SHAIKH SATTAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 503

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, S.S. NIJJAR

Case summary

SHAIKH SATTAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.pdf

Judgment text

[2010] 10 S. C. R. 503 SHAIKH SATIAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 928 of 2007) AUGUST 27, 2010 8 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ. ] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 498A - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Deceased harassed by her 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 - 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. The prosecution case was that the deceased was harassed by the appellant-husband on account of 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 . 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 brother of the deceased told that the family would try to 8 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 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 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 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 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 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. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 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 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 his wife suffered a fatal accident and came to know about her accidental death on his return to his home at 7 a. m. on the following day. The trial court and the High Court found the explanation to be false. Except for making a bald assertion about his absence from his rented premises, the appellant miserably failed to give any particulars about any individual in whose presence, he may have read the Namaj in the morning. He examined no witness from Chikalthana before whom he may have read the Koran in the evening prior to the incident or who could have seen him in the masjid during the night of the incident.

Therefore, the trial court as also the High Court rightly concluded that the plea of being away from the rented premises at the relevant time was concocted. Undoubtedly, the burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon the appellant. The appellant miserably failed to bring on record any facts or circumstances which would make the plea of his absence even probable, let alone, being proved beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 12, 19, 20] [519-C-E-H; 520-A-B, C] A Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M. P. 1952 SCR 1091; Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Admn. (1974) 3 SCC 668; Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 8 SCC 18 - relied on. 2. 3. Both the courts below also noticed that one 'SH' 8 learnt about the accidental death of the wife of the appellant from a discussion among the villagers. He passed on the information to 'SN' who made a report at the police station. Both of them had no personal knowledge about the "accidental death".

The report C contained two versions which were both unbelievable. One was that the victim was asleep when the stone rolled over and fell on her head. The other was that whilst she was withdrawing the quilt, the stone on the roof rolled over and fell on her head. [Para 19) [517-F-H] D 2. 4. The doctor stated that the injuries were likely to be caused "by a single blow of a heavy, hard and blunt object like a stone". A perusal of the post- mortem report makes it abundantly clear that the injuries on the E deceased were on the left hand side of the face. This· would be consistent with the hypothesis of the stone being picked up by a human being and being used as a weapon to assault," against the victim either standing or sleeping on his/her side. The medical evidence also F belies the theory of accidental death.

This apart, there is conclusive evidence of the fact that the body of the deceased was found in the interior of the two room tenement rented by the appellant and the stone weighing 15 Kgs. was found lying next to the dead body. [Para 22) G [522-A-C; 521-B; 522-0) 2. 5. It is inconceivable that on 22nd of January, which would be the coldest time of the year in Aurangabad, the deceased would be outside at 6:00 a. m. , removing a quilt from the tin roof. It is highly improbable H that any sensible individual would leave the quilt out on the tin roof during a cold winter night. There is no A explanation offered by the appellant as to how the stone came inside the inner room and as to how the dead body was found inside the room and not outside the shed. There is no explanation given by anybody about the origin of the story of the "accidental death". The appellant B did not give any explanation as to who informed him that his wife had met with an accidental death.

There is also no explanation as to who first saw the dead body of the deceased. It is inconceivable that in such cold weather, the deceased was sleeping in the open. Especially since, c even according to the husband, she was alone in the two-room tenement. In normal course, she would sleep in the warmest part of the house, in such cold weather. That would be the interior room where the dead body was lying. The roof of that room was made of clay and 0 wood. Thus, the glaring facts of the case would render it inconceivable that the victim had died as a result of a fatal accident. The opinion of the doctor that internal corresponding injuries are also consistent with a stone falling on the head , would not cause any dent iri the E prosecution version. The fact remains that the victim was struck on the head with a heavy blunt object, such as a stone. The conclusions reached by the trial court as also by the High Court cannot be said to be either clearly illegal or manifestly erroneous.

Therefore, there is no F reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court holding the appellant guilty of the offences charged. [Paras 22, 23) [520-F; 522-F; 523-B-D- E] Case Law Reference: G 1952 SCR 1091 relied on Para 12 (1974) 3 sec 668 relied on Para 12 (2002) 8 sec 18 relied on Para 20 H CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 928 of 2007. From the Judgment and order dated 05. 10. 2005 of the High Court of Judicature 'cen'ce! 'of the:'ap'pe11ant? Sili'Ce the"base ·of th-e' ptosecutioiftests pi. irelyon ·circurtistar'i'tfa1 eviderfoe, -the ·ir1a1' 3 1 cdurf 'and tne JHigh·· Courf·~xa'tnifrecr a'i1 f:tie mat0ri~r circum·sfahces fo·:. ensure'that'tlie guilt of the appelfanfha~'beeri 1 1 E1l-stablisheff'beyofia reasonable" doubt. ) We see no re~s6'n t0 disagree wit~. -tnifcbnduslon attive(fafby the triai cooli as'well 1 a's'the' High Court: ' 11 '··' · ' -- "i ·rr- '" '::-: -- ' · -, --- ·- · - '''22.

