STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MOHAMMAD HANIF MOHIDDIN SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent-accused was tried for an offence under Sections 302/201, Penal Code on the allegations that on 6.2.1988 at about 11.30 p.m., he caused the death of his wife Malanbi by strangulation and thereafter with a view to destroy evidence, set her body on fire. After investigation was complete, which commenced on the recording of an F.I.R. at the instance of Sadashiv Jagtap, P.W. 5, challan was filed and the Respondent after being charged, was put on trial. The trial court, after examining the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, noticed that the case against the Respondent-accused was based on circumstantial evidence and the four circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in support of its case were, (i) motive; (ii) conduct of accused ; (iii) medical evidence; and (iv) state of body of the deceased.

(2.) The trial court found that the motive, i.e., that there were strained relations between the husband and the wife on account of illicit marital relations of the Respondent-accused, was not established because the three witnesses whom the prosecution examined in support of the allegations to prove motive, Muktabai Jadhav P.W. 7, Ch ITR a P.W. 8 and Sahirabi Sayyed, P.W. 9 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The trial court, however, relied upon medical evidence of Dr. Prabha Kesaralimath, P.W. 10 and did not accept the testimony of D.W. 1 Dr. L. Amaikant Bade to hold the Appellant guilty. The trial court also found that the conduct of the Respondent in not taking any step to extinguish fire when his wife was burning, coupled with the naked body of the deceased showed that it was only husband and wife who were in the kitchen when the husband could have strangulated her and thereafter to screen himself, burnt her body. On the basis of this evidence, the trial court convicted the Respondent for an offence under Section 302, Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 6 months. The Respondent was also convicted of the offence under Section 201, Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 3 months. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The Respondent challenged his conviction and sentence in the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 12.4.1991 accepted the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the Respondent-accused. By special leave, the State is in appeal before us.

(3.) Indeed, this case is based only on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness. We shall deal with each of the circumstances hereafter.