Bombay High Court
ARIF NOORMOHAMMED SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The appellate court held that the prosecution's circumstantial evidence formed a complete, unbroken chain establishing the appellant's guilt, and therefore upheld the conviction.
Summary
The appellant, Arif Noormohammed Shaikh, was convicted of murdering his wife, Shabana Arif Shaikh, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the couple's cohabitation, motive of alcohol‑induced abuse, a "last seen together" quarrel, and blood‑stained items seized from the crime scene, supported by a post‑mortem report indicating homicidal injuries. The defence argued lack of eyewitnesses, absence of a forensic‑science report, and an alibi that the appellant was away at his ailing mother’s place, but offered no corroborative evidence. The High Court examined the chain of circumstances, held that they were cogent, unbroken and excluded any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and rejected the defence’s contentions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the circumstantial evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the absence of a forensic‑science laboratory report defeats the prosecution's case.
- Whether the appellant's alibi is credible and supported by evidence.
- Whether the "last seen together" doctrine applies to infer the appellant's presence at the time of murder.
- Whether the motive, homicide, cohabitation, and seized blood‑stained items form a complete chain of circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
Subjects
- murder
- circumstantial evidence
- IPC 302
- last seen together
- alibi
- forensic evidence
- conviction
- appeal dismissed
Judgment
Cr.A.242-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 of 2018
Arif Noormohammed Shaikh
Aged 46 years
(At Yerawada Central Prison, Pune)
R/o Shipai Mohalla, Junnar,
Taluka- Junnar, District: Pune .....Appellant
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Ms. Farhana Shah, for the Appellant.
Dr. Dhanlakshmi Krishnaaiyer, APP for the Respondent-State
VISHAL CORAM: MANISH PITALE &
SUBHASH
PAREKAR SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR RESERVED ON : 7th JULY, 2026
Date: 2026.09.23
14:47:40 +0530
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
----------
JUDGMENT : (Per Shreeram Shirsat J.)
1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned
judgment and order dated 28.08.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Khed, Rajgurunagar, District- Pune in Sessions Case No.
110/2014, whereby the Appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and
has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for Life and
pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo R.I. for 6 months.
Vishal Parekar ....1
Cr.A.242-2018
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
a] It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage between the
deceased and the Appellant was solemnized in accordance with
Muslim rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, two sons were
born. The Appellant and the deceased resided together at Junnar,
where the Appellant was employed as a tailor at "Modern Tailor".
However, their two sons resided with the Complainant (father of the
deceased) at Chincholi for the purpose of their education.
b] It is further the case that the Appellant was addicted to alcohol
and under its influence, frequently picked quarrels with the deceased
over trivial domestic issues. It is further the case of the prosecution
that the Appellant harboured unwarranted suspicion regarding the
character of the deceased and acting upon such suspicion, subjected
her to physical assault and verbal abuse on several occasions.
c] It is further the case of the prosecution that whenever the
deceased visited her parental home, she disclosed the ill-treatment
meted out to her by the Appellant. It is further the case that the
Complainant and his wife repeatedly attempted to reconcile the
couple and counsel the Appellant; however, their efforts proved
futile as there was no change in the conduct of the Appellant.
Vishal Parekar ....2
Cr.A.242-2018
d] It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.06.2011 at about
10:00 p.m., the deceased called her father and informed him that
her brother, Saddam, had visited her residence at Junnar and had
inadvertently left his mobile phone behind. During the conversation,
when the Complainant inquired whether she ate supper and about
the whereabouts of the Appellant, the deceased replied that the
Appellant had not returned home yet and that she would have
dinner only after his arrival.
