Holding

The conviction under Sections 302 and 498A IPC stands because the circumstantial evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant failed to prove his alibi.

Summary

The appellant, Shaikh Sattar, was convicted under Sections 302 and 498A IPC for murdering his wife, who was found dead with head injuries and a heavy stone nearby. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the husband's demand for money, prior abuse, the location of the body and stone, and medical testimony that the injuries were caused by a blunt object, not an accident. The appellant claimed an alibi, asserting he was away reading the Koran and that the death was accidental when a stone fell from a tin roof. The Court held that the alibi was unsupported, the burden of proving it lay on the accused, and the medical evidence contradicted the accidental theory. Applying established principles on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial and High Court findings, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

The adequacy of circumstantial evidence to sustain convictions under Sections 302 and 498A IPC.
Whether the appellant successfully proved his alibi and escaped liability.
The relevance of medical evidence in disproving the accidental death theory.
The allocation of the burden of proof for an alibi claim.
Whether the trial and High Court findings were manifestly erroneous.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 498A

Subjects

circumstantial evidencealibimurderdowry deathburden of proofmedical evidenceaccidental death theoryconviction

Judgment

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 503

SHAIKH SATIAR A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 928 of 2007)
AUGUST 27, 2010
8
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH
NIJJAR, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 498A - Conviction based on
circumstantial evidence - Deceased harassed by her c
husband in connection with the demand of money and
frequently beaten up by him due to non-fulfillment of demand
- Deceased found
. dead in the interior room of the
. house with
marks of injuries in head and a heavy stone with blood stains
lying next to her body - Her clothes were also blood stained o
- Concurrent finding of courts below holding the husband
guilty - Plea of alibi and accidental death disbelieved by
courts below - On appeal, held: Medical evidence belied the
theory of accidental death - No explanation as to how the
dead body and the stone came inside the interior room - E
Burden of establishing the plea of alibi was upon the husband
- He failed to bring on record facts and circumstances to
make the plea of alibi probable - Conclusions reached by the
courts below cannot be said to be either clearly illegal or
manifestly erroneous - Therefore, no reason to disturb the
F
concurrent findings ·of both the courts holding the husb.and
guilty of the offences charged - Evidence - Circumstantial
evidence.

The prosecution case was that the deceased was
harassed by the appellant-husband on account of G
demand of money. The parents of the deceased were
unable to meet the demand. Due to this reason, she was
beaten up frequently by the appellant. The deceased
used to tell her parents about the maltreatment meted out
503 . H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 10 S.C.R.

A to her whenever she visited her parents. Few days prior
to the date of occurrence, the appellant and the deceased
along with their son went to the parental home of the
deceased. They stayed there for two days. On inquiry by
the appellant regarding the arrangement of money, the
8 brother of the deceased told that the family would try to
arrange the money after the sugarcane harvest. On
hearing this, the appellant got angry and left the house
with the deceased without taking food.

On the fateful day, the parents of the deceased
C received a message about the ill-health of the deceased.
When they reached her home, they found her dead body
lying in the interior of the house. There were marks of
injuries in head and a big stone with blood stains was
lying near the dead body. The clothes of the deceased
D were also blood stained. The dead body was sent for post
mortem. The next day, the father of the deceased lodged
an FIR against the appellant alleging that the appellant
had killed the deceased by hitting a stone weighing 15
Kgs on her head. The charge-sheet was filed against the
E appellant and his parents and brother. The trial court
disbelieved the plea of alibi and held that the appellant
was ill-treating the deceased in connection with the
demand of money and convicted the appellant under
Sections 302 and 498A IPC. However, the other accused
F were given the benefit of doubt and were acquitted. The
conviction of appellant was upheld by the High Court.

In the instant appeal, it was contended for the
appellant that he was falsely implicated; that a stone had
fallen accidently on the head of the deceased while she
G was taking out a quilt from over the tin shed; that he was
not in the house when stone fell on the head of the
deceased; that he came to know about the incident when
he reached home in the morning as he had spent the
previous night at Chikalthan.
H
SHAIKH SATTAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 505

Dismissing the appeal, the Court A
HELD: 1.1. It is an accepted proposition of law that
in cases where no direct evidence is available, conviction
can be based on circumstantial evidence alone.
Undoubtedly, in the instant case, there is no direct 8
evidence of the crime. The prosecution case hinges on
circumstantial evidence. Both the courts below held that
the appellant was residing separately with his wife (the
deceased) and his son at Naigaon in a rented
accommodation. The appellant's father, mother and C
younger brother were living separately. The income of the
appellant was so negligible that he could not possibly
afford the rent of the two-room tenement at Naigaon and
an independent room at Chikalthana. He cooked up a
story that he had been to Chikalthana to read Koran, the
night before his wife suffered a fatal accident and came D
to know about her accidental death on his return to his
home at 7 a.m. on the following day. The trial court and
the High Court found the explanation to be false. Except
for making a bald assertion about his absence from his
rented premises, the appellant miserably failed to give E
any particulars about any individual in whose presence,
he may have read the Namaj in the morning. He examined
no witness from Chikalthana before whom he may have
read the Koran in the evening prior to the incident or who
could have seen him in the masjid during the night of the F
incident. Therefore, the trial court as also the High Court
rightly concluded that the plea of being away from the
rented premises at the relevant time was concocted.
Undoubtedly, the burden of establishing the plea of alibi
lay upon the appellant. The appellant miserably failed to G
bring on record any facts or circumstances which would
make the plea of his absence even probable, let alone,
being proved beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 12, 19,
20] [519-C-E-H; 520-A-B, C]
H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. 1952 SCR
1091; Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Admn. (1974) 3 SCC 668;
Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 8 SCC 18 - relied
on.

