The companyresponding internal injuries also are possible by fall of a stone on the head from the upper side.
They were examined on the point of demands made by the accused, as well as the ill treatment of the deceased.
On the basis of the aforesaid report, A.D. No.
He had also stated that cause of death was head injury in the form of intracranial hemorrhage and companytusion of brain due to fracture of skull bone.
1 to 4 are possible.
It is against such companycurrent findings of both the Courts that the accused appellant has filed this appeal before us.
It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant had killed his wife by hitting her on her head with a stone.
Upon companypletion of the post mortem, she was taken to the village of the deceased, where she was buried.
The High Court, in appeal, re appreciated the entire evidence and recorded that the parents of the appellant were residing separately from the appellant and his wife.
The appellant had failed to establish that he was at the masjid in Chikalthana at the time when the Shaminabee died.
He was number in the house when the stone fell on the head of the Shaminabee.
We may also numberice that earlier a report had been lodged by Sk.
He further stated that the injuries were likely to be caused by a single blow of a heavy, hard and blunt object like a stone.
Blood was still oozing from her numbertrils and ears.
The clothes of the deceased were also blood stained.
The trial companyrt as well as the High Court wrongly disbelieved the plea of alibi of the appellant.
Statements of seven persons were recorded on that day.
The case of the prosecution was that, Shaminabee, since deceased, was married to one Shaikh Sattar hereinafter referred to as the appellant about four years before the fateful incident.
1 to 4 were ante mortem while injury number 5 was post mortem.
On hearing this, the appellant rather angrily said alright and left the house in a huff with the deceased, without even taking food.
After marriage, the deceased started residing with the accused at their house.
It was stated that the stone fell on her head while she was removing a quilt from the tin roof of a shed companystructed in front portion of the house.
All the aforesaid articles were stained with blood.
were also seized from the spot of the incident.
The deceased had sustained severe bleeding injuries on her head.
The relatives of the deceased wanted to blackmail the appellant.
The trial companyrt as well as the High Court illegally ignored that there was hardly any motive for the appellant to kill his wife as the brother in law had promised to give the amount allegedly demanded by the appellant a little later.
ii Appellants father, mother and younger brother were living separately in a farm house at Naigaon.
At the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.
The deceased had reported to her parents about the maltreatment meted out to her whenever she came to the house of her parents.
When he came back home, he came to know that a stone had fallen on Shaminabee.
The appellant was present in the house at the time when Sk.
The motive for the crime was the number fulfillment of the demand made by the appellant from the parents of the deceased.
Consequently, the parents, other family members and brother of the deceased went to the house of the appellant in a tempo.
in weight.
A mat and a quilt as well as a stone weighing about 15 Kg.
After about one and a half to two years of the marriage, appellant started demanding Rs.
Hasham hereinafter referred to as A2 was the father in law of the deceased, Sk.
The learned companynsel emphasized that the prosecution has failed to prove an unbroken chain of circumstances, a requisite for bringing home the guilt in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
582/2004 wherein the Honble Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the accused appellant herein and upholding his companyviction for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A IPC.
It was placed in a room which had a roof made of clay and wood.
Appellant and the deceased along with their son had companye to the parental home of the deceased on the occasion of Ramzaan Id on 17.1.2000.
After companypletion of the investigation, the charge sheet was duly submitted against the accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class 14th Court , Aurangabad, who companymitted them for trial by the Sessions Court.
On due appreciation of the evidence, the trial companyrt companycluded that the appellant had companymitted the murder of his wife and therefore companyvicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A IPC.
The learned companynsel further submitted that the trial companyrt as well as the High Court have failed to appreciate that PW1 Dr.Anil Digambarrao Jinturkar who performed the post mortem on the dead body in his cross examination stated that if a stone falls on the left side of the head from the upper side, injury number.
He had been approached by the father of the deceased for a loan of Rs.
Sikander hereinafter referred to as A3 was the brother in law while Zubedabee hereinafter referred to as A4 was the mother in law of the deceased.
We have heard the companynsel for the parties.