e] It is further the case of the prosecution that on 20.06.2011 at
about 7:00 a.m., one Havabi Inamdar visited Mr. Bilal Magan
Chowgule, the Complainant. She informed him that Taslim Azim
Kadri- her daughter, a resident of Junnar, telephonically conveyed to
her that his daughter- Shabana Arif Shaikh (the deceased) had been
murdered and was lying in a pool of blood, alone in her house. The
Complainant upon receiving the said information, accompanied by
his son Saddam, other relatives and some villagers, immediately
proceeded to her residence at Junnar. Upon reaching the house of
the deceased, they found her lying in a pool of blood. A black scarf
was found around her neck, her tongue was protruding, there was
an injury on her head and a blood-stained stone grinder was lying
nearby. Arif Noormohammed Shaikh (the Appellant herein)-
Vishal Parekar ....3
Cr.A.242-2018
husband of the deceased, had disappeared and therefore the
Complainant felt that his daughter must have been strangulated with
the scarf and also been assaulted on her head with the stone grinder
by the Appellant.
f] It is further the case that the Complainant proceeded to Junnar
Police Station and lodged a report against the Appellant, alleging
that the Appellant had committed the murder of his daughter. On
the basis of the said complaint, a First Information Report (FIR)
came to be lodged at Junnar Police Station on the same date i.e.
20.06.2011 as Crime No. 54/2011. Upon the completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
3. To bring home the guilt of the Accused-Appellant, the prosecution
examined 8 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 8):
P.W. NAME ROLE
1 Bilal Magan Chowgule Complainant/Father of the
deceased
2 Mohammad Hussain Panch Witness
Kasamsab Inamdar Spot Panchnama dated 20.06.2011
relating to blood-stained quilt, blood-
stained stone hand grinder and
blood-stained iron suri (knife).
3 Taslim Azim Kadri Friend and neighbour of the deceased
who heard the Appellant and
deceased quarrel on the intervening
night of 19.06.2011 and 20.06.2011.
Vishal Parekar ....4
Cr.A.242-2018
4 Hawabi Ahmed Inamdar Mother of P.W. 3, who informed P.W.
1 regarding the death of the
deceased.
5 Azim Jakir Kadari Husband of P.W. 3, who first saw the
dead body of the deceased.
6 Siraj Abdul Patel Panch Witness
Spot Panchnama dated 20.06.2011
relating to blood-stained clothes of
the deceased which included odhani,
kurta and salwar.
7 Dr. Varsha Medical officer who conducted post-
Lalasaheb mortem of the deceased on
Suryawanshi 20.06.2011.
8 Suryakant Investigating Officer (I.O.)
Dnyandeo Pawar
4. Upon the completion of the prosecution evidence, the trial court
recorded the statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,
wherein the Appellant denied the allegations and contended that he was
falsely implicated in this case by the Complainant as he used to frequently
quarrel with him and his father also used to threaten him. A plea of alibi
was taken by the Appellant wherein he stated that his mother was sick
and therefore he had gone to his native place in Devalali. However, the
Appellant neither adduced oral nor documentary evidence in support of
his defence.
5. After hearing the prosecution as well as the defence and upon
Vishal Parekar ....5
Cr.A.242-2018
appreciation of the evidence on record, the Additional Sessions Judge,
vide judgment and order dated 28.08.2014, was pleased to convict the
Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and
has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for Life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
and in default, to undergo R.I. for 6 months.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction in
Sessions Case No. 110/2014, dated 28.08.2014, passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, District-Pune, the Appellant has approached this Court by
way of the present appeal.
7. Heard Ld. Counsel Adv. Farhana Shah for the Appellant and Ld.
APP Dr. Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaaiyer for the Respondent-State.
8. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the present case is
that of circumstantial evidence and that there is no eyewitness or any
substantial evidence to unerringly point to the guilt of the Appellant. It
was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the last seen theory
is not established in the present case as none of the witnesses have
deposed to the effect that the deceased was last seen with the Appellant.
It was also contended that the prosecution examined eight witnesses to
prove the charges against the Appellant, all of whom are interested
witnesses despite the presence of independent witnesses. It was submitted
Vishal Parekar ....6
Cr.A.242-2018
by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that no complaint was lodged by the
parents of the deceased in spite of her reporting to them about the
assault, which she was subjected to by the Appellant. It was argued by the
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the prosecution failed to examine any
witness relating to the arrest of the Appellant, nor was any arrest
panchnama placed on record. Though the I.O. deposed that the Appellant
produced his blood-stained clothes which were seized, however the
prosecution has failed to examine any panch witness to prove the same.
