Supreme Court of India
MUNNI @ SYED AKBARversusSTATE OF INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, GOBICHETTIPALAYAM, ERODE
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 750
- Decided
- 29 October 2014
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the forensic evidence conclusively proved death by strangulation with a cable wire and that the appellant's attempt to stage a suicide was a fabricated drama, thereby upholding the convictions under Sections 302, 498A and 201 IPC.
Summary
The appellant, Munni @ Syed Akbar, was convicted for murdering his wife Gulsara Banu by strangulation using a cable wire, and also for offences under Sections 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Post‑mortem examination and a Forensic Science Laboratory report established asphyxia by strangulation and ligature marks consistent with a cable, while the appellant was present at the time of death and later attempted to stage a suicide by hanging the body with a saree. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder and additional terms for the other offences, a judgment affirmed by the Madras High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the forensic evidence and the appellant's conduct proved homicide rather than suicide. Finding the scientific evidence conclusive and the appellant's attempt to fabricate a suicide as a “well‑thought‑out drama,” the Court upheld the convictions under Sections 302, 498A and 201. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the death of the deceased was a homicide by strangulation or a suicide staged by the appellant.
- Whether the forensic evidence sufficiently establishes the appellant's culpability under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the appellant can be convicted under Sections 498A and 201 IPC in addition to murder.
- Whether the trial court's findings and sentence are sustainable on appeal.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 174
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 4
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 498A
Subjects
murderstrangulationforensic evidencesuicide stagingSection 302 IPCSection 498A IPCSection 201 IPCdowry harassmentcriminal appeal
Judgment
• [2014] 11 S.C.R. 587
MUNNI @ SYED AKBAR
v.
A
STATE OF INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN
POLICE STATION, GOBICHETTIPALAYAM, ERODE
(Criminal Appeal No. 2475 of 2009)
OCTOBER 29, 2014 B
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 498A rlw 201 - Death of t
"' .
fl]arried woman due to strangulation with the aid of a cable
wire - Conviction of appellant-husband - Justification - Held:
Justified - P. W 9- Postmortem Doctor with the aid of Ex. P-6-
Forensic Science Laboratory report confirmed that death was
due to asphyxia by strangulation and ligature marks were D
found on the neck of the deceased - Appellant was very much
present at the time when the deceased breathed her last -
He failed to clear vital circumstances found proved against
him - Having successfully killed deceased with the use of a
cable, appellant made an unsuccessful effort to make it E
appear as though the deceased was hanging from the roof
top with the aid of a saree.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. It has come out in scientific evidence and F
expert opinion without any scope of ambiguity that there
was strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased and
that there was also a rope mark which could have been
caused with the aid of the cable wire viz., M.Os.7 and 8.
The further fact that the appellant was found sitting on G
the roof top removing certain tiles found to be another
well thought out drama played by the appellant to make
P.W.4 and his friend to believe as though he was innocent
587 H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.
A and he had nothing to do with the killing of his deceased
wife. The appellant having successfully carried out his
•
evil design in the killing of the deceased with the use of
M.0.8 cable, however, made an unsuccessful effort to
make it appear as though the deceased was hanging
. B from the roof top with the aid of a saree. [Para 20) [595-
D-H; 586-A]
2. P.W.9- Postmortem Doctor with the aid of Ex.P-6-
Forensic Science Laboratory report was able to confirm
• without any scope for contradiction that the death of the
C deceased was due to asphyxia by strangulation and
ligature marks were found on the neck of the deceased.
It was the appellant who was very much present at the
time when the deceased .breathed her last. Therefore, the
best person who could have come forward with
P appropriate explanation to clear the doubt about the
factors found established through expert and scientific
evidence could have been only the appellant and none
else. The appellant having failed to clear those vital
circumstances found proved against the appellant, the
E ultimate conclusion of the trial. Court as well as the
confirmation by the High Court of the guilt of the
appellant in the killing of the deceased falling under
Section 302 of 1.P.C could have been the only conclusion,
more so, when the appellant was found guilty of the
F offence under Sections 498(A) as well as Section 201 of
1.P.C. [Para 21) [596-D-G] .
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2475 of 2009.
G From the Judgment & Order daed 16.08.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 434 of
2006.
Dr. Sushi I Balwada for the Appellant.
H
• MUNM@SYEDAKBAR v. STATE OF INSP. OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE
STATION, GOBICHETTIPALAYAM
M. Yogesh Kanna, Vanita Chandrakant Giri, Santha
Kumaran for the Respondent.
