW-8  which
\ngive rise to appearances suggestive of strangulation.  There
\nis  a reasonable possibility that the contusions noticed  by
\nPW-8 are those swellings which could have been caused due to
\ndecomposition  of  the\tbody of Jabeena.   Therefore,  these
\nsuggestions  of\t the defence made to PW-8 cannot be  lightly
\nbrushed\t aside.\t More so, in the background of the fact that
\nPW-8  had conducted the post mortem on Jabeena’s body nearly
\n8 days after it was buried, and admittedly even according to
\nPW-8, the body of Jabeena had decomposed considerably at the
\ntime  of the post mortem examination.  This is coupled\twith
\nthe  fact that she has admitted in her evidence that she has
\nno other authoritative text to contradict or support her, as
\nagainst\t the  statements  found in the text books  like\t the
\n“Lyon’s\t Medical  Jurisprudence”,  Parikh’s   text  book  on
\nMedical\t Jurisprudence, The Essentials of Forensic Medicines
\nby  Dr.\t K S Narayana Reddy.  The second cumulative cause of
\ndeath  as per the opinion of PW-8 is cerebral anoxia  caused
\ndue  to\t burns.\t It is true that PW-8 noticed  certain\tburn
\nmarks on the face and chest of Jabeena.\t It is seen from the
\ntext  books and from the evidence of PW-8 that anoxia of the
\nbrain is caused due to lack of supply of oxygen to the brain
\nwhich  could  be  due  to burning as found in  the  body  of
\nJabeena.  PW-8 in her statement before the court stated thus
\n:   “Cerebral  anoxia means the stoppage of blood supply  to
\nthe  brain.   In  the event of cerebral anoxia in  the\tpost
\nmortem\texamination except the pale appearance of the brain,
\nthere  will  not be any other change in the brain.   As\t the
\nbrain  had been liquefied in this case, it cannot be  stated
\nwhether\t brain becomes pale or not.  There was no other sign
\nby  which  I  could  say that  there  was  cerebral  anoxia.
\nCerebral  anoxia  in  my opinion or conclusion based  on  my
\nobservation and findings in the post mortem examination.  It
\nis  not\t correct to say that no opinion of  cerebral  anoxia
\ncould be given or arrived at in the case of liquification of
\nthe  brain.”  A\t cautious  reading of this  part  of  PW-8’s
\nevidence  shows\t in one part PW- 8 admits that the  one\t and
\nonly  method  by which a medical examiner can conclude\tthat
\ncause  of  death was due to cerebral anoxia is\tby  noticing
\npale  appearance of the brain.\tShe also specifically admits
\nthat  there will not be any other change in the brain in the
\ncase  of  cerebral  anoxia and since the  brain\t had  become
\nliquefied,  it cannot be stated if the brain had become pale
\nor  not.   She is also specific in her statement that  there
\nwas  no other sign by which she could say that was  cerebral
\nanoxia.\t  Stopping  for a while at this stage and  examining
\nPW-8’s\tevidence,  one\tfinds that at the time of  the\tpost
\nmortem\texamination, Jabeena’s brain had liquefied and there
\nwas  no way by which PW-8 could have noticed the paleness in
\nthe brain.  However, in the latter part of her evidence, she
\ndeviates  from her earlier opinion and states that it is not
\ncorrect\t to say that no opinion of cerebral anoxia could  be
\ngiven  or  arrived  at in the case of liquification  of\t the
\nbrain.\t These\ttwo statements are diametrically opposed  to
\neach  other  and we find it rather difficult to accept\tthis
\npart of her evidence which is so self-contradictory.  In our
\nview,  the  opinion  of\t PW-8 that the\tcause  of  death  as
\nrecorded  by her is due to the cumulative effect of asphyxia
\nand  cerebral anoxia, is rather difficult to accept.  We are
\naware  of the fact that sufficient weightage should be given
\nto  the\t evidence of the doctor who has conducted  the\tpost
\nmortem,\t as  compared  to the statements found in  the\ttext
\nbooks,\tbut  giving weightage does not ipso facto mean\tthat
\neach and every statement made by a medical witness should be
\naccepted   on\tits   face    value    even   when   it\t  is
\nself-contradictory.   This  is one such case where  we\tfind
\nthat  there is a reasonable doubt in regard to the cause  of
\ndeath  of  Jabeena and we find it not safe to rely upon\t the
\nevidence  of  PW-8, solely for the purpose of coming to\t the
\nconclusion that Jabeena’s death is proved by the prosecution
\nto  be homicidal.  We have examined the evidence of PWs.1 to
\n7  who\tspeak  of  the factum of  the  relationship  of\t the
\nappellant  with\t Jabeena  and various possible\tmotives\t the
\nappellant  could have had for causing the death of  Jabeena.
\nFirst  of all, we should notice the fact that on the date of
\nthe  death  of Jabeena, none of these witnesses\t entertained
\nany doubt as to the complicity of the appellant in the death
\nof  Jabeena.  They proceeded on the basis that Jabeena\tdied
\nan  accidental\tdeath and even persuaded  the  investigating
\nauthorities  to\t release  the  body without  a\tproper\tpost
\nmortem.\t  Therefore, the court will have to be very cautious
\nwhile  appreciating  this  evidence.\tAssuming  that\t the
\nevidence  of  PWs.1 to 7 can be accepted by the\t courts,  it
\nwould  only conclude that the appellant had a motive to kill
\nJabeena, but then it could also give a reason for PWs.1 to 7
\nto  depose  falsely  against the appellant, in view  of\t the
\ntragic\tdeath  of a loved one.\tMotive being a\tdouble-edged
\nweapon,\t could\tcut both ways – helping or harming both\t the
\nprosecution  and  the  defence.\t  Hence,   we  are  of\t the
\nconsidered  view that if we are unable to place reliance  on
\nthe  evidence of PW-8, then the evidence of PWs.1 to 7\twill
\nnot   be  sufficient  to  convict   the\t appellant  of\t the
\nprosecution   charge.\tOf  course,   the  prosecution\t has
\nestablished  that  the appellant was the only person in\t the
\ncompany of Jabeena and her child at the relevant time on the
\nfateful\t day.  But this again stops the prosecution case  in
\nthe   realm  of\t suspicion,  which   by\t itself\t cannot\t  be
\nsubstituted for hard evidence.\tAware as we are of the fact,
\na  budding  life came to an unfortunate premature  end,\t our
\njurisprudence will not permit us to base a conviction on the
\nbasis of the evidence placed by the prosecution in this case
\nand  the benefit of a reasonable doubt must be given to\t the
\nappellant.   For  the  reasons\tstated\tabove,\tthis  appeal
\nsucceeds and is hereby allowed, setting aside the conviction
\nand the sentence.  The appellant is on bail.  His bail-bonds
\nshall stand cancelled.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999 Author: S Hegde Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, G.B.Pattanaik PETITIONER: MOHD.ZAHID Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/07\/1999 BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde, G.B.Pattanaik JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T SANTOSH HEGDE, J. The appellant in the above appeal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-23T23:30:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-23T23:30:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999\"},\"wordCount\":4421,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999\",\"name\":\"Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-23T23:30:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-23T23:30:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999","datePublished":"1999-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-23T23:30:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999"},"wordCount":4421,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999","name":"Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-23T23:30:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-zahid-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-july-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd.Zahid vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 July, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55167","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}