8 2.3. Both the courts below also noticed that one 'SH'
learnt about the accidental death of the wife of the
appellant from a discussion among the villagers. He
passed on the information to 'SN' who made a report at
the police station. Both of them had no personal
knowledge about the "accidental death". The report
C contained two versions which were both unbelievable.
One was that the victim was asleep when the stone rolled
over and fell on her head. The other was that whilst she
was withdrawing the quilt, the stone on the roof rolled
over and fell on her head. [Para 19) [517-F-H]
D
2.4. The doctor stated that the injuries were likely to
be caused "by a single blow of a heavy, hard and blunt
object like a stone". A perusal of the post- mortem report
makes it abundantly clear that the injuries on the
E deceased were on the left hand side of the face. This·
would be consistent with the hypothesis of the stone
being picked up by a human being and being used as a
weapon to assault," against the victim either standing or
sleeping on his/her side. The medical evidence also
F belies the theory of accidental death. This apart, there is
conclusive evidence of the fact that the body of the
deceased was found in the interior of the two room
tenement rented by the appellant and the stone weighing
15 Kgs. was found lying next to the dead body. [Para 22)
G [522-A-C; 521-B; 522-0)
2.5. It is inconceivable that on 22nd of January,
which would be the coldest time of the year in
Aurangabad, the deceased would be outside at 6:00 a.m.,
removing a quilt from the tin roof. It is highly improbable
H that any sensible individual would leave the quilt out on
SHAIKH SATTAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 507

the tin roof during a cold winter night. There is no A
explanation offered by the appellant as to how the stone
came inside the inner room and as to how the dead body
was found inside the room and not outside the shed.
There is no explanation given by anybody about the
origin of the story of the "accidental death". The appellant B
did not give any explanation as to who informed him that
his wife had met with an accidental death. There is also
no explanation as to who first saw the dead body of the
deceased. It is inconceivable that in such cold weather,
the deceased was sleeping in the open. Especially since, c
even according to the husband, she was alone in the
two-room tenement. In normal course, she would sleep
in the warmest part of the house, in such cold weather.
That would be the interior room where the dead body
was lying. The roof of that room was made of clay and
0
wood. Thus, the glaring facts of the case would render it
inconceivable that the victim had died as a result of a fatal
accident. The opinion of the doctor that internal
corresponding injuries are also consistent with a stone
falling on the head , would not cause any dent iri the
prosecution version. The fact remains that the victim was E
struck on the head with a heavy blunt object, such as a
stone. The conclusions reached by the trial court as also
by the High Court cannot be said to be either clearly
illegal or manifestly erroneous. Therefore, there is no
reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the trial court F
and the High Court holding the appellant guilty of the
offences charged. [Paras 22, 23) [520-F; 522-F; 523-B-D-
E]

Case Law Reference: G
1952 SCR 1091 relied on Para 12
(1974) 3 sec 668 relied on Para 12
(2002) 8 sec 18 relied on Para 20
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 928 of 2007.

From the Judgment and order dated 05.10.2005 of the
High Court of Judicature <.:t Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in
B Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2004.

Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Appellant.

Shankar Chillarge (Addi. Govt. Advocate for Ravindra
Keshavrao Adsure) for the Respondent.
c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. This appeal has been
filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal
D Appeal No. 582/2004 wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased
to dismiss the appeal of the accused appellant herein and
upholding his conviction for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 498A IPC.

E 2. 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. Sk. Hasham (hereinafter referred to as A2) was the
father-in-law of the deceased, Sk. Sikander (hereinafter referred
F to as A3) was the brother-in-law while Zubedabee (hereinafter
referred to as A4) was the mother-in-law of the deceased. After
marriage, the deceased started residing with the accused at
their house. The appellant used to teach the local children in
the masjid at Village Chikalthana. It was alleged that he used
to complain that it was not possible to maintain his family with
G an income of Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- per month. After about one
and a half to two years of the marriage, appellant started
demanding Rs. 40,000/- from his in-laws for the purpose of
starting a business. As the parents of the wife were unable to
meet the demand, he used to beat her up frequently. The
H deceased had reported to her parents about the maltreatment
SHAIKH SATTAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 509
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
meted out to her whenever she came to the house of her A
parents. The couple had a son who was aged about two to two
and a half years at the time. Appellant and the deceased along
with their son had come to the parental home of the deceased
on the occasion of Ramzaan-ld on 17.1.2000. They had stayed
there for a couple of days. Even then the appellant had inquired B
as to what arrangement had been made to fulfill his demand
of Rs. 40,000/-. He was told by the brother of the deceased
that the family may be able to arrange after the sugarcane
harvest. On hearing this, the appellant rather angrily said "alrighf'
and left the house in a huff with the deceased. without even c
taking food.