589
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAK!<IR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. This
appeal at the instance of A 1, who is the appellant herein, is B
directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the
Madras High Court dated 16.08.2007, passed in Criminal
Appeal No.434 of 2006.
2. Brief facts which are required to be stated are that the c
appellant is the husband of the deceased Gulsara Banu. Along
with the appellant, his parents were also proceeded against,
who were arrayed as A2 and A3. All the three accused were
'charged for offences under Sections 498(A), 302 and 201 of
l.P.C. The parents of the appellant viz., A2 and A3 were found o
guilty of the offences under Section 498(A) of l.P.C. as well as
under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A2 who
was also charged under Sections 302 and 201 of l.P.C. was
acquitted of those charges. A2 and A3 have already undergone
the sentence, even while the appellant's appeal was preferred E
before the High Court. The High Court therefore dealt with the
case of the appellant alone.
3. As far as the occurrence is concerned, the appellant got
married to the deceased on 27.07. 1997. They were living in a
F
rented premises belonging to P.W.3 at Kurumanthur. It was a
portion of the house. The occurrence took place in the morning
hours of 12.08.2004. P.W. 1 is the complainant who is the father
of the deceased. According to him, he received a phone call
from the accused at 3.00 p.m. stating that the deceased
complained of stomach pain and wanted him to come over to G
Kurumanthur immediately. Such information was also passed
on to P.W.2, uncle of the deceased, by around 3.30 p.m. and
he also immediately rushed to Kurumanthur which was just 50
kms away from his place. After P.W.1 reached the place of
H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.
A occurrence at around 10.00 p.m., he found strangulation marks ·
•
on the neck of the deceased. He preferred Ex.P-1-Complaint,
before the All Women Police Station, Gobichetipalayam. The
Complaint was lodged with P.W.13, the Inspector of Police of
the said police station.
B
4. P.W.13 registered the said complaint in Crime No.5 of
2004 for the offences under Section 498(A) of l.P.C. and
Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and sent the Express Report to the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Gobichetipalayam. She stated to have
C inspected the place of occurrence and conducted the Inquest
over the dead body between 2.30 a.m and 5.30 a.m. in the
presence of Panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P-17-lnquest
report. She recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and other
witnesses and sent the dead body of the deceased along with
Ex-P-4 requisition through P.W.11 woman police constable to
0
the Government Hospital, Gobichetipalayam for postmortem.
She recovered M.Os.1 to 4 and M.0.7 in the presence of
witness P.W.7. She forwarded M.Os.9 to 14 along with Form~
95 through P.W.11. After examining P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and
P.W.5 on 15.08.2004 and after recording their statements it
E came to light that it was not a case of suicide and therefore
P.W.13 altered the offences under Sections 498(A), 302 r/w
201 of l.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.18-Special Report and
forwarded the same to the Court again. The accused were
arrested thereafter on 16.08.2004 at 9.45 p.m. With the
F admissible portion of the confession of the appellant in Ex,P-
9, P.W.13 recovered T.V.S.50 brake cable wire M.0.8 from the
workshop of the appellant. She also recovered green colour
wire M.0.7 at the instance of the appellant in the presence of
P.W.10.
G
5. P.W.9 who conducted the postmortem, issued Ex.P-8-
Postmortem Report on 13.08.2004. In Ex.P-8, P.W.9 reserved
his opinion awaiting chemical analysis report. Chemical
analysis report Ex.P-6 was issued by the Professor of Forensic
H Medicine and District Police Surgeon, Coimbatore in which
• MUNNI @ SYED AKBAR v. STATE OF INSP. OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE
STATION, GOBICHETTIPALAYAM [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
inter alia it was stated "HPE poison was detected Hyoid Bone
intact. Death may be due to Asphyxia due to Straglets." After
5 91
A
the receipt of the aforesaid report, P.W.9 expressed his opinion
that the death was due to strangulation. The appellant along with
A2 and A3 were charged for offences under Sections 498(A),
302 read with 201 as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition s
Act, 1961. As stated earlier, we are concerned only with the
appellant who was the first accused.
6. The trial Court based on the evidence placed before it,
convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 498(A) C
read with Section 201 of l.P.C. He was sentenced to life
imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 of l.P.C. apart
from fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year. He was sentenced to undergo 3
years imprisonment for an offence under Section 201 apart
from fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo rigorous D
imprisonment for six months. He was also sentenced under
Section 498(A) to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo six
months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were to run
concurrently. E
7. On appeal the Division Bench of the High Court having
confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellant, the appellant is before us.
F
8. We heard Dr.Sushi! Balwada, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned standing counsel
for the respondent State.
