Case Note & Summary
The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.943 of 2007, convicting the appellants for in furtherance of their common intention committing murder of one Anwar Ahmed Hussain, husband of appellant no.1 on 21st August, 2007, in the house of deceased and appellant no.1, at mezzanine floor of Room No.156, Maharashtra Nagar, Compound No.1 [West] and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for life. According to prosecution, deceased Anwar along with his wife, appellant no.1 and two children were residing at the said mezzanine floor of room no.156 Maharashtra Nagar, Compound No.1, Bandra (W), in which offence in question was committed. He was earning livelihood by hawking and selling spectacles near Bandra Railway Station. The appellant no.2 was assisting in said business and was also visiting the house of the deceased. The said visit turned in love affair in between the appellants. The deceased warned the appellant no.2 not to come to his house. However, the appellants went on meeting each other. On the day of incident appellant no.1, from Medical Shop "Doctor's Chemist" run by PW5 Izaz Abdul Gaffur, purchased a bottle of pesticide. The prosecution case is that the appellants mixed the pesticide in the food of the deceased and thereby caused his death. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court, after analyzing the evidence, held that the circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen, and recovery of weapon was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - Last Seen - Recovery of Weapon - The appellants were convicted for murder of the husband of appellant no.1 based on circumstantial evidence including illicit relationship as motive, last seen together, and recovery of weapon at the instance of appellant no.2. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellants. (Paras 1-33) B) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - The court held that the acts of both appellants in furtherance of their common intention to murder the deceased were established by the evidence of their illicit relationship, prior meetings, and joint participation in the crime. (Paras 2-33) C) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 498A IPC - The court noted that the charge under Section 498A IPC was not pressed by the prosecution and the trial court had acquitted the appellants of that charge. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- motive
- last seen theory
- recovery of weapon
- common intention
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 498A IPC
- Section 201 IPC