3. On 22.1.2000, at around 10.00 a.m., the parents of the
deceased received a message about the ill health of
Shaminabee. Consequently, the parents, other family members
and brother of the deceased went to the house of the appellant D
in a tempo. On reaching the house, they saw the dead body of
Shaminabee in the interior of the house. It was placed in a room
which had a roof made of clay and wood. The deceased had
sustained severe bleeding injuries on her head. Blood was still
oozing from her nostrils and ears. A big stone with blood stains E
was lying near her dead body. The clothes of the deceased
were also blood stained.

4. The dead body of Shaminabee was taken to the Ghati
Hospital at Aurangabad for post mortem examination, after F
preparing the inquest report. Upon completion of the post
mortem, she was taken to the village of the deceased, where
she was buried.

5. It was only on the next day that the father lodged a
complaint against the appellant at the Police Station Phulambri G
which was registered as FIR at 16:30 hours on 23.1.2000. We
may also notice that earlier a report had been lodged by Sk.
Nawab and Sk. Bashir, Police Patil of Village Naigaon
regarding death of Shaminabee. Although the aforesaid report
is not based on the personal knowledge of the Police Patil, it H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A indicated that Shaminabee had died of an accident when a
stone fell on her head. It was stated that the stone fell on her
head while she was removing a quilt from the tin roof of a shed
constructed in front portion of the house. On the basis of the
aforesaid report, A.O. No. 4/2004 was registered at Police
B Station, Phulambri. The panchnama of the dead body and the
scene of incident were duly prepared. 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 A mat and a quilt as well as a stone weighing about
c 15 Kg. were also seized from the spot of the incident. All the
aforesaid articles were stained with blood. The Head Constable
also seized samples of plain earth and blood stained earth from
the spot of the incident. It was only then the body was taken for
post mortem.
D 6. It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant had
killed his wife by hitting her on her head with a stone. The stone
is said to be 15 Kgs. in weight. The motive for the crime was
the non-fulfillment of the demand made by the appellant from
the parents of the deceased. As noticed earlier, he had been
E claiming Rs.40,000/- to start some business as his income from
the Priest-cum-teacher of Koran was inadequate.

7. The appellant was arrested on the same day, i.e.,
23.1.2000. Statements of seven persons were recorded on that
F day. Some supplementary statements were also recorded on
5.2.2000. On the basis of the supplementary statements,
accused nos. 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. After completion of the investigation, the charge
G sheetwas duly submitted against the accused persons in the
Court/of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (14th Court),
Aurangabad, who committed them for trial by the Sessions
Court.

8. At the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.
H They were examined on the point of demands made by the
SHAIKH SATIAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 511
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
accused, as well as the ill-treatment of the deceased. PW3, · A
Kishore Teengutte is a neighbour of the parents of the
deceased. He had been approached by the father of the
deceased for a loan of Rs. 40,000/- so that the same could be
paid to the appellant.
8
9. On due appreciation of the evidence, the tri~I cou,rt
concluded that the appellant had committed the murder of his
wife and therefore convicted him for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 498A IPC. In appeal the High Court.
on a reappreciation of the evidence, also concluded that the
accused was guilty of the said offences. It is against such C
concurrent findings of both the Courts that the accused-
appellant has filed this appeal before us.

10. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
D
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated
the submissions made before the trial court as also before-tl'le-
High Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has submittecf
that the trial court as well as the High Court wrongly overlooked
the fact that Dagadu Baig PW5 and Shaikh Hakim PW6 who E
were Panchas of the Panchnama of the scene of the incident
did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned
counsel further submitted that the trial court 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. F
side of the head from the upper side, injury nos. 1 to 4 are
possible. The corresponding internal injuries also are
possible by fall of a stone on the head from the upper side."
The learned counsel submitted that the appellant has been
falsely implicated. The relatives of the deceased wanted to G
blackmail the appellant. They had threatened the appellant that
unless a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid, a false case would be
registered against him. The trial court as also the High Court
illegally ignored the unexplained delay of more than twenty four
hours in lodging the FIR. The learned counsel emphasized that H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 10 S.C.R.

