REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1028 OF 2006

MOHD. USMAN MOHD. ISLAM SHAIKH  & ORS.  …..Appellants

Versus

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA          …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. The facts leading to this appeal are as under:-

Deceased  Noorjahan  was  married  to  appellant  No.1-  

Mohd. Usman Mohd. Islam Shaikh but no children had been  

born to the couple.  All the accused that is Mohd. Usman, his  

mother  and  sisters  were  accordingly  misbehaving  with  the  

intention of forcing her to leave the house so that appellant  

No.1 could re-marry.  The relations between the accused and  

the deceased had become strained on this account and there  

were frequent quarrels between them.

On 28th April, 1997, a quarrel took place in the family on  

this issue during which the deceased allegedly consented to  

her  husband’s  second  marriage  provided  she  too  was  

permitted  to  stay  on  with  him.   This  arrangement  was,  

however, not acceptable to the accused with the result that the

quarrel  continued  late  into  the  evening  during  which  the  

deceased was beaten which resulted in severe injuries to her  

head.  It is the prosecution case that thereafter the deceased  

was murdered by first inserting a handkerchief into her mouth  

to  stifle  her  cries  and  suffocate  her  and  she  was  then  

strangulated  and  set  on  fire.   The  Fire  Brigade  received  a  

message about a fire on which it rushed to the house of the  

accused and extinguished the flames.  Information was also  

conveyed to Kurla police station by one Suleman Patel about  

the incident on which a police party immediately rushed to the  

site.  A complaint was, accordingly, lodged against all the four  

accused and they were arrested and on the completion of the  

investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences punishable  

under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian  

Penal Code.  The accused claimed innocence and were brought  

to trial.  

The  prosecution  in  support  of  its  case  relied  on  the  

evidence  of  PW-5-Dr.  Manohar  Shivsharan,  who  had  

performed  the  post-mortem,  and  had  certified  the  cause  of  

death  as  “Asphyxial  death  due  to  throttling  and  gagging  

associated  with  head  injury  and  burns”.   The  doctor  also  

noticed  contusions  on  the  face,  bleeding  on  the  lips  and  

congestion  of  the  throat  and also  recovered a  handkerchief  

that  was  deeply  embedded  in  the  mouth  of  the  deceased  

blocking the mouth opening.  The doctor further opined that  

the contusions could have been caused by blows given by a  

Crl. Appeal   No.1028/2006

hard and blunt object and the injuries to the lips had been  

caused while gagging the deceased.   

The Trial Court noted that there were no eye-witnesses to  

the defence but from the evidence of PWs.4, 6 and 8, it was  

apparent  that  the  relations  between  the  accused  and  the  

deceased  had  become  strained  because  the  deceased  was  

unable to give birth to a child and there were frequent quarrels  

between them on that account.  PW-6-Naseem Virani further  

stated that on the date of the incident at about 1:30 p.m. or  

2:00 p.m she had heard Hashmi Begum, the mother of the  

accused,  quarreling  with  the  deceased  in  the  presence  of  

accused Nos.3 and 4.  PW-6 further stated that accused No.1  

had also come to the house after a short while and the quarrel  

had again erupted which continued till about 4:30 p.m. and  

that she (PW-6) had thereafter left her house and when she  

had returned at about 8:30 p.m., Noorjahan was dead.

The fact of the family quarrel was also confirmed by PW-

8-Sayyed  Ali  who  further  deposed  that  the  accused  were  

beating the deceased and, thereafter Mohd. Usman had dealt  

blows on her chest and stomach while his sisters had caught  

hold of her by her hands.  The trial Court also relied on the  

statement of PSI-Avinash Bhamre (PW-9) who had recovered  

certain  items from the spot  including a stove,  a  half  burnt  

kerosene plastic cannister containing two litres of kerosene oil,  

and  PW-10-PI  Rajan  Shrikant  Gaikwad,  the  Investigating  

Officer  who  had  taken  into  possession  the  blood  stained  

Crl. Appeal   No.1028/2006

clothes of the accused when he had arrested them on the 30th  

April, 1997.   