The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant further contended that it is improbable
that the Appellant would voluntarily produce his blood-stained clothes
and although, the I.O. stated that the same were sent for chemical
analysis, the C.A. reports have not been produced on record. It was lastly
argued that the Appellant was under the influence of liquor and if at all
the act was committed by him, it was without any motive or intention to
kill his wife. Therefore, it was contended that in view of the above
mentioned arguments, the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
9. Per Contra, the Ld. APP submitted that the case is based entirely on
circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution has established a
complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, pointing solely to the
guilt of the Appellant. The Ld. APP argued that the mere absence of eye
witnesses would not render the case of the prosecution untenable. It was
Vishal Parekar ....7
Cr.A.242-2018
contended that the testimony of the ‘interested’ witnesses ought not to be
discarded or considered unreliable only because they are the relatives or
friends of the deceased. If the evidence inspires confidence and appears to
be cogent, then it must be taken into consideration. It was also submitted
by the Ld. APP that the conduct of the Appellant after the incident,
including his attempt to flee to Devalali clearly demonstrates a deliberate
state of mind which is inconsistent with his plea of incapacitating
intoxication. It was contended that the Appellant failed to offer any
explanation regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against
him and although a plea of alibi was taken by the Appellant, no evidence
was adduced to establish the same. Therefore, it was submitted that the
Sessions Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the
Appellant, warranting no interference by this Court.
10. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has not relied upon any
judgments in support of her contention.
11. The Ld. APP has relied upon the following judgments, which are as
under:
i. Dhananjoy Chatterjee Alias Dhana v. State of W.B.1
ii. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra2
iii. Deepak Revachand Talreja v. State of Maharashtra3
1 (1994) 2 SCC 22
2 (2006) 10 SCC 681
3 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1686
Vishal Parekar ....8
Cr.A.242-2018
12. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye-
witness. Therefore, as held time and again by this Court and the Hon’ble
Apex Court, where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt of the accused 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 and nothing else. Therefore, the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis
but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain
of evidence so complete as to not leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion 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 only.
13. The Sessions Court in the judgment while observing, that the
instant case is based on circumstantial evidence has not distinctly
enumerated the chain of circumstances. However, the circumstances
emerging from the evidence led by the prosecution have been discussed,
while returning a finding of conviction. Therefore, this Court, from the
evidence on record, finds the following circumstances relevant to
ascertain the chain of circumstances.
14. The following are the circumstances which can be essentially
Vishal Parekar ....9
Cr.A.242-2018
derived from the evidence on record:
(a) Motive;
(b) Homicidal death;
(c) The Appellant and the deceased residing together as
husband and wife;
(d) Last-Seen Together;
(e) Seizure of blood-stained quilt, blood-stained stone hand
grinder, and blood-stained knife.
15. Before analysing the evidence, a useful reference can be made to
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti
Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (supra), which has also been relied upon
by the Ld. APP, wherein it has been observed as under:
“12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence
and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence.
The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is
that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to
be drawn must be cogently and firmly established ; that those
circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing
towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken
cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the
crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable
of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the
accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”….
Let us now analyse each circumstance in seriatim.
Vishal Parekar ....10
Cr.A.242-2018
(a) MOTIVE :
16. To establish motive, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1, P.W. 3,
and P.W. 5. P.W. 1, the father of the deceased, deposed that the
Appellant was having lust of liquor and under the influence of liquor, the
Appellant used to quarrel with the deceased by suspecting her character
and also used to beat her. He further deposed that upon visiting his
house, the deceased used to tell him about the same. He further deposed
that intermittently, upon visiting at Junnar to meet the deceased, she
used to tell him about the Appellant abusing and beating her after
consuming liquor and suspecting her character. It can also be seen in the
deposition of P.W. 3 that she knew the Appellant and that three months
prior to the incident, the Appellant and his wife i.e. the deceased had
come to reside in the same chawl where she resides with her husband.