A 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. The trial court 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
B to give the amount allegedly demanded by the appellant a little
later. The trial court as well as the High Court wrongly
disbelieved the plea of alibi of the appellant. He was not in the
house when the stone fell on the head of the Shaminabee. He
only got to know about the accident when he reached home at
c 7 a.m. He had spent the previous night at Chikalthana and went
home to Naigaon only after the namaz was over. When he
came back home, he came to know that a stone had fallen on
Shaminabee. She was taking out a quilt from over the tin shed
and she had died because of the injuries sustained by her.
D 12. We are unable to accept any of the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the appellant. Undoubtedly, in this
case there is no direct evidence of the crime. The prosecution
case hinges on circumstantial ev.idence. It is an accepted
proposition of law that even in cases where no direct evidence
E is available in the shape of eye-witnesses etc. a conviction can
be based on circumstantial evidence alone. The hypothesis on
which a conviction can be based purely on circumstantial
evidence, was stated by this Court in the case of Hanumant
Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P., 1952 SCR 1091. In the
F aforesaid judgment, Mahajan, J. speaking for the Court stated
the principle which reads thus:-

It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is
of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which
G the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first
instance be fully established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should
be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should
be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
H
SHAIKH SATTAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 513
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a A
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave· any
reasonable ground for a con.clusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused. B

The aforesaid proposition of law was restated in. the case
of Naseem Ahmed Vs. Delhi Admn., (1974) 3 SCC 668
by Chandrachud J. as follows:

"This is a case of circumstantial evidence and it is C
therefore necessary to find whether the circumstances on
which prosecution relies are capable of supporting the sole
inference that the appellant is guilty of the crime of which
he is charged. The circumstances, in the first place, have
to be established by the prosecution by clear and· cogent D
evidence and those circumstances must not be·consistent
with the innocence of the accused. For determining whether
the circumstances established on the evidence raise but
one inference consistent with the guilt of the accused,
regard must be had to the totality of the circumstances. E
Individual circumstances considered in isolation and
divorced from the context of the over-all picture emerg.ing
from a consideration of the diverse circumstances and their
conjoint effect may by themselves appear innocuous. It is
only when the various circumstances are considered F
conjointly that it becomes possible to understand and
appreciate their true effect."

13. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle, we may now
consider whether the course adopted and the conclusions
reached by both the Courts, are manifestly erroneous or clearly G
illegal. As noticed earlier, on due appreciation of the evidence,
the trial court concluded that the prosecution has failed to
establish the guilt of accused nos. 2 to 4 for any of the offences.
It was noticed that initially, when the father of the deceased
lodged the report with the police, he had accused only the H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A appellant. The trial court, therefore, accepted the submission
that they had been subsequently implicated on the basis of
supplementary statements made on 5.2.2000. They were,
therefore, given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

14. The trial court thereafter carefully examined the
8
evidence qua the appellant herein. The trial court also found that
the appellant had been harassing the deceased and her family
members as they were not able to give him the money
demanded. The trial court disbelieved the plea of the appellant
that the deceased had been killed when a stone fell on her head
C while she was trying to pull a quilt from over the tin roof of the
shed in front of the house.

15. The appellant had given an explanation that in fact on
the fateful night and the morning of the death, he was actually
D preoccupied in reading the Koran at Chikalthana. He had also
stated that he had gone to his house after Namaj was over. He
stated that he had reached the house at about 7.00 a.m, and
learnt about the accidental death of his wife. The plea of alibi
has been disbelieved by the trial court.
E
16. The trial court has recorded that the following facts had
been proved:-

"(a) There was demand of money from the side
of the accused No. 1 from the maternal
F home of the deceased Shaminabee.

(b) She was being ill-treated by accused No.1 in
connection with that demand.

(c) Accused No.1 left the maternal home of the
G deceased Shaminabee along with her prior
to about two days of the incident, by
exhibiting anger for non-fulfillment of his
demand for cash amount.

H (d) The dead body of Shaminabee with severe
SHAIKH SATTAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 515
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
bleeding injuries on her head was found in A
the house of the accused No.1 in a room
which was having a roof made of clay and
wood.

(e) There was absolutely no possibility of falling 8
a stone on the head of the deceased
Shaminabee from over the tin sheets shed,
which was in front of the house of accused
no.1.

(f) Accused No. 1 has given a false explanation c
and/or he failed to establish the possibility of
falling of a stone on the head of the
deceased Shaminabee from the roof of his
house.
D
(g) The deceased Shaminabee died because of
the head injuries in the form of intracranial
hemorrhage and contusion of brain due to
fracture of skull bone, which were sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause
E
death.

(h) Accused No. 1 1id not establish the plea of
alibi set up by him." ·

17. The High Court, in appeal, re-appreciated the entire .F
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. The
appellant had taken a false plea that at the rel.evant time he was G
residing at Chikalthana although his wife ahd the child were
residing at Village Naigaon. The appellant was present in the
house at the time when Sk. Nawab had visited the house at
about 6 or 6.30 a.m. but the appellant had claimed that he did
not reach the residence till 7.00 a.m. The report given by Sk.
H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 10 S.C.R..

