RIYOJODDIN RAFIYODDIN SHAIK versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 944 · Decided: 03-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed After
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 944 
A 
RIYOJODDIN RAFIYODDIN SHAIK 
V. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REP. BY PUBLIC 
PROSECUTOR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 426 of 2009) 
B 
MARCH 3, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
C; 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Death due to burn injury -
Deceased was ill treated by husband- Found dead with burn 
. 
injury - Smell of kerosene from body of victim and clothes 
found burnt - Circumstantial evidence pointing guilt towards · 
husband - Conviction of husband under s.302 - Held: Injuries 
D on dead body were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to 
cause death - Circumstances highlighted by prosecution as 
• analysed by courts below clearly established guilt of accused 
- Conviction upheld - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence. 
E 
Prosecution case was that the deceased was ill 
treated by her husband and other members of his family. 
On the fateful day, father of deceased received 
information about the serious condition of his daughter. 
·When he reached matrilmonial home of daughter, he 
F 
found dead body of his daughter with burn injury. He 
found kerosene smell on her hair and half burnt clothes. 
·Trial Court convicted husband under sections 302 and 
4J8A IPC and directed acquittal of other members of his 
family. The High Court found that the accusations so far 
G 
.as Section 498-A were concerned were not established, 
but the evidence was sufficient to hold the appellant guilty 
of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Hence the 
instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
944 
,.
RIYOJODDIN RAFIYODDIN SHAIK v. STATE OF 
945 
MAHARASHTRA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 
HELD: 1. Where a case rests squarely on 
A 
circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be 
justified only when all the incriminating facts and 
circumstances are found to be incompatible with the 
innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other 
person. [Para 8] [950-B-C] 
B 
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977) SC 1063; 
Eradu andOrs. v. State of Hyderabad AIR (1956) SC 316; 
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State 
of UP. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR (1985) SC 1224; Ba/winder C 
Singh v. State of Punjab AIR (1987) SC 350; Ashok Kumar 
Chatterjee v. State of M.P. AIR (1989) SC 1890; Bhagat Ram 
v. State of Punjab AIR (1954) SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and 
Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193 and Pada/a Veera 
Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR (1990) SC 79, relied on. 
Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" Chapter VI, referred to. 
D 
2. The doctor (PW-8) clearly stated that the dead body 
was totally burnt and was smelling of kerosene and the 
cause of death was due to burns and shock. It was also 
E 
opined that the injuries found on the dead body were 
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death 
and by pouring kerosene the injury would be caused. The 
circumstances highlighted by the prosecution as 
analysed in detail by the trial and High Court clearly 
established the guilt of the accused. [Para 17] [953-H; 
F 
954-A-B] 
State of UP. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (1992) Crl.LJ 
1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of 
Madhya Pradesh; AIR (1952) SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand 
G 
Sarda v. State of MahC:Jrashtra, (AIR (1984) SC 1622; State 
of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180; State of 
Haryana v. Jaghir Singh and Anr. (2003) 11 SCC 261; 
Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of A.P. (2008) 10 SCR 89 and 
H 
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A Manivel and Ors. v. State of Tami Nadu (2008) 11 SCR 1036, 
relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1983 SC 446 
relied on 
Para 8 
B 
AIR (1985) SC 1224 
relied on 
Para 8 
AIR (1987) SC 350 
relied on 
Para 8 
AIR (1989) SC 1890 
relied on 
Para 8 
c 
AIR (1954) SC 621 
relied on 
Para 8 
(1996) 10 sec 193 
relied on 
Para 9 
AIR (1990) SC 79 
relied on 
Para 10 
D 
(1992) Crl.LJ 1104 
relied on 
Para 11 
AIR 1984 SC 1622 
relied on 
Para 15 
AIR 1952 SC 343 
relied on 
Para 14 
(2003 (8) sec 180 
relied on 
Para 16 
E 
(2003 (11) sec 261 
relied on 
Para 16 
(2008) 10 SCR 89 
relied on 
Para 16 
(2008) 11 SCR 1036 
relied on 
Para 10 
F 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 426 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27/28.10.05 of the 
High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad in Criminal 
G Appeal No. 89 of 2005. 
R.V. Kameshwaran, SCLSC for the Appellant. 
•, 
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondent. 
H 
RIYOJODDIN RAFIYODDIN SHAIK v. STATE OF 
947 
MAHARASHTRA REP. BY PUB
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.