She further deposed that the Appellant used to cast doubt upon the
deceased and that there were quarrels between them after the Appellant
consumed liquor. P.W. 5 has also deposed that the Appellant used to
reside with his wife in one room on the first floor on rent, and he was
having lust of liquor and used to quarrel with his wife Shabana (the
deceased). In the cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing
substantial has been brought on record to discredit or shake the
deposition of these witnesses. Although these witnesses are regarded as
Vishal Parekar ....11
Cr.A.242-2018
‘interested witnesses’, in our considered opinion none of their depositions
are biased or exaggerated. They inspire confidence, are consistent and
cogent and corroborate each other. Thus, upon perusing the depositions
of the aforementioned three witnesses, we find that the prosecution has
successfully been able to prove the circumstance of motive. While it is
true that motive may not be relevant at all times, however, in the present
case, we hold that the prosecution has been successful in proving the
motive behind the commission of murder of the deceased at the hands of
the Appellant.
(b) HOMICIDAL DEATH :
17. To prove the cause of death, the prosecution has examined P.W. 7-
Dr. Varsha Suryawanshi. She deposed that in the year 2011 she was
working as a Medical Officer in Rural Hospital at Junnar. She deposed
that on 20.06.2011, the police of Junnar police station had brought a
dead body of Shabana Arif Shaikh to their Hospital along with inquest
panchanama. She deposed that she did a post-mortem of the corpse of
Shabana Arif Shaikh and noticed the following injuries on her body:
“1……I have seen following injuries on the dead body of
Shabana Arif Shaikh.
1] Two round wounds on left face- one near left outer canthus
and other on cheek on left parietal region. Both CLW were
bleeding.
2] One large contused lacerated wound 8x5x2cm on left cheek-
Vishal Parekar ....12
Cr.A.242-2018
bleeding was present.
3] Tongue protruding out of mouth.
4] Teeth loose bleeding gums.
5] Injury under the scalp- left parietal region large haematoma
16x6x4 cm.
6] There was fracture to left parasite bone.
7] Intracerebral hemorrhage, both cerebrum and cerebellum.
8] There was fracture of left mandible.”
18. She deposed that all the injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course. She deposed that death was due to
cardiorespiratory arrest due to haemorrhagic shock due to intracerebral
bleeding and there was fracture to left hemi mandible due to head injury
by heavy object. She deposed that all the injuries could be possible
because of the stone grinder which was Article ‘A’. In the cross-
examination, a suggestion was put to her that if a person in a semi-
conscious condition falls on the hard surface, then whether the injuries
mentioned in Column No. 17 could be possible, to which the said witness
has replied in the negative. In the cross-examination, P.W. 7 has admitted
that she has not specifically mentioned in the post-mortem that the death
of Shabana Arif Shaikh was homicidal or accidental or suicidal.
19. We are of the opinion that there is nothing to disbelieve this
witness. Even though P.W. 7 admitted that she did not specifically
mention in the post-mortem report that the death of the deceased was
homicidal or accidental or suicidal, it is hardly of any significance as it is
very apparent from the injuries noted by this witness, that by no stretch
Vishal Parekar ....13
Cr.A.242-2018
of imagination can it be said to be a case of accidental or suicidal death.
