Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Murder Based on Circumstantial Evidence and Confession. Appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC for strangulating deceased with odhani confirmed as prosecution proved chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 65
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Mohd. Yasin Chutan Shaikh, was convicted by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, for the murder of Sheetal Kamtekar under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on the night intervening 8th and 9th November 2007, the appellant and the deceased checked into a lodge in Vajreshwari. The appellant strangulated the deceased with an odhani and then attempted to hang himself, sustaining head injuries. The lodge staff heard commotion and informed police, who broke open the door, found the deceased dead and the appellant injured and intoxicated. The appellant allegedly confessed to the crime. The trial court convicted him. On appeal, the High Court examined the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, extra-judicial confession, and medical evidence. The court found that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent only with the guilt of the appellant. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellant was convicted for murder of Sheetal Kamtekar by strangulation with odhani. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including last seen together, extra-judicial confession, and medical evidence. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant. (Paras 1-10)

B) Criminal Procedure - Set Off - Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The appellant was granted benefit of set off for the period of detention undergone during investigation and trial. (Para 1)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession is sustainable.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC upheld.

Law Points

  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Extra-judicial confession
  • Last seen theory
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 309 IPC
  • Section 428 CrPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (10) 55

Criminal Appeal No.557 of 2010

2017-10-10

A. A. Sayed, Sarang V. Kotwal

Mrs. Anjali Awasthi for Appellant, Mr. Rajan Salvi, APP for State

Mohd. Yasin Chutan Shaikh

State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Section 302 IPC

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 13/11/2009 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Thane

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt Prosecution argued that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the appellant's guilt

Ratio Decidendi

The chain of circumstantial evidence, including last seen together, extra-judicial confession, and medical evidence, was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant, warranting conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The present Appeal is preferred by the Appellant challenging the Judgment and Order dated 13/11/2009 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.71 of 2008 whereby the Appellant was convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thane on 13/11/2009 in Sessions Case No.71 of 2008. He appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The appeal was reserved on 28/09/2017 and pronounced on 10/10/2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 309
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 428
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Extension of Time for Deposit in Specific Performance Decree Under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act and Section 148 CPC. The court held that the trial court has power to extend time for deposit even after expiry of originall...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Navy Pension Regulation Denying Condonation for Voluntary Discharge. Regulation 82(a) of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964, held valid and not violative of Articles 14, 21, 300A as it applies uniformly ...