Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Son for Murder of Father's Second Wife Based on Circumstantial Evidence. Motive, last seen, recovery of blood-stained shoes, and false explanation established guilt under Section 302 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 27
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves the murder of Nagavva @ Bismilla, the second wife of accused no.2 Yusuf Ismail Shaikh. Accused no.1 Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh, son of accused nos.2 and 3, was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence: motive (accused no.1 was unhappy with his father's second marriage), last seen evidence (accused no.1 was seen with the deceased shortly before her death), recovery of blood-stained shoes at his instance, and false explanation. The trial court acquitted accused nos.2 and 3. The High Court upheld the conviction of accused no.1, finding the circumstantial evidence complete, and dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal of accused nos.2 and 3.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - Last Seen - Recovery of Blood-Stained Articles - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The appellant was convicted for murder of his father's second wife based on motive, last seen evidence, recovery of blood-stained shoes, and false explanation. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant. (Paras 1-20)

B) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Appeal Against Acquittal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 read with Section 34 - The State appealed against acquittal of accused nos.2 and 3 (father and mother). The court held that there was no evidence to connect them with the murder, and the trial court's acquittal was proper. (Paras 1-20)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of accused no.1 under Section 302 IPC is sustainable on the basis of circumstantial evidence, and whether the acquittal of accused nos.2 and 3 is correct.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1990 dismissed; conviction of accused no.1 under Section 302 IPC upheld. Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 1990 dismissed; acquittal of accused nos.2 and 3 confirmed.

Law Points

  • Circumstantial evidence
  • motive
  • last seen theory
  • recovery of incriminating articles
  • false explanation
  • Section 27 Evidence Act
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (08) 67

Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1990 with Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 1990

2010-08-31

B.H. Marlapalle, Anoop V. Mohta

2010:BHC-AS:16738-DB

Mr. Abdul Kadar Millwala, Mrs. P.P. Shinde, Mr. Arfan Sait

Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh

State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal in a murder case.

Remedy Sought

Accused no.1 sought acquittal; State sought conviction of accused nos.2 and 3.

Filing Reason

Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC and appeal against acquittal of co-accused.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted accused no.1 under Section 302 IPC and acquitted accused nos.2 and 3.

Issues

Whether the conviction of accused no.1 under Section 302 IPC is sustainable on circumstantial evidence. Whether the acquittal of accused nos.2 and 3 is correct.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred. State argued that the evidence against accused no.1 was complete and that accused nos.2 and 3 were also guilty.

Ratio Decidendi

The chain of circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen, recovery of blood-stained shoes, and false explanation, was complete and pointed only to the guilt of accused no.1. There was no evidence to connect accused nos.2 and 3.

Judgment Excerpts

These appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 28/03/1990 rendered by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, at Pune in Sessions Case No. 338 of 1987. Accused no.1 came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.

Procedural History

Sessions Case No. 338 of 1987 tried by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. Judgment on 28/03/1990 convicted accused no.1 under Section 302 IPC and acquitted accused nos.2 and 3. Appeals filed: Criminal Appeal No. 320/1990 by accused no.1 and Criminal Appeal No. 399/1990 by State. Heard on 29/07/2010, judgment delivered on 31/08/2010.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 201, 202, 34
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 27
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Son for Murder of Father's Second Wife Based on Circumstantial Evidence. Motive, last seen, recovery of blood-stained shoes, and false explanation established guilt under Section 302 IPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of Caveat in Execution Proceedings — Caveat Under Section 148A CPC Not Maintainable After Execution Application Is Filed. Court Holds That Assignee Decree-Holder Can Execute Decree Without ...