A Nawab about the accidental death was not based on personal
knowledge. He reported the matter to the police on the basis
of the information given to him by Sk. Shamsher. This witness
in evidence in Court stated that he had heard about the
accidental death from the villagers but he was unable to identify
B the person who gave the information. The High Court also found
that the Report Ex.36 submitted by Sk. Nawab to the police
station narrates two stories, which are mutually exclusive of
each other. In either case, the location of the stone ought to be
about 1 foot away from the terminal head of the tin sheet roof.
c The dead body was lying in the inner room of the 2 room
tenement. A stone was lying by the side of the dead body. This
would further falsify the plea of the defence. On the basis of the
above, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had
established that the accused was residing with his wife in the
rented premises at Naigaon. It was not open for the defence
0
to say that the prosecution had not prima facie established any
case or that the trial court had shifted the onus of proof on the
shoulders of the defence at a premature stage. The version
given by the appellant in the statement under Section 313 of
the Cr.P.C. has been disbelieved by both the trial court as well
E as the High Court.
18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire
matter. The High Court while examining the entire evidence has
noticed that the parents and the younger brother of the appellant
F were residing at a farm house separately, even though it is
situated in Village Naigaon. It has also rightly come to the
conclusion that the parents were not members of the family of
the~ present appellant and the deceased at the material time.
Even in the evidence of PW2, Ahmad Khan, PW3, Kishore
G Teengutte and PW4, Raziyabee, there was reference only to
demands made by the appellant and not by the other accused.
The trial court had elaborately discussed the entire evidence
and concluded that no demands were ever made by the parents
of appellant as well as the younger brother of the appellant.
H Therefore, it becomes quite evident that at the relevant time,
SHAIKH SATTAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 517
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
the appellant was residing in the rented accommodation at A
Naigaon independently with his wife and his infant child. In the
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant took a plea
of total denial and of being absent from the house at Naigaon
at the time when Shaminabee is said to have died. During his
statement, in answer to question no. 26, the appellant stated 8
as follows:-

"I was working as a teacher at Chikalthana, Shaminabi and
my~elf were residing there happily. We had taken a room
at N'aigaon.~We used to reside in that foom during
Ramzan IQd~olidays. In the night of the incident, Shaminabi C
alone was in that room. Prior to that, I had gone to
Chikalthana to read Kuran in the evening. On the next day
after Namaz was over, I went to Naigaon from Chikalthana
an<;f' reached my room at 7 a.m At that time, I came to know
that a stone fell on the person of Shaminabi when she was IJ
taking out a quilt from over the tin-shed and she died
because of the head injuries sustained by her. Thereafter,
I sent one Mubarak of our Village to the maternal home of
Shamianbi to inform .about the incident. I did not commit
murder of Shaminabi by throwing stone on her head. The E
case is false."

In reply to question no. 19, the appellant even made an
allegation of attempted blackmail against the relatives of the
deceased in the following words:- F

"On the next day of incident, Ahmed Khan, his brother and
my father in law came to my house and demanded ·me
Rs.50,000/-. They told that in case the said amount was
not paid, a false case would be lodged. He (I) could not . G
pay that amount. Therefore, Ahmed Khan prepared false
case ahd deposed falsely." •

19. So the appellant claimed false implications as well as
being absent from the scene of the crime at the relevant time.
The trial court as well as the High Court upon due appreciation H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A of the evidence have concluded that the appellant was unhappy
or even annoyed at the inability of the in-laws to pay him an
amount of Rs.40,000/- for starting a business. It has also come
in evidence that two days prior to the incident, he had left the
house of the in-laws after having expressed his annoyance at
B their inability to arrange for the funds. He had left the house
without even joining them for the meal. It has also been found
by both the Courts that appellant was residing separately with
his wife (the deceased) and his son at Naigaon in the rented
accommodation. It is further to be noticed that the specific case
c of the appellant is that he was earning a meager amount in the
region of Rs.500/-. Therefore he could not possible afford the
luxury of renting another room at Chikalthana. Therefore, he
would have undoubtedly returned to his residence after his
disgraceful departure from his in-laws house two days earlier.
He then cooked up a story .that he had been to Chikalthana to
0
read Koran, the night before his wife suffered a fatal accident.
He came to know about her accidental death on his return to
his home at 7:00 a.m, on the following day. The trial court and
the High Court have found the explanation to be .false. It has
been noticed by both the Courts that Chikalthana is only 12 to
E 15 Kms. away from Naigaon. It is also noticed that the evening
Namaj would have taken place just before sunset of the
previous evening. Therefore, it is unimaginable that he could
not have come back to his residence during the night. Both the
Courts also noticed that Sk. Shamsher is said to have learnt
F about the accidental death of the wife of the appellant from a
discussion among the villagers. He was unable to identify any
particular villager who had given him the information. He,
thereafter, passed on the information to Sk. Nawab who made
a Report (Ex.36) at the police station. Both of them have no
G personal knowledge about the "accidental death". It is also
noticed that the Report Ex. 36, actually contains two versions
which are both unbelievable. One version is that the victim was
asleep when the stone rolled over and fell on her head. The
other is that whilst she was withdrawing the quilt, the stone on
H the roof rolled over and fell on her head. Except for making a
SHAIKH SATIAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 519
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
bald assertion about his absence from his rented premises, the A
appellant miserably failed to give any particulars about any
individual in whose presence, he may have read the Namaj in
the morning. He examined no witness from Chikalthana before
whom he may have read the Koran in the ~vening prior to the
incident. He examined nobody, who could have seen him in the B
masjid during the night of the incident. Therefore, the trial court
as also the High Court concluded that this plea of being away
from the rented premises at the relevant time was concocted.