(c) THE APPELLANT AND THE DECEASED RESIDING TOGETHER :
20. It was vehemently urged by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that
the circumstance of the Appellant and the deceased residing together at
the place of the incident is not established beyond reasonable doubt and
therefore the Appellant cannot be connected with the murder of the
deceased. In this regard, it would be necessary to analyse the deposition
of P.W. 1, the Complainant. P.W. 1 deposed that the Appellant had
obtained one room on rent at Shipai Mohalla, Junnar, three months prior
to the incident. He deposed that the Appellant was residing there along
with his daughter (the deceased), however, both of their sons were
residing with him at Chincholi. Although an attempt was made in the
cross-examination to dislodge the case of the prosecution that the
Appellant and the deceased used to reside together at their dwelling
house in Shipai Mohalla, Junnar, the same was unsuccessful and no
major discrepancy was brought on record. It would also be necessary to
take into consideration the deposition of P.W. 3- Taslim Azim Kadri,
friend of the deceased who was also a resident of the same chawl where
the Appellant and the deceased were residing. P.W. 3 deposed that she
knew the Appellant. She further deposed that three months prior to the
Vishal Parekar ....14
Cr.A.242-2018
incident, the Appellant and the deceased came to reside at Junnar. She
further explained that she was residing on the ground floor of the chawl
and the Appellant along with his family were residing on the first floor of
the chawl. This circumstance receives further corroboration by the answer
given by the Appellant during his 313 Cr.P.C. statement which reads as
under:
“Q.4. Further it has come in his evidence that you obtained one
rented room at Junnar Shipai Mohalla and you were residing with his
daughter there. Your both sons were residing with him at Chincholi
as they were educating in the school. Intermittently, he used to meet
his daughter at Junnar. What do you want to say about it?
Ans. It is true.”
Therefore, from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, and the positive
answer given by the Appellant himself in his 313 Cr.P.C statement, it can
be safely deduced that the Appellant was residing at Shipai Mohalla,
Junnar with the deceased.
(d) LAST SEEN TOGETHER :
21. The next circumstance is the “Last Seen Together”. It will have to
be seen whether from the evidence on record, it can be established that
the Appellant and the deceased were together at the time of the incident.
P.W. 3 deposed that at about 2:00 a.m. at night on 20.06.2011, she was
present in her room when she heard noise of quarrel from the house of
Vishal Parekar ....15
Cr.A.242-2018
the Appellant between husband and wife, which was accompanied by
noise of utensils. She further deposed that after some time, the noise of
the quarrel stopped and thereafter, she went to sleep. She further
deposed that on the very morning, at about 7:00 a.m., P.W. 5- Azim Jakir
Kadari (her husband) came into the house and she informed him that
there was noise of quarrel between the husband and wife from the house
of the Appellant. She told him to give understanding to them. She further
deposed that thereafter, her husband and one Irshad Shaikh went to the
house of the deceased and upon returning, informed her that the door of
the room of the Appellant was open and the deceased was lying dead in a
pool of blood. She also deposed that there was a grinder stone and a
pillow and that the Appellant was not there. It was similarly deposed by
P.W. 5 that on 20.06.2011 at 7:00 a.m., when he returned home, his
wife- P.W. 3 informed him that at 2:00 a.m. in the night, she heard noise
of the Appellant and the deceased and asked him to give understanding
to the Appellant. He further deposed that when he went upstairs with
driver Irshad, he saw one plank of the door was open and the deceased
was lying dead in a pool of blood. He further deposed that the Appellant
was not there. The stark evidence of P.W. 3 that she heard the Appellant
and the deceased quarreling has not been doubted or demolished in the
cross-examination. There is no serious challenge to the presence of the
Vishal Parekar ....16
Cr.A.242-2018
Appellant at the time of incident at their residence in Shipai Mohalla.
There is not even a suggestion put to P.W. 3 to that effect. We therefore
find that the presence of the Appellant at the spot of the incident is
established and consequently the theory of “Last-seen” which would in a
broader sense mean that the accused should be found in the company of
the victim before the death, is well established.
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v.
State of Maharashtra (supra), has held as under :
"22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder
of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to
show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen
together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where
the husband also normally resides, it has been consistently held
that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife
received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be
false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is
responsible for the commission of the crime..."
