Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Syed Wahab Sayed Mir, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar, in Sessions Trial No.31/2013 for the murder of his two children, daughter Mariya (aged 4) and son Syed Kaif (aged 1½), under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine for each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. The prosecution case was that the appellant suspected his wife's fidelity and believed the children were not his. On 3 January 2013, he took the children on his motorcycle, purportedly to watch a circus, and later their bodies were found near a railway gate with their throats slit. The appellant was apprehended by police officers who noticed his blood-stained clothes; he made an extra-judicial confession to them. The trial court convicted him based on motive, last seen evidence, extra-judicial confession, and recovery of blood-stained clothes. The appellant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that the extra-judicial confession was not voluntary. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the chain of circumstances was complete, the extra-judicial confession was voluntary and reliable, and the motive was established. The court upheld the conviction and the consecutive sentences, holding that consecutive sentences are appropriate for multiple murders. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellant was convicted for murdering his two children by slitting their throats. The prosecution relied on motive, last seen evidence, extra-judicial confession to police, and recovery of blood-stained clothes. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and the extra-judicial confession was voluntary and reliable. (Paras 1-30)
B) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Consecutive Sentences - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The trial court directed that the life sentences for the two murders run consecutively. The High Court held that consecutive sentences are permissible under Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and in cases of multiple murders, consecutive sentences are appropriate to reflect the gravity of the offence. (Paras 31-35)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his two children is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- extra-judicial confession
- motive
- Section 302 IPC
- consecutive sentences
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (04) 31
Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2016
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Y.G. Khobragade
Miss. Anuradha S. Mantri (appointed) for appellant, Mr. R.D. Sanap, APP for respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for murder of two children.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted for murdering his two children and sentenced to life imprisonment with consecutive sentences.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the appellant in Sessions Trial No.31/2013 on 31.08.2015.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession.
Whether the direction for consecutive sentences is legal and appropriate.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient and the extra-judicial confession was not voluntary.
Respondent argued that the chain of circumstances was complete and the confession was reliable.
Ratio Decidendi
The chain of circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen, extra-judicial confession, and recovery of blood-stained clothes, was complete and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The extra-judicial confession was voluntary and reliable. Consecutive sentences for multiple murders are permissible under Section 427(1) CrPC and appropriate to reflect the gravity of the offence.
Judgment Excerpts
Present appeal has been filed by the original accused who has been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar in Sessions Trial No.31/2013 on 31.08.2015, wherein he has been held guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code twice for committing murder of his daughter Mariya and son Syed Kaif.
The prosecution story, in short, is that informant Reshma Begam is the wife of present appellant – original accused.
Accused used to raise suspicion over her character and was of the impression that the children begotten to the wife are not from him.
He took the children on his motorcycle.
They found that Mariya and Kaif’s throat was slit by some sharp weapon.
The trial court directed that the life sentences for the two murders run consecutively.
The High Court held that consecutive sentences are permissible under Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and in cases of multiple murders, consecutive sentences are appropriate to reflect the gravity of the offence.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar in Sessions Trial No.31/2013 on 31.08.2015. He filed Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, which was heard and dismissed on 28.04.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 427(1)