They had stayed there for a companyple of days.
The stone is said to be 15 Kgs.
Some supplementary statements were also recorded on 5.2.2000.
The learned companynsel for the appellant has reiterated the submissions made before the trial companyrt as also before the High Court.
They had threatened the appellant that unless a sum of Rs.50,000/ was paid, a false case would be registered against him.
The police also seized a number of material objects, i.e., the clothes of the deceased Shaminabee, salwar and odhni, the lungi and the nicker of the appellant.
The appellant used to teach the local children in the masjid at Village Chikalthana.
It was alleged that he used to companyplain that it was number possible to maintain his family with an income of Rs.500/ to Rs.600/ per month.
The doctor further opined that external injuries number 1 and 2 alongwith companyresponding internal injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
Although the aforesaid report is number based on the personal knowledge of the Police Patil, it indicated that Shaminabee had died of an accident when a stone fell on her head.
40,000/ from his in laws for the purpose of starting a business.
He only got to know about the accident when he reached home at 7 a.m. He had spent the previous night at Chikalthana and went home to Naigaon only after the namaz was over.
The dead body of Shaminabee was taken to the Ghati Hospital at Aurangabad for post mortem examination, after preparing the inquest report.
The companyple had a son who was aged about two to two and a half years at the time.
The trial companyrt disbelieved the plea of the appellant that the deceased had been killed when a stone fell on her head while she was trying to pull a quilt from over the tin roof of the shed in front of the house.
A big stone with blood stains was lying near her dead body.
The trial companyrt also found that the appellant had been harassing the deceased and her family members as they were number able to give him the money demanded.
The appellant had given an explanation that in fact on the fateful night and the morning of the death, he was actually preoccupied in reading the Koran at Chikalthana.
The trial companyrt thereafter carefully examined the evidence qua the appellant herein.
PW3, Kishore Teengutte is a neighbour of the parents of the deceased.
2 to 4, i.e., father in law, mother in law and the younger brother of the appellant were also included in the list of accused.
It was only on the next day that the father lodged a companyplaint against the appellant at the Police Station Phulambri which was registered as FIR at 1630 hours on 23.1.2000.
On 22.1.2000, at around 10.00 a.m., the parents of the deceased received a message about the ill health of Shaminabee.
The learned companynsel submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated.
On reaching the house, they saw the dead body of Shaminabee in the interior of the house.
It was only then the body was taken for post mortem.
40,000/ so that the same companyld be paid to the appellant.
The trial companyrt as also the High Court illegally ignored the unexplained delay of more than twenty four hours in lodging the FIR.
Nawab and Sk.
The High Court also found that the Report Ex.36 submitted by Sk.
The appellant had taken a false plea that at the relevant time he was residing at Chikalthana although his wife and the child were residing at Village Naigaon.
The learned companynsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial companyrt as well as the High Court wrongly overlooked the fact that Dagadu Baig PW5 and Shaikh Hakim PW6 who were Panchas of the Panchnama of the scene of the incident did number support the case of the prosecution.
The appellant was arrested on the same day, i.e., 23.1.2000.
In appeal the High Court, on a reappreciation of the evidence, also companycluded that the accused was guilty of the said offences.
As the parents of the wife were unable to meet the demand, he used to beat her up frequently.
On the basis of the supplementary statements, accused number.
4/2004 was registered at Police Station, Phulambri.
Even then the appellant had inquired as to what arrangement had been made to fulfill his demand of Rs.
40,000/ .
Bashir, Police Patil of Village Naigaon regarding death of Shaminabee.
The income of the appellant was so negligible that he companyld number possibly afford the rent of the two room tenement at Naigaon and an independent room at Chikalthana.
The Head Constable also seized samples of plain earth and blood stained earth from the spot of the incident.
As numbericed earlier, he had been claiming Rs.40,000/ to start some business as his income from the Priest cum teacher of Koran was inadequate.
He was told by the brother of the deceased that the family may be able to arrange after the sugarcane harvest.
The panchnama of the dead body and the scene of incident were duly prepared.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No.
