LexSHAIKH SATTAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 503 SHAIKH SATIAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 928 of 2007) AUGUST 27, 2010 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] A 8 Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 498A - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Deceased harassed by her c husband in connection with the demand of money and frequently beaten up by him due to non-fulfillment of demand - Deceased found dead in the interior room of the house with . . marks of injuries in head and a heavy stone with blood stains lying next to her body - Her clothes were also blood stained o - Concurrent finding of courts below holding the husband guilty - Plea of alibi and accidental death disbelieved by courts below - On appeal, held: Medical evidence belied the theory of accidental death - No explanation as to how the dead body and the stone came inside the interior room - E Burden of establishing the plea of alibi was upon the husband - He failed to bring on record facts and circumstances to make the plea of alibi probable - Conclusions reached by the courts below cannot be said to be either clearly illegal or manifestly erroneous - Therefore, no reason to disturb the concurrent findings ·of both the courts holding the husb.and guilty of the offences charged - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence. F The prosecution case was that the deceased was harassed by the appellant-husband on account of G demand of money. The parents of the deceased were unable to meet the demand. Due to this reason, she was beaten up frequently by the appellant. The deceased used to tell her parents about the maltreatment meted out 503 . H 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 10 S.C.R. A to her whenever she visited her parents. Few days prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant and the deceased along with their son went to the parental home of the deceased. They stayed there for two days. On inquiry by the appellant regarding the arrangement of money, the 8 brother of the deceased told that the family would try to arrange the money after the sugarcane harvest. On hearing this, the appellant got angry and left the house with the deceased without taking food. On the fateful day, the parents of the deceased C received a message about the ill-health of the deceased. When they reached her home, they found her dead body lying in the interior of the house. There were marks of injuries in head and a big stone with blood stains was lying near the dead body. The clothes of the deceased D were also blood stained. The dead body was sent for post mortem. The next day, the father of the deceased lodged an FIR against the appellant alleging that the appellant had killed the deceased by hitting a stone weighing 15 Kgs on her head. The charge-sheet was filed against the E appellant and his parents and brother. The trial court disbelieved the plea of alibi and held that the appellant was ill-treating the deceased in connection with the demand of money and convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 498A IPC. However, the other accused F were given the benefit of doubt and were acquitted. The conviction of appellant was upheld by the High Court. In the instant appeal, it was contended for the appellant that he was falsely implicated; that a stone had fallen accidently on the head of the deceased while she G was taking out a quilt from over the tin shed; that he was not in the house when stone fell on the head of the deceased; that he came to know about the incident when he reached home in the morning as he had spent the previous night at Chikalthan. H SHAIKH SATTAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 505 Dismissing the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1.1. It is an accepted proposition of law that in cases where no direct evidence is available, conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence alone. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, there is no direct 8 evidence of the crime. The prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. Both the courts below held that the appellant was residing separately with his wife (the deceased) and his son at Naigaon in a rented accommodation. The appellant's father, mother and C younger brother were living separately. The income of the appellant was so negligible that he could not possibly afford the rent of the two-room tenement at Naigaon and an independent room at Chikalthana. He cooked up a story that he had been to Chikalthana to read Koran, the night before h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.