We hi~y hotice'tiere some ofthe gia'ri'ri'~ffactsi~hich 1 1 wou1a rendeflit fh'co1iceivable'·ttiatisHamihabee hadcdied··as· a iesUlt'ofa'fatal-acCident:- I ,. J, •. ,.. _. -.... h,. -.. \ 1 . ~,;_,9;~c;tti. ,er-;,app17_l! a11t YYia!? "so~,! 'J~gl(~il:! }~ tn~t . ~~ S:9Yl . ;,••f.. ; . _.. ' \ ' . , ,r ,. ' . '-• ~ .. J I . - ' • . ,..... the rented premises at Naigaon either on the night before 2'1u~heJncident qrJin . the-moriiing;when the acciden_t allegedly :;,in occurred:Jt-is inconceivable that on 22hd·of'Januar)l, which •11 would. be-the1cbldestJitne·ofthe;year . ihAurangabad, the . ·c 1deceased:would be outside at 6:00 a. m. , rem0ving a. quilt i)~, ,from the tin. roof. ltds highly. improbable. ,thatany sensible individual would leave the quiltc6ut on--the'tin:ro·of during a cold winter night. Even if, there was a large stone weighing "'" 015 'Kgs:·placed:o11--the'tih roof. the . -qufwWhuld'_ riot be -- !

uncierneath:it1Therefore; 'even·:iHtfo qullf is'pull~Ci; the st6he- "':r_ woula'noi"fie:ciislodged-1frorrl:thertin':foof'w_e, 'therefore;' 1 i · 'find itdifficirfrlcftielieve tnaHh~l"stifne rollecr'off the tin rdor 1 as'the quiltwas'beln9· puileCI i:iY th+e aebe~i's'eci! AssuTuing " ' tnat:thei'stone had:fonea 'cifftlie-tin'rocif, ifwo'uld h'avefane·n·; L! ii'Sbme'distance away from lhefedge bf the:tin'f6'of' It Woutd'i ? SHAIKH iS~TtAR v. STATE 0F :MAHARASH:PRA 5-21' •r:i'havEfbeeh found 'oh ti-is:: ground in0front-of ·l:he house. 0 ' rt Furttiefrfiore,:·in·case;1the'stone 'natl 0. failen'bn':.. top"of the 2;,::ne~a•of:tlie ae'ceased;'the injuries·would-have.. beeh'in the D'Efiniddlif'Qf the''nead brbn the fof'eheacl; as . Sfle•WOUld be r•:; ·facihgiip whil&rehioving:'ff(e·quiltl·'•1 i "·)~(];; t ,,,;i(i br•s 9r! 1 .. ~Grit ·1ss1~) \{it .. :. ~bf'l~d~·:; ~t 2:9J1::~~'! r- jJ;r~:. ;:1 r;:r:;,;··1op~ t.? :'00 ,,,,:i (i. ii)bTtie,1m! 3dical ,,evidence:::C! lsP:d>~. lie~. t~e.

: thg9r,y of :. 111! accidentalr,deatn. nThe;post:Jn9rteQ1 ;:~~awina~iqr:i:::. Qf the o: "'deceased::;.. yas3:cqnductedi,_b~L [)r•:>l6r:\i l~P igarng,(! rrao c: ;: Jiturkar·;iPWl:Who . had,,noti~~-d (l:le,fql\oy. iil]lg . i9i! :1rie~ @D the dead body:- ·A;i;~ :,xi\air1 rm gn'~sDi·· ·o tr::•t' 1A;t ,:;, 1i"(t) ,. ,. contusedJacerateg vyo4Qq;qv~r l~ft te! Jlporal •' :; H... 1Cli~oJli 9r;,regJort:2 C. rrJ .. aP. ()Ve3tJ:! f:l. :UP. P~CPO. J. ti«? IJ:·1Qf left '1l1J ;11 . ::b,E: ,,in . tn~arcp_inna" 0f; s. i? '. ~::4 ? C,,o,q,,G,m:·;~\:>sme .. 9eep GGI: ')(i\iOl o;n/ v:with;;. r:nargjns rE;! ,dcli:? tJ 1qnd SWQll. ~r:l'c:;t ·i\" Jsn. ~ r:. •·. ·:nf~i1lVt? 11i c~dr; ~; t1 i·(_:l\. Y-;V [Jtib ~·f;~> to ~7;);? "fil ~,::_)! 1::: • s. n! ,1i +r;. ,,n (~1),:v1 ! ~Wg:;yl~J;}~c~. ri~,t10,Q PtNr. ~;~:f. ~.. 10,? ,. YL~:ln¥i9}vmg ;rlj j;;r . J (:-ii\lt? uni Ur~~y i~sr~ro. ~;;P!! e;~RL! ,,~_q.. ~)~/~L~,s,were ,,,,,, . ,,i. -. •••· • , , reddish and swollen,. ~ . ,. ... .. . ..... 1. ;;;:«,. ;\J:.