23. In the case of Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra4, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under-
“10. It has not been disputed before us that the deceased was
murdered in her matrimonial home. It is not the case of the
appellant that the offence was committed by somebody else. It is
also not his cause that there was a possibility of an outsider to
commit the said offence. One of the circumstances which is relevant
is that when the couple was last seen in a premises to which an
outsider may not have any access. It is for the husband to explain
the ground for unnatural death of his wife. ”
24. In the present case it has been established that at the relevant time,
4 Appeal (Crl.) 653 of 2006
Vishal Parekar ....17
Cr.A.242-2018
the Appellant was residing with his wife i.e. the deceased, in the said
room, which was their dwelling house. The deceased received injuries,
which led to her death. However, the Appellant has failed to offer any
explanation for such injuries suffered by his wife (deceased). It is not
even the case of the Appellant that offence was committed by someone
else. The plea of alibi was raised by the Appellant, by contending that he
was not present at the spot, but he was at Devlali to meet his ailing
mother. But, this is also not found to be plausible and no credence can be
placed on this explanation, since there is no evidence led by the accused
to prove that he was at Devlali. In the absence of any concrete evidence,
the same does not get established and therefore we have no hesitation in
holding that this circumstance of “Last-seen” is duly proved. In addition,
it will also be pertinent to note that P.W. 7- the doctor also deposed that
the estimated time of death was 12 hours prior to the carrying out of the
post-mortem. The post-mortem was carried out at 14:00 hours on
20.06.2011. Further, P.W. 3 deposed that she heard the quarrel at 2:00
a.m. at night. Therefore, even to that extent there is corroboration
between the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 7 as regards the estimated time
of the incident.
Vishal Parekar ....18
Cr.A.242-2018
(e) Seizure of blood-stained quilt, blood-stained stone hand grinder, and
blood-stained knife
25. As far as seizure of blood-stained quilt, blood-stained stone hand
grinder, and blood-stained knife is concerned, the prosecution examined
P.W. 2- the panch witness to the spot panchanama. He deposed that on
20.06.2011, he was called by the police at Shipai Mohalla. He deposed
that panchanama was going on and the panchanama was prepared in his
presence. He deposed that the police seized a blood-stained quilt, one
blood-stained stone hand grinder, and one blood-stained iron suri (knife)
and prepared a spot panchanama. He deposed that the police sealed the
seized articles separately and obtained their signatures on the label.
Nothing much could be elicited in his cross-examination and the evidence
has virtually gone unchallenged. The prosecution also examined P.W. 6,
who was the panch witness for the panchanama of blood-stained clothes
of the deceased. P.W. 6 deposed that he was called to Junnar Police
Station on 20.06.2011 and the police prepared panchanama of the blood-
stained clothes of the lady. He deposed that it was kurta, salwar, and
odhani. The kurta-salwar was of saffron color and odhani was of black
color and all were blood-stained. He identified the kurta, salwar and
odhani in the court. P.W. 8- the I.O., deposed that he drew spot
panchanama in the presence of panchas, which is at Exhibit 30, and he
Vishal Parekar ....19
Cr.A.242-2018
seized blood-stained stone grinder, blood-stained knife, and blood-stained
quilt from the spot of incident, in the presence of panchas and affixed
labels signed by the panchas on the muddemal property. He also
identified the same in the court. He further deposed that he sent the
muddemal to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis. In the re-
examination, the I.O. deposed that on 20.06.2011, when he arrested the
Appellant, at that time the Appellant had produced his clothes before him
and accordingly the clothes were seized in the presence of panchas. He
deposed that the seized clothes included- a blood stained sky blue colored
shirt having black-yellow label, a blood stained vest, a chocolate-colored
underwear and a blood stained green-colored pant. He deposed that he
sealed those clothes by wax and affixed labels signed by panchas on it
and accordingly drew a seizure panchanama. In the cross-examination of
P.W. 8, there is nothing brought on record to discredit the deposition of
the said witnesses.
26. Although these witnesses have deposed about the seizure of the
blood-stained clothes of the Appellant, the articles from the spot of the
incident, and the clothes of the deceased and even the I.O. admitted to
having sent the same to FSL for analysis, however, the proseuction has
not examined any witness from the FSL or the Chemical Analyzer or for
that matter failed to produce or exhibit any documents of the FSL report.
