High Court
Facts
1Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 921 OF 2018Sadik S/o. Shabash ShaikhAge: 51 years, Occu: ServiceR/o Sadaphule Vasti, Jamkhed,Tal. Jamkhed, Dist. AhmednagarAt present R/o Attarwadi,Bangdiwala Chawl, Room No.29/46 G,Kureshinagar, Kurla, Mumbai – 70… AppellantVersusThe State of Maharashtra… Respondent...Mr. K. P. Rodge (appointed) and Mr. Mohsin Khan, Advocate forAppellantMrs. V. S. Chaudhary, APP for the Respondent/State...CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.Reserved on : 17.01.2024Pronounced On : 23.01.2024JUDGMENT : [ PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] 1.Heard Mr. Rodge and Mr. Mohsin Khan, learned Advocatesfor the Appellant and Mrs. Chaudhari, learned APP for theRespondent / State. Perused the paper book.2.The Appellant is convicted by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No.11/2016, for 2Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtthe offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of theIndian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] and sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for life till end of his natural life and to payfine of Rs.15,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor three (3) years and further to suffer rigorous imprisonment forseven (7) years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, toundergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year, respectively.3.The aforesaid Sessions Case arose out of CrimeNo.144/2015, registered with Jamkhed Police Station,Ahmednagar on the report lodged by the Informant – ShakilSattar Shaikh [PW-1]. It is the prosecution’s case that theInformant is the resident of Sadaphule Vasti, Jamkhed,Ahmednagar. The Informant’s father and step mother resides inthe same locality near BSNL tower. The Appellant has constructedhis house near the house of Informant’s father and prior to oneand half year [1 ½], the Appellant was residing there with hismother - Chandbi, first wife – Gulshanbi and two sons. However,due to harassment by the Appellant, his family members left thehouse.3.1. On 19/09/2015 around 11:00 am, the Informant’s cousin –Sayeed Mehboob Shaikh (deceased) and Haider came to thehouse of Informant. On inquiry with them, Sayeed told him that,he came along with Appellant, second wife of Appellant– 3Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtMahmooda and Haider and also told him that the first wife ofAppellant has made Application to the Mumbai Port Trust wherethe Appellant was working, demanding her share in the property,and to sort out the issue in that regard, the Appellant brought himfrom Mumbai and the brother of first wife of the Appellant wascontacted for settlement. The deceased – Sayeed stayed in thehouse of Appellant in the night. The Informant returned to hishouse in the night, after closing his shop.3.2.In the morning of 20/09/2015 between 05:00 to 05:15 am,the Informant’s father – Sattar telephonically informed theInformant’s step-mother that Sayeed and Mahmooda i.e. secondwife of the Appellant, were lying in a pool of blood in front oftheir house. The Informant immediately rushed to the spot whichwas the premises of the Appellant’s house and saw dead bodies ofSayeed and Mahmooda with injuries on their head. The Informantlodged report with the Police Station and the aforementionedcrime came to be registered against the Appellant.3.3.The Police reached the spot of incidence to take charge ofthe dead bodies for postmortem and prepared the inquest. TheAppellant came to be arrested and the weapon – Sattur came tobe seized at his instance. The muddemal / articles seized duringthe investigation were referred for forensic examination. Thedeath certificates, postmortem reports and the reports of 4Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtChemical Analyser came to be collected. On completion of theinvestigation, the Appellant came to be Charge-Sheeted for theoffences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.3.4The learned Trial Court framed the Charge against theAppellant at Exhibit-6 for the offences punishable under Sections302 and 201 of IPC, to which, the Appellant pleaded not guiltyand claimed to be tried vide plea at Exhibit-7. The prosecutionexamined in all eleven (11) witnesses and brought on record therelevant documents. After examination of the prosecutionwitnesses, the learned Trial Court recorded the statement of theAppellant under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of CriminalProcedure [for short ‘Cr.PC] at Exhibit-69. The Appellant deniedthe prosecution case. By the impugned Judgment and Order, thelearned Trial Court convicted the Appellant for the offences asmentioned in Para No.2 above.4.It is submitted by the learned Advocates for the Appellantthat the case is based on the circumstantial evidence and thecircumstances brought on record by the prosecution do notconclusively prove that the offence is committed by the Appellant.They submitted that the prosecution has not examined the personHaider Ali, who is referred by the PW-1 - Shaikh Shakil Sattar[Informant]. They further submitted that no motive is proved bythe prosecution. They submitted that if the chain of circumstance 5Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtis not complete, the benefit should be