Bombay High Court Acquits Wife in Husband's Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Common Intention. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove that appellant shared common intention with her sons to commit murder.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Shahenaj Amjed Shaikh, was convicted by the II Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur for the murder of her husband Amjed under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and for wrongful confinement under Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC. She was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and one year rigorous imprisonment for wrongful confinement. The incident occurred on 6th June 2011. The prosecution case was that the appellant and her two sons tied up the deceased and later assaulted him, leading to his death. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of PW-1 Gulab Husen Shaikh and PW-2 Rehman Imam Shaikh. The court noted that the appellant was present but there was no evidence that she actively participated in the assault or shared common intention with her sons. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove wrongful confinement. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - The appellant was convicted for murder of her husband along with her sons. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant shared common intention with her sons to cause the death of the deceased. The evidence showed that the appellant was present but did not actively participate in the assault. The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside. (Paras 1-16)

B) Criminal Law - Wrongful Confinement - Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC - The appellant was also convicted for wrongful confinement. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant wrongfully confined the deceased. The evidence was insufficient to establish the ingredients of Section 342 IPC. The conviction was set aside. (Paras 1-16)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.

Law Points

  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Section 342 IPC
  • Common Intention
  • Circumstantial Evidence
  • Acquittal
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (08) 13

Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2014

2020-08-26

Revati Mohite Dere, M.S. Karnik

Aniket Vagal for Appellant, J.P. Yagnik for Respondent

Shahenaj Amjed Shaikh

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and wrongful confinement.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Sections 302 and 342 read with Section 34 IPC.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by the trial court for murder of her husband and wrongful confinement.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC.

Issues

Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant shared common intention with her sons to murder the deceased. Whether the prosecution proved the offence of wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC against the appellant.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that there was no evidence of her active participation or common intention to cause death. Respondent argued that the appellant was present and did not prevent the assault, thus sharing common intention.

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant shared common intention with her sons to commit murder. Mere presence at the scene does not establish common intention under Section 34 IPC. The evidence was insufficient to prove wrongful confinement.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant challenges the judgment rendered by the II Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur thereby convicting her for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The date of the incident is 6th June 2011.

Procedural History

Trial court convicted appellant on 26th August 2020. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court. High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 34, 342
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Port Trust's Decision to Allow Existing Operators to Bid for New Container Terminal. Court upholds JNPT's decision to permit existing BOT operators to participate in bidding for 330-meter extension pro...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Paternity Test Order in Maintenance Case Under Section 125 CrPC. Court Holds That DNA Test Is Necessary to Determine Father-Child Relationship When Paternity Is Disputed and No Other Evidence Exists.