Vishal Parekar ....20
Cr.A.242-2018
27. We are of the opinion that all other circumstances having been duly
proved by the prosecution, which unerringly points towards the guilt of
the Appellant, even if we discount the absence of the FSL report, which is
only a corroborative piece of evidence, as held in the case of Deepak
Madhu Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra5, the chain of circumstances
does not get snapped. We are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts of
the case, mere absence of FSL report cannot be said to be fatal to the case
of the prosecution.
28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of R. Shaji v.
State of Kerala6, which was also a case of circumstantial evidence
observed as under:
“30. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, that as
the blood group of the blood stains found on the chopper could not be
ascertained, the recovery of the said chopper cannot be relied upon.
31. A failure by the serologist to detect the origin of the blood due to
disIntegration of the serum, does not mean that the blood stuck on the
axe could not have been human blood at all. Sometimes it is possible,
either because the stain is insufficient in itself, or due to haematological
changes and plasmatic coagulation, that a serologist may fail to detect
the origin of the blood in question. However, in such a case, unless the
doubt is of a reasonable dimension, which a judicially conscientious
mind may entertain with some objectivity, no benefit can be claimed by
the accused in this regard. Once the recovery is made in pursuance of a
disclosure statement made by the accused, the matching or non-
matching of blood group (s) loses significance. (Vide : Prabhu Babaji
Navie v. State of Bombay, Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P.,
State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, John
Pandian v. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, and
5 2026 SCCOnLine Bom 239
6 (2013) 14 SCC 266
Vishal Parekar ....21
Cr.A.242-2018
Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab.)
32. In view of the above, the Court finds that it is not possible to accept
the submission that in the absence of a report regarding the origin of the
blood, the accused cannot be convicted, for it is only because of the
lapse of time, that the blood could not be classified successfully.
Therefore, no advantage can be conferred upon the accused to enable
him to claim any benefit, and the report of disintegration of blood etc.
cannot be termed as a missing link, on the basis of which the chain of
circumstances may be presumed to be broken.”
29. A suitable reference can also be made to the judgment of the
Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Basant Pande v. State of
Chhattisgarh, 20177 wherein it has been observed as under:
“11. In addition, the postmortem report Ex. P-1 also shows
number of injuries such as blisters on breasts; vagina, protrusion
of rectum and eyes, compression of tongue between teeth,
presence of ligature mark between the chin and the vocal cord
having resemblance with the rope, and the cause of death has
been stated to be asphyxia due to strangulation. Though the
postmortem report does not indicate the death being homicidal or
otherwise, query report Ex. P-3 clearly states that it was homicidal
in nature. Seizure of a nylon string was also made on the basis of
memorandum of the accused though the FSL report could not be
obtained by the prosecution. In the midst of material in plenty
establishing the guilt of the accused, mere absence of FSL report
cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution.”
30. In one of the latest judgments the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra8 has been pleased to observe as under:
“41. ...The rigid principles underlying an examination based on
circumstantial evidence are based on the premise that the very
act of arriving at a finding of guilt on the basis of inferences
must be performed with great caution and margin of error must
be kept at a minimum.
42. Having said so, we may also observe that naturally, there
could be some inconsistencies in the chain of circumstances in
the natural course of things and mere presence of inconsistencies
7 CRA No. 414 of 2011 – High Court of Chhatisgarh
8 (2025) 8 SCC 315
Vishal Parekar ....22
Cr.A.242-2018
does not automatically demolish the case of the prosecution.
However, the prosecution must be able to explain the
inconsistencies to the satisfaction of the Court. For, the ultimate
test is the judicial satisfaction of the Court....”
Thus, it would be pertinent to note that what emerges from the
above is that the final test would be that of satisfaction of the judicial
conscience which can be said to be satisfied in the present case.
31. Taking into consideration the evidence against the Appellant which
establishes the guilt of the Appellant, mere absence of FSL report cannot
be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. We are of the opinion
that on the basis of the circumstances brought on record, the chain of
evidence is complete and to us it does not leave any reasonable ground
for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, on the
other hand it supports the hypothesis of guilt of the Appellant.
As a result, we pass the following order:
ORDER
i] The Appeal stands dismissed.
ii] Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar ....23
Checking your session…