given to the Appellant. Insupport of their arguments, they cited the Judgment in the case ofSharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra;1984 AIR 1622.5.It is submitted by the learned APP that the prosecution hassuccessfully proved the circumstances which conclusivelyestablishes that the offence is committed by the Appellant onlyand none other. He submitted that the Trial Court has properlyappreciated the evidence available on record and no interference iscalled for.6.Before evaluating the evidence available on record, it is to benoted that the prosecution’s case is based on circumstantialevidence. The law on the point of circumstantial evidence is wellsettled by catena of Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ofIndia and various High Courts. In the above referred Judgment,the law on circumstantial evidence is reiterated as:“1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to bedrawn should be fully established; [163D]2. The facts so established should be consistent with thehypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they shouldnot be explainable on any other hypothesis except that theaccused is guilty; [163G]3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature andtendency;[163G] 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the oneto be proved; and [163H] 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave 6Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtany reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with theinnocence of the accused and must show that in all humanprobability the act must have been done by the accused.[164B]. These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel ofthe proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and in theabsence of a corpus deliciti”. In Manjunath and Others Vs. State of Karnataka;2023 SC Online SC 1421 (in Criminal Appeal No.866/2011decided on 06/11/2023), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inParagraph No.14 has observed thus;“14. The law on circumstantial evidence, is well settled. Thelocus classicus on the issue is Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, (supra)which stands consistently followed up until very recently inKamal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine SC 933 [2Judge Bench]14.1 Illustratively, in Gargi v. State of Haryana [(2019) 9SCC 738[2 Judge Bench] this court has, referring to variousearlier judgments, summarised the principles relating tocircumstantial evidence. The principle, is that the sum total ofcircumstances, when examined should point to the guilt of theAppellant, while ruling out all other possible hypothesesincluding his innocence and absence of second party guilt.Further reference may be made to Indrajit Das v. State ofTripura [2023 SCC OnLine SC 201 [2 Judge Bench] and PrakashNishad v. State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC OnLine SC 666 [3Judge Bench].” 7.Coming to the case in hand, the prosecution has brought onrecord the following circumstances to prove the charge;(i) Homicidal death of Sayeed Mehboob Shaikh and MahmoodaSadik Shaikh.(ii) House of Appellant at Jamkhed as the place of Homicidal death of the said persons.(iii) Presence of Appellant at Jamkhed at the time of Incident.(iv)Discovery of weapon at the Instance of Appellant.
Legal Reasoning
7Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odt(v)Motive.8.The evidence bought on record by the prosecution to provethe above circumstances is discussed below: (i) HOMICIDAL DEATH OF SAYEED MEHBOOB SHAIKHAND MAHMOODA SADIK SHAIKH a) The evidence of the Informant, who is PW-1 - ShaikhShakil Sattar, show that he knew the Appellant and both thedeceased person. There is no dispute on this aspect. Deceased –Sayeed along with Haider met him on 19/09/2015 in the morningand informed that they had come with the Appellant and deceased– Mahmooda to Jamkhed. In the early morning of 20/09/2015,he got the information that Sayeed and Mahmooda were lying in apool of blood near the gate of the house of Appellant. Thereafter,he went on the spot and saw the dead bodies of Mahmooda andSayeed. b) The evidence of PW-5 – Dr. Yuvraj Haribhau Kharade showthat he was the Medical Officer at Rural Hospital, Jamkhed at therelevant time and performed Postmortem on two dead bodies i.e.of Sayeed Mehboob Shaikh and Mahmooda Sadik Shaikh. In hisevidence, he has described the injuries on the dead bodies. Theinjuries on the body of Sayeed Mehboob Shaikh are described asunder:“(1) Incised wound over right tempo parieta occipital region ofscalp at five sites from lateral to medial side, mearuements are as 8Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtfollows:(1) 7x1x1 cm. (2) 10x1x1.5 cm. (3) 9x1x1 cm. (4) 10x1x1.5 cm (5) 12x1x1.5 cm.(2) Contused lacerated wound over right cheek two sites 6x1x1cm And 1x1x1 cm.(2) CLW over forehead 5x1x0.5 cm.(3) CLW over chin 9x1x1 cm.