20. Undoubtedly, the burden of establishing the plea of
alibi lay upon the appellant. The appellant herein has miserably C
failed to bring on record any facts or circumstances which would
make the plea of his absence even probable, let alone, being
proved beyond reasonable doubt. The plea of alibi had to be
'proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the
possibility of the presence of the appellant in the rented D
. premises at the relevant time. When a plea of alibi is raised
. by an accused it is for the accused to establish the said plea
·by positive evidence which has not been led in the present
case. We may also notice here at this stage the proposition of
~·
. ·law laid down in the case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of E
- Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 18 as follows:

'This plea of alibi stands disbelieved by both the courts
and since the plea of alibi is a question of fact and since
both the courts concurrently found that fact against the F
appellant, the accused, this Court in our view, cannot on
an appeal by special leave go· behind the abovenoted
concurrent finding of fact".

21. But it is also correct that, even though, the plea of alibi
of the appellant is not established, it was for the prosecution · G
to prove the case against the appellant. To this extent, the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was correct.
The failure of the plea of alibi would not necessarily lead to the
success of the prosecution case which has to be independently
proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Being H
520 ·SUPREME· COURT R:EPORTS- [2010] 10 S.C.R.

·A aware''ofthe ;afotesaid-tprinciple 6flaw; trial court as also·the
Hign Court exahiiiiea the· circumstantial evidence to exbiude the'
pos·siofUty of'tfie,innc>'cen'ce!'of the:'ap'pe11ant?Sili'Ce the"base ·of
th-e' ptosecutioif tests pi.irelyon ·circurtistar'i'tfa1 eviderfoe, -the ·ir1a1'
cdurf 'and tne JHigh·· Courf·~xa'tnifrecr3 a'i1 1 f:tie mat0ri~r
B circum·sfahces fo·:.ensure'that'tlie guilt of the appelfanfha~'beeri
E1l-stablisheff'beyofia reasonable" doubt.) We 1 1
re~s6'n t0 see no
disagree wit~.-tnifcbnduslon attive(fafby the triai cooli as'well
a's'the' High Court: ' 1 11 '··' · ' -- "i ·rr- '" '::-: -- ' · -, --- · - · -

'''22. We hi~y hotice'tiere some ofthe gia'ri'ri'~ffactsi~hich
c wou1a rendeflit fh'co1iceivable'·ttiatisHamihabee hadcdied··as· a
1

iesUlt'ofa'fatal-acCident:- r;ni ,' I <• .:.' ,-.;,,; r ., .
1
- 'J ;, 'i
·:·i,'....:· (1q·ui;;:) ;·~:::: ::ti<-~i-~;::-'<; !' :;:1: ~ ;~:t·J. ,~ ... !·· ·,, ·.;· 1 ~.) b:-JJq .. :·1 C:-:iL:~'
·,"ri ,_:(i)J:Jihe•,rented·accommodation':wasdA the, exClusive,
, ; ·POS"session.,ofdhe appellant and his immediate :family-: •·· •1
D ~-;.·< :1= t~·b .•.. .-\~'·:·... ·:··; ·.c: .-·:.:·~··;. ··~:i.. •.. i :)nT :..·
···,.1,; , . 11 ·: J:'· . }'.'.
r;;k, Hi,) fi'Pp,~JIC!Qt',s. fClt~er, _piR,the.r~~n~.:Y?~ll"lg~r p~Qt~.e.r: XJere. _
'~
.. .living separsitely,•r.,.-
.. ·· .,J.
in a• Jarm,
i.Jtf...l• .. · .,;-~;.·
hollse. at-Naigaon
.. <.:.· .....
""-'' ~ >
.•,The- income·
,.._.-....h,.-.. \ J •· ··• ,. • ~-· ,.J, •.

1 .~,;_,9;~c;tti.,er-;,app17_l!a11t YYia!? "so~ ,!'J~gl(~il:!}~ tn~t .~~ S:9Yl<tqi9t.
r_, ,gq~~$Jt1 aff?r~<'m~ ren~.• oJ'.-!,~e,_,,t_~8 rgom. 1~~rie"'m.ent,,a,t,
E - :: }'~~t~a2q ~n,<;1 1 "c:1n ind.~Ren)deDCf.()p_m.~t, yhik~.lt_ha~_a. 1TJ'!e
appellant miserably fcli!ed ,>.
to_
;, ••
establish Mis- absence from1
• '-#' f..; ._.. ' \ ' . , ,r ,. ' . '-• ~ ..J I .- ' • . ,.....

