MOHD. USMAN MOHD. ISLAM SHAIKH & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 746 · Decided: 26-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 746 
A 
MOHD. USMAN MOHD. ISLAM SHAIKH & ORS. 
B 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 2006) 
OCTOBER 26, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 - Prosecution for murder 
C - Strained relations between the accused persons and the 
deceased - No eye-witnesses - Independent witnesses and 
medical evidence supporting the case of the prosecution -
Conviction of three accused and acquittal of one by the trial 
court - High Court confirming the conviction - On appeal, 
D held: The chain of circumstances envisaged for a successful 
prosecution are present in the instant case - Conviction 
justified. 
Four accused persons, including the three 
E appellants were prosecuted ulss. 302, 201 r/w s. 34 IPC. 
The prosecution case was that appellant-accused No. 1 
was married to the deceased. All the accused i.e. accused 
No. 1, his mother (accused No.2) and his sisters 
(appellants-accused Nos. 3 and 4) used to misbehave 
F with the deceased because she was unable to give birth 
to a child and they were forcing her to leave the house, 
so that accused No. 1 could remarry. There used to be 
frequent quarrels in the family on this count. On the fateful 
day, a quarrel ensued on the issue. The accused persons, 
G by beating the deceased caused severe injuries on her 
head and by inserting a handkerchief into her mouth 
strangulated her and set her on fire. This resulted in 
death of the deceased. There were no eye-witnesses to 
the incident. 
H 
746 
MOHD. USMAN MOHD. ISLAM SHAIKH & ORS. v. 
747 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
The trial court convicted accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of A 
the offence u/s. 302/34 IPC, but acquitted them u/s. 201 
IPC. Accused No. 2 was acquitted of all the charges. The 
High Court confirmed the judgment passed by the trial 
court. 
B 
In appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants' 
contended interalia that chain of the circumstances, 
leading to the conclusion that the accused persons alone 
were guilty of the offence, was not complete; and that the 
evidences of the three witnesses viz. PWs 4, 6 and 8 
C 
were not reliable. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The chain of circumstances envisaged for 
a successful prosecution, is present in the instant case. 
The incident happened in the matrimonial home of 
accused No. 1 and the deceased. PWs. 4, 6 and 8, who 
D 
are absolutely independent witnesses, have categorically 
stated that the relations between the accused and the 
deceased were strained on account of the inability of the· 
E 
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 
F 
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 
G 
murder. It came in the evidence that the deceased was 
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 
H 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R. 
A helping hand. It is also evident 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 accused No. 1. [Para 6] [752-B-F] 
B 
2. It is evident from the evidence that the deceased 
met a homicidal death. This is clear from the evidence of 
PW-5, the doctor who observed that the death was due 
to Asphyxia I throttling,. head injuries and burns. The 
doctor also opined that the injuries on the head were 
C sufficient to cause death and that all the injuries when 
seen together clearly proved the case of prosecution that 
the deceased had been severely beaten before being 
burnt and killed. [Para 5] [751-F-H; 752-A] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
D No. 1028 of 2006. 
E 
F 
From the Judgment & Order dated 3.11.2005 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal Nos. 334 & 
335 of 1999. 
Chetan Sharma Aman Vachher, Ashutosh Dubey, R.D. 
Puri, Sushil Pandey, Dhiraj, P.N. Puri for the Appel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.