LexJAVED ABDUL RAJJAQ SHAIKH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R. JAVED ABDUL RAJJAQ SHAIKH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 1181 of 2011) NOVEMBER 06, 2019 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w. s.34 and s.498A – Murder – Prosecution case was that the appellant and the other accused committed murder of the wife of the appellant by throttling her – They were charged u/s.302 r/w. s.34 – Besides, they were also charged u/s.498A – Trial court convicted all the accused for offences u/s.302 r/w. s.34 and s.498A – High Court acquitted all the accused of all the offences except the appellant, he was convicted u/s.302 – Father of the victim/deceased alleged that the accused were maltreating victim and were demanding half tola gold, dress and Rs.5000/- for business purposes – Appellant contended that when the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the other accused, in the circumstances, it must be taken that prosecution also failed to establish the case against the appellant u/s.302 simpliciter – It was further contended that victim had committed suicide by hanging – Held: PW-4 deposed that few days before the incident appellant visited her and demanded half tola gold, money and further threatened to kill his wife in case of non-compliance with his demands – PW-3-father of the victim also spoke of the threat as conveyed by PW-4 and the same was believed by the two Courts – Further, High Court rightly concluded that appellant and his wife had a separate room in the house and death had taken place around 3:30 a.m. in the morning, therefore there was a custodial death in which the appellant alone can be implicated – Both the Courts noted from the spot panchnama that the height of the room in which victim had died was just 5ft 10 inches and it was again rightly concluded by them that the theory of hanging was incompatible by a person of normal height or even if the height is 5ft – Further, a provisional death certificate was issued by two doctors stating probable cause of death was acute cardio respiratory arrest secondary to acute [2019] 14 S.C.R. 30 30 A B C D E F G H 31 asphyxia, secondary to throttling and provisional death certificate corroborated the postmortem report – Therefore, evidence on record clearly supported the case of throttling – No merit in the appeal – Appellant directed to serve the remaining sentence. Medical Jurisprudence – Hanging, strangulation and throttling – discussed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The evidence in this case clearly supports the case of throttling. As far as the motive is concerned, there is the evidence of P.W.4 that a few days prior to the date of incident appellant had visited her and told her about not being given the half tola gold and money. She also deposed about being told by the appellant that result of non-compliance with his demands would be that he would kill his wife. P.W.3 has also spoken of the threat as conveyed by P.W.4. This has been believed in by two courts. [Para 38] [55-D] 2. Another circumstance which is found by the High Court is that, as is natural, the appellant and his wife had a separate room, therefore, there was a custodial death in which the appellant alone has been implicated. The death is found to have taken place somewhere around 3.30 in the morning. The finding by the High Court is that by that time the appellant would be with his wife. This cannot be described as manifestly erroneous. [Para 39] [55-E-F] 3. The post-mortem note indicates time of receipt of the body as 3.15 p.m. on 10.3.2005. The post mortem is stated to have begun at 3.30 p.m. on 10.3.2005 and ended at 4.45 p.m. on 10.3.2005. It is stated to be done by P.W.1 medical officer and by the other doctor. The date is shown as 25.8.2005 on the post mortem note. This apparently, is in tune with the deposition of P.W.1 that other doctor was not available. At the same time, this Court notice that on said date 10.3.2005, there is a provisional death certificate which has been issued, according to P.W.1 him, to the police immediately. It is in the handwriting of the second doctor. He deposes that they have both signed on it and the JAVED ABDUL RAJJAQ SHAIKH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA A B C D E F G H 32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R. contents are true and correct. It is marked as Exh.23. In his cross it is deposed by him that according to him police machinery immediately demands provisional death certificate and when th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.