LexMUNNI @ SYED AKBAR versus STATE OF INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, GOBICHETTIPALAYAM, ERODE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2014] 11 S.C.R. 587 MUNNI @ SYED AKBAR A v. STATE OF INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, GOBICHETTIPALAYAM, ERODE (Criminal Appeal No. 2475 of 2009) OCTOBER 29, 2014 B [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] "' . Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 498A rlw 201 - Death of t fl]arried woman due to strangulation with the aid of a cable wire - Conviction of appellant-husband - Justification - Held: Justified - P. W 9- Postmortem Doctor with the aid of Ex. P-6- Forensic Science Laboratory report confirmed that death was due to asphyxia by strangulation and ligature marks were D found on the neck of the deceased - Appellant was very much present at the time when the deceased breathed her last - He failed to clear vital circumstances found proved against him - Having successfully killed deceased with the use of a cable, appellant made an unsuccessful effort to make it E appear as though the deceased was hanging from the roof top with the aid of a saree. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. It has come out in scientific evidence and F expert opinion without any scope of ambiguity that there was strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased and that there was also a rope mark which could have been caused with the aid of the cable wire viz., M.Os.7 and 8. The further fact that the appellant was found sitting on G the roof top removing certain tiles found to be another well thought out drama played by the appellant to make P.W.4 and his friend to believe as though he was innocent 587 H 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. A and he had nothing to do with the killing of his deceased wife. The appellant having successfully carried out his evil design in the killing of the deceased with the use of M.0.8 cable, however, made an unsuccessful effort to make it appear as though the deceased was hanging . B from the roof top with the aid of a saree. [Para 20) [595- D-H; 586-A] 2. P.W.9- Postmortem Doctor with the aid of Ex.P-6- Forensic Science Laboratory report was able to confirm • without any scope for contradiction that the death of the C deceased was due to asphyxia by strangulation and ligature marks were found on the neck of the deceased. It was the appellant who was very much present at the time when the deceased .breathed her last. Therefore, the best person who could have come forward with P appropriate explanation to clear the doubt about the factors found established through expert and scientific evidence could have been only the appellant and none else. The appellant having failed to clear those vital circumstances found proved against the appellant, the E ultimate conclusion of the trial. Court as well as the confirmation by the High Court of the guilt of the appellant in the killing of the deceased falling under Section 302 of 1.P.C could have been the only conclusion, more so, when the appellant was found guilty of the F offence under Sections 498(A) as well as Section 201 of 1.P.C. [Para 21) [596-D-G] . CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2475 of 2009. G From the Judgment & Order daed 16.08.2007 of the High H Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 2006. Dr. Sushi I Balwada for the Appellant. • • MUNM@SYEDAKBAR v. STATE OF INSP. OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE 589 STATION, GOBICHETTIPALAYAM M. Yogesh Kanna, Vanita Chandrakant Giri, Santha A Kumaran for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAK!<IR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of A 1, who is the appellant herein, is B directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 16.08.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.434 of 2006. 2. Brief facts which are required to be stated are that the c appellant is the husband of the deceased Gulsara Banu. Along with the appellant, his parents were also proceeded against, who were arrayed as A2 and A3. All the three accused were 'charged for offences under Sections 498(A), 302 and 201 of l.P.C. The parents of the appellant viz., A2 and A3 were found o guilty of the offences under Section 498(A) of l.P.C. as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A2 who was also charged under Sections 302 and 201 of l.P.C. was acquitted of those charges. A2 and A3 have already undergone the sentence, even while the appellant's appeal was preferred E before the High Court. The Hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.