(3)Contused abrasion over chest.Other injuries discovered by external examination offollowing nature -1) Fracture right temporal bone with fracture occipital bone with fracture parietal bone with fracture right mandible.I have also found following injuries on the head of body:1) Injury under scalp was present.2) Scull – fracture with right temporal bone with fracture occiptal bone with of parietal boneBrain – congested and subdural and subarchnyd heamotoma+ large size”.He opined the cause of death of Sayeed MehboobShaikh as “due to head injury by hard and sharp object”.c) The injuries on the body of Mahmooda Sadik Shaikh aredescribed as under:“Crush injury over left frontal and left temporal and parietal ofscalp with left side of face. I also found Brain coming out of skull.I have found other injuries on her body which are as under:Fracture left frontal bone with fracture left parietal bone withfracture left temporal bone with left zygomatic arch with leftmandible with all facial bones left sides”.He opined the cause of death of Mahmooda Sadik Shaikh as“due to head injury by hard and blunt object”. 9Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtd) The postmortem reports show the names of deceased asSayeed Mehboob Shaikh and Mahmooda Sadik Shaikh, which areproved in the evidence of PW-5 and are at Exhibits – 33 and 34,respectively. The postmortem reports corroborate the testimonyof this Medical Officer.e)The inquest at Exhibits – 17 and 18, which are admitted bythe defence, show the names of deceased as Sayeed MehboobShaikh and Mahmooda Sadik Shaikh. f) The evidence of PW-5 - Doctor show that he wasconfronted with seized Sattur - article-30 and big stone –article-2. The evidence of PW-5 - Doctor go to show that thesharp injuries on the deceased – Sayeed were possible by ArticleNo.30 - Sattur and the injuries on the deceased – Mahmooda,which were mentioned in Column Nos.17 and 18, were possibleby means of big stone like Article No.2. The suggestion ofdefence that the said injuries were not a possible by use of thesaid articles, are denied by this expert witness. g)The above referred evidence available on record clearlyestablishes that the death of Sayeed Mehboob Shaikh andMahmooda Sadik Shaikh is homicidal. Moreover, as can be seenfrom the tenor of cross-examination of the prosecutionwitnesses, the homicidal death of the said persons is notdisputed. It is thus clear that the prosecution has established the 10Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtcircumstance no.(i).(ii) HOUSE OF APPELLANT AT JAMKHED AS THE PLACEOF HOMICIDAL DEATH OF THE SAID PERSONSa) On this point, the evidence of PW-1 - Shaikh Shakil Sattarshow that when he learnt that Sayeed Mehboob Shaikh andMahmooda Sadik Shaikh were lying in a pool of blood, he wenton the spot. His evidence show that he saw the dragging bloodmarks of dead body from the house of Appellant towards gate. b)There is evidence of panch witness for spot panchnama,who is examined as PW-3 - Pandurang Gahininath Raut. Hisevidence show that in the morning of 20/09/2015, he went toJamkhed as he was called by the Police. The Informant hadshown the spot of incident, which comprised of two room withcompound wall and two dead bodies were lying inside thecompound. There were blood stains on the wall of compound andspot. Two mobile handsets, brick pieces and one stone of cement,stained with blood were lying. He went inside the room andfound blood stains in the room, one liquor bottle, two glasses andone stove, were lying there. The articles were seized from thesaid spot under the panchnama at Exhibit-22. The testimony ofthis panch witness remained unshaken in the lengthy cross-examination. The spot panchnama corroborates the testimony of 11Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtthis panch witness. c)There is document in the form of map of the spot of incidentprepared by the office of Deputy Superintendent of LandsRecords, Jamkhed [Nimtandar No.2] at Exhibit-44, which isadmitted by the defence.d) The evidence of Investigating Officer, who is examined asPW- 11, show that he received 8A extract of the spot of incidentand the same is brought on record at Exhibit-60. Perusal of thesame show that in Column No.4 the names of owner arementioned as ‘Shaikh Shaikhlal Sadik, Shaikh Arifa Sadik, ShaikhFaizan Sadik’, minors through mother Mahmoodabi Sadik Shaikh.His evidence also speak of preparing rough map/sketch of thespot of offence, which has been discussed above as Exhibit-44.e)The cross-examination of prosecution witnesses show thatthe spot of incident is not disputed by the defence. The abovediscussed evidence show that the the circumstance no.(ii) isproved. (iii) PRESENCE OF APPELLANT AT JAMKHED AT THETIME OF INCIDENTa)What can be seen from the evidence available on record isthat the Appellant was working with the Mumbai Port Trust as aSenior Worker. There is no dispute on this aspect. Exhibits-45 12Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtand 46, which are the communications issued by the concernedAuthority of Mumbai Post Trust to the Jamkhed Police and areadmitted by the defence, establish the employment of theAppellant with the Mumbai Post Trust. The documents werecollected by PW-11 - Balkrushna Janardhan Hanpude Patil[Investigating Officer] as can be seen from his deposition. Thesaid Exhibit-46 show that the Appellant was away from his dutyfrom 18/09/2015 to 20/09/2015 without informing or obtainingprior permission of the office.b)As earlier seen from the evidence of PW-1 - Shaikh ShakilSattar that the Appellant had constructed his house at Jamkhed.The evidence of PW-6 - Bashir Rasul Qureshi show that he hadmutton shop at Jamkhed by the name Bhai-Bhai Mutton Shop inthe year 2015 and he knew the