the rented premises at Naigaon either on the night before
2'1u~heJncident qrJin .the-moriiing;when the acciden_t allegedly
:;,in occurred:Jt-is inconceivable that on 22hd·of'Januar)l, which
•11 would.be-the1cbldestJitne·ofthe;year .ihAurangabad, the
.·c 1deceased:would be outside at 6:00 a.m., rem0ving a.quilt
i)~, ,from the tin.roof. ltds highly .improbable.,thatany sensible
individual would leave the quiltc6ut on--the'tin:ro·of during a
cold winter night. Even if, there was a large stone weighing
"'" 015 'Kgs:·placed:o11--the'tih roof. the .-qufwWhuld'_ riot be
G - ! uncierneath:it1Therefore; 'even· :iHtfo qullf is'pull~Ci; the st6he -
"':r_ woula'noi"fie:ciislodged-1frorrl:thertin':foof'w_e, 'therefore;'
i · 'find itdifficirfrlcftielieve tnaHh~l"stifne 1 rollecr'off the tin rdor
as'the 1quiltwas'beln9· puileCI i:iY th+e aebe~i's'eci! AssuTuing
" ' tnat:thei'stone had:fonea 'cifftlie-tin 'rocif, if wo'uld h'avefane·n·;
11

L! ii 'Sbme' distance away from lhefedge bf the :tin'f6'of' It Woutd'i
?SHAIKH iS~TtAR v. STATE10F :MAHARASH:PRA 5-21'
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
•r:i'havEfbeeh found 'oh ti-is:: ground in0front-of ·l:he house.
'natl 0.failen'bn':. top"of the
'0 rt Furttiefrfiore,:·in·case; 1the 'stone
2;,::ne~a•of:tlie ae'ceased;'the injuries·would-have ..beeh'in the
D'Efiniddlif'Qf the''nead brbn the fof'eheacl; as .Sfle•WOUld be
r•:; ·facihgiip whil&rehioving:'ff(e·quiltl·'• i "·)~(];; t ,,,;i(i br•s 1

9r!1 ..~Grit ·1ss1~) \{it .. :.~bf'l~d~·:; ~t 2:9J1::~~'!r- jJ;r~:.;:1 r;:r:;,;··1op~ t.?:'00 B
,,,,:i (i.ii)bTtie,1m!3dical ,,evidence:::C!lsP:d>~.lie~. t~e.: thg9r,y of
:.111! accidentalr,deatn.nThe;post:Jn9rteQ1 ;:~~awina~iqr:i:::.Qf the
o: "'deceased::; ..yas3:cqnd u ctedi,_b~L [)r•:>l6r:\i l~P igarn g,(!rrao
c: ;: Jiturkar·;iPWl:Who .had,,noti~~-d (l:le,fql\oy.iil]lg .i9i!:1rie~ @D the
dead body:- ·A;i;~ :,xi\air1 rm gn'~sDi·· ·o
c
tr::•t' 1A;t ,:;, 1i"(t) ,.,.contusedJacerateg vyo4Qq;qv~r l~ft te!Jlporal
•' :; H... 1Cli~oJli 9r;,regJort:2 C.rrJ . aP.()Ve3tJ:!f:l.:UP.P~CPO.J.ti«?IJ:·1Qf left
'1l1J ;11 .::b,E: ,,in .tn~arcp_inna" 0f; s.i?'.~::4 ?C,,o,q,,G,m:·;~\:>sme . 9eep
GGI: ')(i\iOl o;n/ v:with;;.r:nargjns rE;!,dcli:?tJ 1qnd SWQll.~r:l'c:;t ·i\"
Jsn.~ r:.•·.·:nf~i1lVt? 11i c~dr; ~; t1 i·(_:l\.Y-;V [Jtib ~·f;~> to ~7;);?"fil ~,::_)! 1::: • D
s.n! ,1 i +r;.,,n (~1),:v1 !~Wg:;yl~J;}~c~.ri~,t10,Q PtNr.~;~:f.~ 10,?,.YL~:ln¥i9}vmg .
;rlj j;;r .J (:-ii\lt?uni Ur~~y i~sr~ro.~;;P!! e;~RL!,,~_q .. ~)~/~L~,s,were
,,,,,, .,,i. -.••• · • , , reddish and swollen,. ~ . ,. . . . .. . .....
1 .;;;:«,.;\J:.;1; ;.,or.,; 1G1 d •;.;_ ~· . .J.1<(;• •-~, ;;
:,c • ::1•/)~d i L·,LJ1 .·-."i' 'l·';:/·:~ ~';;,.if: ~ ;(;1,.:1';/
;.,..-·,·)1 :: .1

v)< nit ~·· 1 !(1n))'''.Mi.lltiple'rMma1_i"cb'fi~6sion's'cfveHett:'cffBek 1
, ·:vi o1 '~'" .l! '~·j 0 ~'C:ri( beiot/arlt:F anteriof'tfr frag'u's 6fle1ft ear,
!i rec)' B :;:,; ,_Y!!}i1
1
Varying.1 from Si:fe' 1;•}( :1 Ctn:' tQ ·5~)('.!) C.%.
$f~~ ··ii. (":'"'1;1lf1'f
··•.·· f,.~
·-"\/'~ •ttJt··- ~~.:~:
't "·-• ., .. l
.. ,
·' ~_ '41"'i·· . ··'- .,;, t ..·~,. ' '~.· ',J~r.~.(·•r-·f."\'"•n,·,;;.
"\'1·.·7 ."~{ .-.,.-_.• J.i_;.,.::;-.. ·.1r, ..,.

