SOHEL MEHABOOB SHAIKH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 483 · Decided: 17-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 483 
/ ... 
SOHEL MEHABOOB SHAIKH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1080 of 2007) 
APRIL 17, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Unnatural death of wife 
- Conviction of husband uls. 302 by courts below - However, c 
,,,..., 
acquittal u/s. 498A as accusation for dowry torture not 
established - On appeal, held: Order of High Court based on 
surmises and conjectures - Charge against husband was not 
established -
Circumstances that deceased met with 
unnatural death and accused did not offer explanation D 
regarding the incident cannot be considered to be relevant 
either separately or collectively - There was no evidence to 
show (hat accused was present in the room at the time of 
occurrence - Prosecution could not establish time of 
occurrence - Thus, conviction by courts below set aside. 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1080 of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 03.04.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in 
F 
Criminal Appeal No. 169/2005. 
Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellants. 
Sushi! Karanjakar and Sanjay Kharde for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the judgment and order dated 3.4.2007 passed by a Division 
483 
H 
484 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A Bench of the Bombay High Court upholding the conviction and 
sentence of the appellant for commission of offence punishable 
under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 498A and 
Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in 
short '1.P.C.'). 
B 
2. Originally there were five accused persons. Out of them, 
A-2, A-4 and A-5 were acquitted by the Trial Court under 
Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 
'the Code') of the charges relating to offences punishable under 
Sections 498A ana 323 of the 1.P.C. while the appellant herein 
C and A-3 were convicted for the offence punishable under 
Section 302/34 of the l.P.C. 
3. By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the 
conviction of A-3 but upheld the conviction of the present 
D appellant under Section 302 of the l.P.C. 
4. The case of the prosecution is based on certain 
circumstances and the Trial Court and High Court found those 
circumstances to be sufficient to warrant the conviction of the · 
E appellant. The High Court found that the accusations for dowry 
torture were not established and therefor, it acquitted the 
appellant of the charge relating to Section 498A of the 1.P.C. 
5. The judgment of the High court is assailed on the ground 
that the circumstances highlighted by the Trial Court and the 
F High Court do not form a complete chain in order to rule out 
the innocence of the accused and to unerringly point at the 
accused to be author of the crime. 
6. The counsel for the respondents on the other hand, 
G supported the judgment of the High Court. 
H 
7. The three circumstances brought on record by the 
prosecution and highlighted by the Trial Court and High Court 
are as follows: 
"(i) Deceased Sofiya met with an unnatural death; 
SOHEL MEHABOOB SHAIKH v. STATE OF 
485 
MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
'" 
(ii) Deceased Sofiya had died in the .oom which 
A 
was solely and exclusively occupied by her and her 
husband i.e. accused No.1; 
(iii) The appellant has not offered any explanation in 
respect of the incident in which deceased Sofiya had 
8 
·sustained burns." 
8. We have gone through the evidence on record and we 
find that the High Court has arrived at some conclusions which, 
ir our opinion, are based on surmises and ·conjectures, without 
there being any evidence to support the conclusions. That 
C 
being so, we find that the charge against the appellant has not 
been established. 
9. The first and third circumstances cannot be considered 
to be relevant either separately or collectively. So far as the 
D 
second· circumstance is concerned. there is no evidence to 
show circumstantially that accused was present in the room at 
the time of occurrence. The time of occurrence, even by 
approximation has not been established by the prosecution. 
10. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of conviction 
recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. The 
appeal is allowed. 
E 
11. The appellant is in jail. He is directed to be set at 
liberty forthwith, unless required in connection with a

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