Appellant. He read the news inthe newspaper regarding murder of his wife. On earlier day ofincident i.e. 19th, the Appellant had come to his shop andpurchased 1 Kg. meat and he identified the Appellant at the timeof his evidence. He deposed that his statement was recorded inthat connection. The cross-examination show that he knew theAppellant as the customer and the Appellant had alone come tohis shop to purchase the meat and after purchasing the meat, hepaid the money and left. Nothing has come in the evidence of thiswitness to disbelieve him. 13Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtc)There is evidence of PW-2 - Gulshabi Sadiq Shaikh, who isthe first wife of the Appellant. Her evidence show that she wasresiding at Jamkhed with two children and mother-in-law inSadaphule Vasti and the Appellant used to occasionally come tomeet them. As the Appellant used to abuse and beat her, shewent to reside at Underkhed at her brother’s house. On19/09/2015, her husband i.e. the Appellant, his second wife,deceased – Sayeed and Haider came from Mumbai to settle thedispute with her and she came to know about the same from herbrother. She deposed that they intended to come to her house atUnderkhed on 20/09/2015, however, on 20/09/2015, theyreceived the information on phone about the incident and shedirectly went to the Hospital at Jamkhed, where she saw the deadbody of Mahmooda and Sayeed. The Police recorded herstatement. This evidence is to be read with the evidence of PW-1, wherein, he deposed that deceased – Sayeed and Haider Alicame to his house at about 9:30 am on 20/09/2015 and afterinquiry, deceased - Sayeed told him that the Appellant and hiswife – Mahmooda had come to Jamkhed to settle the dispute withGulshanbi i.e. PW-2 and they already talked with the brother ofGulshanbi - PW-2. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 becomesrelevant by virtue of Section 6 of the Evidence Act.d)The evidence of panch witness – PW-7 show that on20/09/2015, he was called at Jamkhed Police Station and he 14Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtreached there with Talathi Sachin Bhaisade and the Appellant wasproduced. His evidence show that the blood stained clothes of theAppellant i.e. half shirt of blue-white squares and black pant wereseized under the panchnama at Exhibit-38 and the Appellant wasarrested under the panchnama at Exhibit-39. This evidence iscorroborated by the evidence of PW-11 - Investigating Officer,wherein, he deposed that on 20/09/2015, he took the custody ofthe Appellant under the arrest panchnama and at that time, seizedthe clothes and other articles from the Appellant.e)This evidence regarding arrest of the Appellant show thatthe Appellant was arrested on 20/09/2015 around 5:30 p.m. fromJamkhed, where the incident had happened. f)The defence of Appellant is that of denial and alibi. Toquestion No.22, the Appellant replied in his statement underSection 313 of Cr.PC that deceased – Mahmooda and deceased –Sayeed came together on 19/09/2015 and he came to Jamkhedon the next date. Except this, nothing is brought by the Appellantin the evidence that he was present elsewhere on the day ofincident. Even on the touchstone of preponderance of probability,the defence of alibi is not made out. In the light of the evidencebrought on record on this point, non-examination of Haider Ali[referred by PW-1 - Shaikh Shakil Sattar] is not fatal for theprosecution. 15Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtg)From the above discussed evidence, it becomes crystal clearthat at the time of offence, the Appellant was at Jamkhed and asearlier discussed the Appellant was having his house at Jamkhed.Thus, the presence of the Appellant at Jamkhed at the time ofincident is established and the circumstance no.(iii) is established.(iv) DISCOVERY OF WEAPON AT THE INSTANCE OFAPPELLANTa) The evidence of PW-4 - Sachin Arjun Bhaisade, who wasserving in the Tahsil Office, Jamkhed speak of discovery ofweapon at the instance of Appellant. His evidence show that on21/09/2015, he was called at Jamkhed Police Station. When hereached at 3:00 pm, he found the Appellant in the police custodyand the Appellant had shown his willingness to show the placewhere he concealed the weapon and memorandum of thestatement at Exhibit-24 was prepared. The Appellant led thevehicle to the spot which was near the BSNL Tower, near the girlshostel in Sadaphule Vasti. The Appellant showed the spot whichwas in the grass under the bush of Rui tree and one Sattur wasproduced by the Appellant from the said spot which was seizedunder the seizure panchnama at Exhibit-25. The evidence of thispanch witness show that he identified the Appellant at the time ofhis evidence and also identified the Sattur - Article No.30, as thesame weapon which was discovered and seized at the instance ofAppellant. He denied that the Appellant was handcuffed. It has 16Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtcome in the cross-examination that the spot of discovery wassituated towards backside of the girls hostel and was not visiblefrom the hostel. He denied that the spot of discovery wasaccessible to the public. b)The evidence of PW-11 - Investigating Officer corroboratethe evidence of the said panch witness that the article – 30 –Sattur was seized at the instance of the Appellant