(iv) Oval shaped .contusion1over left·cl:ieek.S:c.m.
. •. . . medially tc;> ·left ear having size 2 x 1 c.m.
:~: v•g ~·: J.m•~:·;l: 9 iffe~fula'r•si'.frrr6UiYcHRg 'area;"hlliisrf( and
,,,:· ·~"!Dt-D.S .,_,;'], iv rE!CfCfrgtf.11 lo n:pno ;:('! !i.<ciccS {bOd'i_'.f;b \(C1
·~. \l ~.:;~ noHB.nr::.icf}f·3 vnE nf;'itQ !on efid tr.rLBqqs eiiT ~'riicsb
'"i ie':.i i:.,<> ,. (.V)'iiv\Abrasiort ever chestin a :tnid linerat theJevel
rJ~J NB:z J.~1it ori:. ofsterno~manubrial junction site 2:x;.1,i.c.m.,
;-:Jd b»'~ll 9 ;; paleVellowish3';ms;l2 :0 ybod t:fis:;
<·~ 1~·;-i '::.~\!'; p bs fi 0 ~ V 1er,2 ~n G ft 8 ;{;:~ \' ,i bB18 V OJZ i {,1
b•o~>T~e,,doct9r •.~~a9.,si~t~(j, -~ha!:Jr:ij1;1,ry N<2~·:J~ ,t<?,; '1, 1W.~Jif1 iante
!<:. i)m9r!,em Y.lf!Ji.1~ 1lnjur,y. n~L,.51 w~~;1;i9st ft'9l1~rn.~~~d1_~p,; also
.r. 1 &St€JtedJl}at, pa~~e °-f;d~,~t~.:W~~ .~.e<;1,d,-injurx,ig,1r~::;f.o,~m of
intracranial hemorrhage and contusion. of brain due to
.Df ;fl"acturEnof!skulLbone. '"TheJdootor1~furth~r :-opTn~d; that HI
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 10 S.C.R.

A external injuries no. 1 and 2 alongwith corresponding
internal injuries were sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. 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". A perusal of the aforesaid
B post mortem report makes it abundantly clear that, the
injuries on the deceased were on the left hand side of the
face. This would be consistent, with the hypothesis of the
stone being picked up by a human being and being used
as a weapon to assault, against the victim either standing
c or sleeping on his/her side.

(iv) This apart, there is conclusive evidence of the fact that
the body of the deceased was found in the interior of the
two room tenement rented by the appellant. It is also in the
evidence that the room in which the body was found has
D a roof made of clay and wood. It is also in evidence that
the stone weighing 15 Kgs. was found lying next to the
dead body. We find it rather difficult to imagine that the
victim herself would have carried the stone inside after
having been struck with it on the head under the tin roof.
E There is no explanation offered by the appellant as to how
the stone came inside the inner room. There is even no
explanation as to how the dead body was found inside the
room and not outside the shed.

F (v) We may also notice that there is no explanation given
by anybody about the origin of the story of the "accidental
death". The appellant has not given any explanation as to
who informed him that his wife had met with an accidental
death. There is also no explanation as to who first saw the
dead body of Shaminabee. Was the dead body
G
discovered by Sk. Shamsher wtio had given the
information to Sk. Nawab? The evidence on the record
suggests that Sk. Nawab visited the house at 6 or 6.30
a.m. The appellant had claimed that he arrived at 7.00 a.m.

H (vi) This apart, there are two stories mentioned in Ex.36.
SHAIKH SATIAR y. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 523
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
In one version, it is stated that victim was asleep when the A
stone from the tin roof rolled over her head. It is
inconceivable that in such cold weather, the deceased
Shaminabee was sleeping in the open. Especially since,
even according to the husband, she was alone in the two
room tenement. In normal course, she would sleep in the B
warmest part of the-ho1:1se, in -such cold weather. That
would be the interior room where the dead body-Was lying.
The roof of that room was made of clay and wood.

(vii) The opinion of Dr. Anil Digambarrao Jiturkar that
internal corresponding injuries are also consistent with a C
stone falling on a head , would not cause any dent in the
prosecution version. The fact remains that the victim was
struck on the head with a heavy blunt object, such as a
stone.
D
23. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered
opinion that the conclusions reached by the trial court as also
by the High Court cannot be said to be either clearly illegal or
manifestly.~erroneous. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb
the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court E
holding the apRellant guilty of the charged offences. In view of
the above, the appeal is dismissed.

IY.G. Appeal dismissed.