The Trial Court, after examining the evidence, concluded  

that in the light of the fact that as there were no kerosene oil  

or blood stains on the accused-Hashmi Begum, the mother of  

accused  Nos.1,  3  and  4,  there  was  some  doubt  as  to  her  

presence. The court also found that no case under Section 201  

of  the  Indian Penal  Code  was made  out.   The  Trial  Court,  

however,  convicted  the  other  three  accused  of  the  offence  

under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced  

them to imprisonment for life.   This judgment has also been  

confirmed by the High Court in an appeal.

2. The  present  matter  arises  as  a  result  of  the  grant  of  

special leave by this Court.

3. Mr. Chetan Sharma, the learned senior counsel for the  

appellants,  has raised several  arguments  before  us.   It  has  

been submitted that in a case of a prosecution relying solely  

on circumstantial  evidence,  it  is  essential  that  the  chain of  

circumstances against the accused be complete leading to the  

only  hypothesis  that  the  accused  alone  were  guilty  of  the  

offence alleged and no other conclusion could be drawn.  He  

has also pointed out that the evidence of the three witnesses  

PWs-4,  6  and  8  who  had  come  forward  to  support  the  

prosecution  story,  could  not  be  believed  as  they  being  

Crl. Appeal   No.1028/2006

employed  elsewhere  had  no  cause  to  be  present  when  the  

quarrel had ensued on the fatal day and that in any case it  

would have been difficult for them to have noticed as to what  

was going on in the house of the accused on account of the  

location of their houses vis-à-vis the house of the accused.   It  

has  further  been  submitted  that  there  was  no  evidence  to  

suggest that the relations between the parties were strained or  

that Mohd. Usman, accused no.1, was keen to get married a  

second time as the deceased was unable to bear him a child.   

4. Mr. Sushil Karanjakar, the learned senior counsel for the  

State of Maharashtra has, however, supported the judgment of  

the courts below.   

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and  

very  carefully  gone  through  the  record.   We  see  from  the  

evidence that the deceased had met a homicidal death.  This is  

clear from the evidence of PW-5, the doctor who observed that  

the death was due to Asphyxial throttling, head injuries and  

burns.  The doctor also observed that a ladies handkerchief  

had been stuffed deep into the mouth of the deceased with the  

result that the protrusion of the tongue which was a symptom  

of  throttling,  was absent.   The Doctor  also  opined that  the  

injuries on the head were sufficient to cause death and that all  

the  injuries  when  seen  together  clearly  proved  the  case  of  

Crl. Appeal   No.1028/2006

prosecution that the deceased had been severely beaten before  

being burnt and killed.

6. We must first notice that the incident happened in the  

matrimonial home of accused no.1 and the deceased.  We have  

also carefully examined the evidence of PWs-4, 6 and 8 who  

are  absolutely  independent  witnesses.   They  categorically  

stated  that  the  relations  between  the  accused  and  the  

deceased  were  strained  on  account  of  the  inability  of  the  

deceased to bear a child and that the accused were anxious  

that she should leave so that accused No.1 could re-marry.  

The offer given by the deceased to the effect that she had no  

objection to the remarriage provided she too was permitted to  

stay in the same house was not accepted by the accused and  

they thought it fit to get rid of her.  A perusal of the evidence of  

these witnesses reveals that they had been witnesses not only  

to the frequent quarrels within the family but even to the very  

bitter fight on the day in question which continued for almost  

the whole afternoon and ultimately led to the murder.  It has  

come  in  the  evidence  that  the  deceased  was  a  stout  and  

healthy  woman,  perhaps  physically  stronger  than  her  

husband, and it is, therefore, obvious that accused nos. 3 and  

4 were also required to lend a helping hand.  We also see from  

the Report of the Chemical Analyst that there were kerosene  

residues and blood stains on the shirts of accused nos. 3 and  

4, the sisters of the accused no.1.  We are, therefore, of the  

Crl. Appeal   No.1028/2006

opinion  that  the  chain  of  circumstances  envisaged  for  a  

successful prosecution, are present in the case before us.

7. We, thus, find no merit in the appeal.  It is accordingly  

dismissed.

……………………………..J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

……………………………..J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

OCTOBER 26, 2010 NEW DELHI.

Crl. Appeal   No.1028/2006