under thememorandum at Exhibit-24 and seizure panchnama at Exhibit-25.c)The discovery at the instance of the Appellant is relevant byvirtue of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 which reads asunder:“27. How much of information received from Appellant may beproved — Provided that, when any fact is deposed to asdiscovered in consequence of information received from a personAppellant of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, somuch of such information, whether it amounts to a confession ornot, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may beproved”.The evidence as discussed above show that thediscovery of the said Sattur was out of disclosure from theAppellant while he was in policy custody. The Appellant wasarrested soon after the incident and there was immediatediscovery of article-30 Sattur at the instance of the Appellant.From the evidence available on record, the discovery of weaponi.e. Sattur - Article-30 at the instance of the Appellant, while hewas in police custody, has been established by the prosecutionand the circumstance no.(iv) is established. 17Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odt(v) MOTIVEa)In the cases based on circumstantial evidence, motiveassumes significance. The motive for commission of crime in thecases in hand, as per the prosecution, is that both the deceasedwere in love relation with each other and therefore, the Appellant,who was the husband of deceased – Mahmooda, committed thecrime. The evidence of PW-1 - Shaikh Shakil Sattar show thatthe deceased – Mahmooda was the second wife of the Appellantand PW-2 Gulshanbi, the first wife of the Appellant was realsister of deceased - Mahmooda. There is no dispute on theseaspects. In the cross-examination of PW-1 - Shaikh ShakilSattar, the factum of love affair between the deceased – Sayeedand deceased – Mahmooda is brought on record. He deposed thathe was not aware whether PW-2 Gulshanbi was knowing aboutthe love affair between deceased - Sayeed and deceased -Mahmooda and he was not aware whether the love affair ofdeceased - Sayeed and deceased - Mahmooda was known to theAppellant. b)The evidence of PW-2 Gulshanbi, the first wife of Appellantand sister of deceased – Mahmooda, in her cross examinationdeposed that deceased – Sayeed was residing near their hourse atMumbai and was usually coming to their house. It is brought onrecord in the cross-examination of PW-2 that deceased – Sayeedalso used to come in the house of the Appellant when her sister 18Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odti.e. deceased – Mahmooda, was staying with him. It is alsobrought in the cross-examination that when she was staying withthe Appellant at Mumbai, the Appellant used to leave the house at6:00 am and return at 6:00 pm. This cross-examination fortifiesthe prosecution’s case about the motive.c)The evidence of PW-11 - Investigating Officer show thatduring the course of investigation, it transpired that, the deceased- Sayeed was having illicit relations with the deceased -Mahmooda who was the wife of the Appellant and due to the saidrelations, the Appellant brought them from Mumbai on the pretextto settle the dispute of his first wife at Jamkhed and the Appellantadministered liquor to both of them and committed their murder.This aspect of liquor finds corroboration from the evidence ofPW-5 – Doctor, which show that after opening the stomach ofboth the deceased, he found food articles with the smell ofalcohol. The column no.21 of the postmortem reportscorroborate the said testimony about the presence of alcohol inthe stomach of both the deceased. As is clear from the evidenceof PW-3 – Pandurang Gahininath Raut that there was one bottlelike liquor bottle and two glasses on the spot of incident whichwere seized under the spot panchnama. Thus, the evidence onrecord show that the Appellant had the motive to commit thecrime as his second wife deceased - Mahmooda and deceased -Sayeed were intimately involved with each other. 19Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtd)The above discussed evidence on record establishes themotive behind the crime.9.The other evidence that of PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10, whoare the police personnel, show that they had carried articles andDNA kit for chemical anaylsis. The reports of chemical analyserare brought on record in the evidence of PW-11 – InvestigatingOfficer at Exhibits – 64 and 65. It only indicate stains on thearticles. Though there are other CA reports, they are notexhibited before the Trial Court. Therefore, they are kept out ofconsideration.10.The paper book show that the incriminating circumstanceswere put to the Appellant by the learned Trial Court pursuant tothe provisions of Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.PC, wherein theAppellant accepted that he was residing near the house ofInformant’s father i.e. near BSNL Tower at Jamkhed and one deadbody of male and another dead body of female were lying insidecompound of his house. This response of the Appellant to theincriminating circumstances and denial to all other incriminatingcircumstances gives rise to additional link in the chain ofcircumstances to make it complete. On this aspect, it would notbe out of place to quote the observations from the Judgment inTrimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra; (2006)10 SCC 681, in Paragraph Nos.15, 21 and 22, which read thus; 20Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odt“15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecyinside a house, the initial burden to establish the case wouldundoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature andamount of evidence to be led by it to establish the chargecannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases ofcircumstantial evidence. The burden would be of acomparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of theEvidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on theinmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how thecrime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot getaway by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation onthe supposed premise that the burden to establish its case liesentirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on anaccused to offer any explanation”.“21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where noeyewitness account is available, there is another principle of lawwhich must be kept in mind. The principle is that when anincriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the saidaccused either offers no explanation or offers an explanationwhich is found to be untrue, then the same becomes anadditional link in the chain of circumstances to make itcomplete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions ofthis Court.22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murderof his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence toshow that shortly before the commission of crime they wereseen together or the offence takes placed in the dwelling homewhere the husband also normally resided, it has beenconsistently held that if the accused does not offer anyexplanation how the wife received injuries or offers anexplanation which is found to be false, it is a strongcircumstance which indicates that he is responsible forcommission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of H.P. [AIR 1972SC 2077], it was observed that the fact that the accused alonewas with his wife in the house when she was murdered therewith 'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused withher were strained would, in the absence of any cogentexplanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State ofMaharashtra [(1992) 3 SCC 106], the appellant was prosecutedfor the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. Itwas observed that when the death had occurred in his custody,the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausibleexplanation for the cause of her death in his statement underSection 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution casecoupled with absence of any explanation was held to beinconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistentwith the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in thecommission of murder of his wife”.….……………….………….…………….. 21Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odt11. The above discussed circumstances are proved by theprosecution by credible evidence. The proved circumstances pointtowards the involvement of the Appellant in the crime and rulesout all other possible hypotheses including the innocence of theAppellant and any other person. We maintain the conviction ofthe Appellant recorded by the Trial Court. The learned Trial Courthas imposed punishment for the offence punishable under Section302 of IPC as “to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, whichshall mean, till end of his natural life”. The said punishment needsto be corrected / modified to bring it in consonance with theprovisions of Section 302 of IPC.12. The Appellant is also convicted for the offence underSection 201 of IPC for causing disappearance of evidence of theoffence. Learned Trial Court recorded the impugned judgmentthat the Appellant had assaulted the Sayeed and Mahmooda in hishouse and after commission of the offence, he dragged their deadbodies out of the house upto the compound gate, with intentionto disappear evidence in respect of the offence which had takenplace in his house and concealed weapon – Sattur in the grassnear Rui tree at some distance from the spot of offence.Therefore, ingredients of Section 201 of IPC were proved againsthim. Examining this observation of the learned Trial Court in thelight of above referred proved circumstances, we see no reasonnot to concur with the said finding of the learned Trial Court.13. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the 22Cri-Appeal-921-2018.odtfollowing order: ORDER(i) The Appeal is dismissed.(ii)The Paragraph No.2 of operative order of the impugnedJudgment dated 02/05/2018 is corrected/modified as under:“The word “Accused is sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for life, which shall mean, till end of hisnatural life” is corrected and be read as “Accused issentenced to suffer imprisonment for life”.(iii)The fees of appointed Advocate is quantified at Rs.10,000/-[Rupees Ten Thousand Only], which is to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub- Committee, Aurangabad.(iv)The Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Trial Court.(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) Sameer