9. Dr. Balwada, learned counsel in his submissions, after
referring to the evidence of P.W.13 the investigating officer G
submitted that there was great doubt as to whether the
occurrence had taken place as narrated by the prosecution
before the Courts below, in as much as, though P.W.1 stated
to.have lodged the complaint at 11.00 p.m. on 12.08.2004, the
H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 11 S.C.R. •
A case was registered for offence(s) under Section(s) 498(A)
I. P. C. and Section 174 of Cr. P. C. and for no reason, much later
on 16.08.2004, the case was altered as one under Section(s)
302 r/w Section 201 of l.P.C. and Section 498(A) of l.P.C.
B 10. According to the learned counsel, there was nothing
to show that the Express Report was immediately forwarded
to the Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel further submitted
that going by the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 since the body
of the deceased was found hanging with the aid of a saree and
C there being no eye witness to the occurrence, the case of the
appellant that the deceased committed suicide by hanging
herself should have been accepted and the appellant should
have been acquitted from all the charges.
11. The learned counsel also contended that there were
D variations in the statement of Postmortem Doctor P.W.9 and
Forensic Science Laboratory report which also disclos,e that
there was no overt act to be attributed to the appellant for the
alleged killing of the deceased by strangulation with the aid of
a cable wire.
E
12. As against the above submissions, Mr. M. Yogesh
Kanna learned standing counsel for the respondent State by
drawing our attention to the evidence of P.W.9-Postmortem
Doctor and Ex.P-6, the report of the Forensic Science
F Laboratory as well as that of P. Ws. 1 to 4 contended that the
offence alleged against the appellant of homicidal death by
strangulating his wife with the aid of a cable wire was
conclusively proved and there was no reason to doubt the said
conclusion reached by the trial Court as well as the High Court.
G 13. The learned counsel also drew our attention to M.0.5-
the photographs which were marked through P.W.8-the
photographer which also disclose the case of the prosecution
that the appellant strangulated his wife with the aid of a cable
wire and the cause of her death was fully established.
H
• MUNNl@SYEDAKBAR v. STATE OF INSP. OF POLICE.ALL WOMEN POLICE
STATION, GOBICHETTIPALAYAM [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)
14. The learned counsel submitted that merely because a A
mark was noted on the neck of the deceased, which did not
593
have a full circle on the neck, it cannot be concluded that the
appellant did not cause her death. The learned counsel was at
pains to show that the cable mark was visible to the naked eye
as noted by the Postmortem Doctor P.W.9 as well as Ex.P-6- s
Forensic Science Laboratory report apart from strangulation
mark found on the neck of the deceased which all show without
any iota of doubt that it was a case of murder and that all the
other attendant circumstances conclusively prove that it was the
appellant who had caused the death of the deceased. c
15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent
State and having perused the impugned judgments of the High
Court and the trial Court as well as the material documents
marked in the case, at the very outset, it will be relevant to note D
the incriminating circumstances which were found established
against the appellant.
16. The appellant and the deceased were living together
in a portion let out by P.W.3. On the fateful day in the early E
morning around 3.00 a.m. according to P.W.3, he heard
shrieking noise of the deceased and when the wife of P.W.3
went and tapped the door, she heard the appellant uttering
something in Urdu to the deceased and the deceased herself
informed that she suffered a minor electric shock. Thereafter, F
the deceased was seen by P.W.4 in the godown where he was
working, to which place, the deceased went and enquired about
the owner of the godown which is a tobacco godown.
Subsequently, P.W.4 along with one of his friends heard the
shouts of the appellant and rushed to the house of the appellant G
and the house was locked from inside and they saw the
appellant crying and also shouting that his wife hanged herself
from the roof with the aid of a saree. According to P.W.4, they
saw her hanging from the roof and she was in a kneeled down
position. P.W.4 and his friend called upon the appellant to open H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. •
...
A the door to enable them to get inside in order to rescue the
deceased. After they entered, they brought the body of the
deceased to the floor and found that she was already dead,
though the appellant claimed that she was alive. It was also
stated by P.W.4 that before entering the house, they saw the
B appellant on the roof top removing some of the tiles.
17. P.W.2 who is the uncle of the deceased stated that he
was living 50 kms away from the place of appellant and the
deceased and that he got information from the appellant that
C the deceased was suffering from stomach pain. On hearing the
said information, he along with his wife rushed to the place of
the appellant where they found the deceased lying dead on the
floor. P.W.2 also stated that his wife on seeing the body of the
deceased noted strangulation marks on her neck, because of
which P.W.2 developed some suspicion and upon the arrival
0
of P .W.1, the father of the deceased, they decided to lodge a
complaint and that is how the Ex.P-1 came to be lodged through
P.W.1 at around 10.30 p.m. on 12.08.2004.
