SHAIKH MAQSOOD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 04-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 428 
A 
SHAIKH MAQSOOD 
. -
v 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2009 
t 
B 
MAY 04, 2009 . 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUAMR 
GANGULY, JJ) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
..; 
c:. 
c 
s. 313 -
Examination of accused - Purpose of -
Explained - HELD: No question having been put to accused 
to establish his role in the crime, conviction cannot be 
maintained and is set aside - Penal Code, 1860, ss. 302, 304-
Band 498-A. 
D 
The appellant faced trial for offences punistrable u/ 
ss 498-A, 304-8 and 302 IPC on the allegations that he ill-
~ 
treated his wife for non-fulfilment of his dowry demand. 
The prosecution case was that on the stated date and time,. 
the accused-appellant poured kerosene on his wife and 
E set her on fire. The trial court found the circumstantial 
evidence sufficient to hold him guilty and convicted and 
sentenced him u/s 302 IPC. The High Court affirmed the 
' 
conviction. 
In the instant appeal filed by the accused it was 
-" 
F contended for the appellant that in his examination u/s 
313 CrPC no question was asked regarding existence of 
any material to hold him guilty. 
Allowing the appea·I, the Court 
G 
HELD : 1.1 The purpose of s.313 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is set out in its opening words 
'for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any 
>- "' 
circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.' The 
' 
object is to give the accused an opportunity to explain 
.H 
428 
" 
, ~ 
* 
SHAIKH MAQSOOD V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
429 
the case made against him. His attention should be d:-awn A 
to the specific points in the charge and the evidence in . 
that regard. It is not sufficient compliance to string 
together a long series of facts and ask the accused what 
he has to say about them. He must be questioned 
separately about each material substance which is B 
intended to be used against him. The questionings must · 
be fair and couched in a form which ali ignorant or 
illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand . 
. The statement can be taken into consideration in judging 
his innocence or guilt. Where there is an onus on the c 
accused to discharge, it depends· on the facts and· 
circumstances of the ·case if such statement discharges 
the onus. [para 6-9] (432-A, D-E; 433-A-C] 
Hate Singh, Bhagat Singh v. ·state of Madhya Pradesh 
AIR 1953 SC 468 - relied on. 
1.2 A conviction based on the accused's failure to . 
explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. 
In the instant case, no question was put to the accused . 
which could establish that he was the author of the crime. 
That being so, the convic.tion cannot be maintained and 
is set aside. (para 8 and 10] (432-H; 433-A, E] 
I 
. 
Case [aw Reference 
Al.R 1953 SC 468 
relied on 
para 6 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 898 of 2009 
. 
From the Judgement and Order dated 13.12.2007 passed . 
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 
Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2006. 
Shivaji M. Jadhav, for the Appellant. 
Chin may Khaladkar, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, for the 
Respondent. 
; 
D 
E 
F 
...,-
~ 
G 
H 
I 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. . 
.... 
A 
The Judgement cif the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
B 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench 
upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable 
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 
.., 
~ 
~ 
'IPC') as recorded by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions 
c 
Judge, Biloli, Maharashtra. Appellant faced trial for alleged 
commission of offence punishable under Sections 498 A, 304(B) 
and 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife Shaheen Begum 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). Trial court acquitted 
• 
the appellant of the charges relatable to Sections 498A and 
304B while recording conviction under Section 302 IPC. 
D 
3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: 
-; 
The appellant was married Shaheeb Begum (hereinafter 
referred to as the ·deceased') in the year 1994. She was resident 
of Degloor. After marriage she started residing with her husband 
E at village Hanegon for some period. But they shifted to Degloor 
and started residing in Line Galli Degloor, District Nanded. The 
appellant used to ill-treat her on account of non-fulfilment of 
r 
demand of dowry. He wa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.