;1; ;. ,or. ,;1G1 d •;. ;_ ~·... J. 1 ·left ear having size 2 x 1 c. m. 9 :~: v•g ~·: J. m•~:·;l: iffe~fula'r•si'. frrr6UiYcHRg 'area;"hlliisrf( and ,,,:· ·~"! Dt-D. S . ,_,;'], iv rE! CfCfrgtf. 11 lo n:pno ;:('! ! i. ,. (. V)'iiv\Abrasiort ever chestin a :tnid linerat theJevel rJ~J NB:z J. ~1it ori:. ofsterno~manubrial junction site 2:x;. 1,i. c. m. , ;-:Jd b»'~ll 9 ;; paleVellowish3';ms;l2 :0 ybod t:fis:; T~e,,doct9r•. ~~a9. ,si~t~(j,-~ha! :Jr:ij1;1,ry N<2~·:J~ ,t<? ,; '1,1W. ~Jif iante 1 ! <:. i)m9r! ,em Y. lf! Ji. 1~1lnjur,y. n~L,. 51w~~;1;i9st ft'9l1~rn. ~~~d1_~p,; also . r. 1&St€JtedJl}at, pa~~e °-f;d~,~t~. :W~~ . ~. e<;1,d,-injurx,ig,1r~::;f. o,~m of intracranial hemorrhage and contusion. of brain due to . Df ;fl"acturEnof! skulLbone. '"TheJdootor1~furth~r :-opTn~d; that HI external injuries no. 1 and 2 alongwith corresponding internal injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

He further stated that the injuries were likely to be caused "by a single blow of a heavy, hard and blunt object like a stone". A perusal of the aforesaid post mortem report makes it abundantly clear that, the injuries on the deceased were on the left hand side of the face. This would be consistent, with the hypothesis of the stone being picked up by a human being and being used as a weapon to assault, against the victim either standing or sleeping on his/her side. (iv) This apart, there is conclusive evidence of the fact that the body of the deceased was found in the interior of the two room tenement rented by the appellant. It is also in the evidence that the room in which the body was found has a roof made of clay and wood. It is also in evidence that the stone weighing 15 Kgs. was found lying next to the dead body. We find it rather difficult to imagine that the victim herself would have carried the stone inside after having been struck with it on the head under the tin roof.

There is no explanation offered by the appellant as to how the stone came inside the inner room. There is even no explanation as to how the dead body was found inside the room and not outside the shed. (v) We may also notice that there is no explanation given by anybody about the origin of the story of the "accidental death". The appellant has not given any explanation as to who informed him that his wife had met with an accidental death. There is also no explanation as to who first saw the dead body of Shaminabee. Was the dead body discovered by Sk. Shamsher wtio had given the information to Sk. Nawab? The evidence on the record suggests that Sk. Nawab visited the house at 6 or 6. 30 a. m. The appellant had claimed that he arrived at 7. 00 a. m. (vi) This apart, there are two stories mentioned in Ex. 36. SHAIKH SATIAR y. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 523 In one version, it is stated that victim was asleep when the stone from the tin roof rolled over her head.

It is inconceivable that in such cold weather, the deceased Shaminabee was sleeping in the open. Especially since, even according to the husband, she was alone in the two room tenement. In normal course, she would sleep in the warmest part of the-ho1:1se, in -such cold weather. That would be the interior room where the dead body-Was lying. The roof of that room was made of clay and wood. (vii) The opinion of Dr. Anil Digambarrao Jiturkar that internal corresponding injuries are also consistent with a stone falling on a head , would not cause any dent in the prosecution version. The fact remains that the victim was struck on the head with a heavy blunt object, such as a stone. 23. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the conclusions reached by the trial court as also by the High Court cannot be said to be either clearly illegal or manifestly. ~erroneous.

We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court holding the apRellant guilty of the charged offences. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. IY. G. Appeal dismissed.