18. The evidence of P.W.9-the Postmortem Doctor who
E issued Ex.P-8-Postmortem Report deposed that initially when
he examined the body of the deceased, he could not offer any
definite opinion as he wanted to verify the Forensic Science
Laboratory report. Subsequently, after receipt of Ex.P-6, the
report from Forensic Science Laboratory, P.W.9 gave the
F opinion that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia.
In other words, the theory of hanging l;>y the deceased on her
own, propounded by the appellant was found to be not true. The
report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also confirmed that
there was strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased and
G that substance like cable was used for such strangulation.
Based on the appellant's information, M.Os.7 and 8 cable wires
were also recovered. When the above circumstances were all
put to the appellant, there was only a simple denial and nothing
more was stated on behalf of the appellant.
H
• MUNNI @SYED AKBAR v. STATE OF INSP. OF PbUCE, ALL WOMEN POLICE 595
STATION, GOBICHETTIPALAYAM [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.)
19. In the above stated background, when we consider the A
contention of the appellant, it was mainly two fold. In the first
instance, it was contended that as per the medical evidence
what was noted on the neck of the deceased was a cable mark
from the right side to the left side of the neck and not all around
the neck of the deceased which would not support the theory B
of strangulation. It was then contended that even as per the
version of P.W.4 and his friend who helped the appellant to
lower down the body, which was hanging from the roof top, they
found the deceased hanging with the aid of a saree around her
neck. By referring to the said evidence, it was contended that c
it was a definite case of suicide and not a homicidal death.
Though in the first blush such a contention appears to be
appealing, on a deeper scrutiny, we find that the same was
wholly unbelievable and does not merit any consideration.
20. It has come out in scientific evidence and expert D
opinion without any scope of ambiguity that there was
strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased and that there
was also a rope mark which could have been caused with the
aid of the cable wire viz., M.Os.7 and 8. When such scientific
evidence was found to be existing the story spun by the E
appellant that his wife was hanging from the roof with the aid
of a saree has been found to be nothing but a concocted one
designed to escape from his culpability. The further fact that the
appellant was found sitting on the roof top removing certain tiles
found to be another well thought out drama played by the F
appellant to make P.W.4 and his friend to believe as though
he was innocent and he had nothing to do with the killing of his
deceased wife. On the whole the episode was attempted by
the appellant to show as though his wife committed suicide while
it has come out in evidence through P.W.4 that the deceased G
was found in a kneel down position as there was hardly four
feet gap in between the top of the cot and the roof. The
appellant having successfully carried out his evil design in the
killing of the deceased with the use of M.0.8 cable, however,
made an unsuccessful effort to make it appear as though the H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S:C.R •
A deceased was hanging from the roof top with the aid of a saree.
21. If really the deceased had hanged herself with the aid
of a saree, there was absolutely no scope for a cable mark on
her neck. There was also no breaking of the hyoid bone or the
B trachea. As far as the contention that there was only a
strangulation mark from the right side of the neck to the left side
of the neck on the front side alone and therefore there would
have been no scope for the appellant to have used a rope to
tie around the neck to strangulate the deceased is concerned,
C the said contention has to be rejected at the very threshold since
if the appellant had used the cable from behind the deceased
on her neck and thereby suffocated the deceased, there would
have been no scope at all for any cable mark on the backside
of the neck. P.W.9- Postmortem Doctor with the aid of Ex.P-6-
D Forensic Science Laboratory report was able to confirm Without
any scope for contradiction that the death of the deceased was
due to asphyxia by strangulation and ligature marks were found
on the neck of the deceased. It was the appellant who was very
much present at the time when the deceased breathed her last.
Therefore, the best person who could have come forward with
E appropriate explanation to clear the doubt about those factors
found established through expert and scientific evidence could
have been only the appellant and none else. The appellant
having.failed to s:lear those vital circumstances found proved
against the appellant, the ultimate conclusion of the trial Court
F as well as the confirmation by the High Court of the guilt of the
appellant in the killing of the deceased falling under Section
302of1.P.C could have been the only conclusion, more so, when
the appellant was found guilty of the offence under Sections
498(A) as well as Section 201 of 1.P.C.
G
22. We have, therefore, no hesitation in confirming the
conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellant. The
appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
H Bibhuti Bhu,han Bose Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search