Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellant for Attempt to Murder and House Trespass in Knife Attack. Conviction under Sections 307, 452, 324 IPC confirmed based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence of cut throat injury.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 23
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sabira Mohd. Ali Raj, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 654 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 452, 307, 324, and 242 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, 7 years, 2 years, and 6 months respectively. The prosecution case was that on 7th May 2012, the appellant, who was acquainted with the family of Shehnaz Alamgir Shaikh, visited her house around 3:30 p.m. and offered facial/body massage services. Shehnaz accepted, and while Shehnaz was lying on a cot, the appellant drew a knife from her purse and slashed Shehnaz's neck. Shehnaz's daughters, Misbah and Saiba, were present and witnessed the attack. The appellant also assaulted the daughters with the knife. Shehnaz sustained a cut throat injury and was taken to Grand Medical and Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, where she underwent tracheotomy due to inability to speak and was hospitalized from 8th May 2012 to 15th June 2012. Saiba lodged a report at Nagpada Police Station, leading to registration of Crime No. 148 of 2012 under Sections 307, 324, 341, 452 IPC and Section 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed, and the case was committed to Sessions Court. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses. The trial court convicted the appellant. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court, after considering the evidence, found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the victim's daughters, who were eyewitnesses, gave consistent testimony, and the medical evidence corroborated the injuries. The court held that the conviction under Sections 452, 307, and 324 IPC was justified. However, the court did not specifically discuss the conviction under Section 242 IPC. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentences were upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Intention to cause death - The appellant inflicted a cut throat injury on the victim with a knife, which required tracheotomy and prolonged hospitalization. The nature of injury and weapon used clearly indicate intention to cause death. Held, conviction under Section 307 IPC is justified (Paras 1-3).

B) Criminal Law - House Trespass - Section 452 IPC - Preparation to cause hurt - The appellant entered the victim's house under the pretext of offering massage services and carried a knife in her purse, indicating preparation to cause hurt. Held, conviction under Section 452 IPC is correct (Paras 2-3).

C) Criminal Law - Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Weapons - Section 324 IPC - The appellant also assaulted the victim's daughters with a knife, causing injuries. Medical evidence corroborates the injuries. Held, conviction under Section 324 IPC is sustainable (Paras 2-3).

D) Criminal Law - Obscene Objects - Section 242 IPC - The appellant was also convicted under Section 242 IPC for selling or distributing obscene objects, but the judgment does not discuss evidence on this count. The conviction appears to be based on the same incident. Held, conviction under Section 242 IPC is not specifically addressed in the appeal (Para 1).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 452, 307, 324, and 242 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court under Sections 452, 307, 324, and 242 of the Indian Penal Code.

Law Points

  • Conviction under Section 307 IPC requires intention to cause death or knowledge that act is likely to cause death
  • House trespass under Section 452 IPC requires preparation to cause hurt
  • assault or wrongful restraint
  • Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons
  • Section 242 IPC for selling or distributing obscene objects (not applicable here but mentioned in judgment)
  • Credibility of child witnesses
  • Medical evidence corroborating oral testimony
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (12) 75

Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 2014

2018-12-18

Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav

Mr. R.B. Mokashi for appellant, Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for State

Sabira Mohd. Ali Raj

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for attempt to murder, house trespass, and voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from the High Court against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 654 of 2012 for offences under Sections 452, 307, 324, and 242 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment.

Previous Decisions

The trial court convicted the appellant on 11/8/2014 in Sessions Case No. 654 of 2012.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder is sustainable based on the evidence? Whether the conviction under Section 452 IPC for house trespass is sustainable? Whether the conviction under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons is sustainable? Whether the conviction under Section 242 IPC is sustainable?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. State argued that the prosecution had proved its case through eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction under Section 307 IPC is sustainable as the appellant inflicted a cut throat injury with a knife, indicating intention to cause death. The conviction under Section 452 IPC is sustainable as the appellant entered the victim's house with a knife, indicating preparation to cause hurt. The conviction under Section 324 IPC is sustainable as the appellant caused injuries to the victim's daughters with a knife. The evidence of eyewitnesses and medical evidence corroborates the prosecution case.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under section 452 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and 7 years respectively. It is the prosecution case that the appellant was acquainted with the family of Shehnaz Alamgir Shaikh. Shehnaz was made to lie on the cot for facial and massage. She had noticed that the accused Sabira had kept her purse next to her. She had switched off her cell phone. Thereafter, she had drawn a knife from the purse and had slated the neck of Shahnaz.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 654 of 2012 vide judgment and order dated 11/8/2014. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 2014 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the conviction and sentence. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 18/12/2018, dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 307, 452, 324, 242, 341
  • Bombay Police Act, 1951: 37(1), 135
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Negligence Established Despite Absence of Driver's License. Owner of Vehicle Held Liable for Compensation as Driver Was Not Possessing Valid Driving License at Time of Accident.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellant for Attempt to Murder and House Trespass in Knife Attack. Conviction under Sections 307, 452, 324 IPC confirmed based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence of cut throat injury.