Rauf @ Lalu Khwaja Qureshi vs The State Of Maharashtra
2015 Latest Caselaw 391 Bom

    PNP                                   1/12                            APEAL187-5.10

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                              
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.187 OF 2014




                                                      
    Rauf @ Lalu Khwaja Qureshi
    Aged about 39 years,
    at present undergoing a
    sentence of life imprisonment




                                                     
    at Kolhapur Central Prison,
    as convict prisoner No.C-5183                              ...Appellant.

           versus




                                                
    The State of Maharashtra                                   ..Respondent.
                                     .....
                                   
    Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar, advocate appointed for the Appellant.
    Ms. R.M. Gadhvi, Addl.P.P. for the State.
                                     .....
                                  
                                CORAM : SMT V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J.&
                                        A.S. GADKARI, J.

5th October, 2015.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J.) :

The Appellant - original accused has preferred this Appeal

against the judgment and order dated 14 th October, 2011 passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in

Sessions Case No.457 of 2009. By the said judgment and order

the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under

Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the

Appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and for

the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal

Code, the Appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for

PNP 2/12 APEAL187-5.10

two months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that both the

substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under :

Deceased Parveen was the wife of the Appellant. The

Appellant and Parveen had four children i.e. Akib, Askan, Aman

(P.W.9) and Muskan. The Appellant along with his wife Parveen

and four children were residing in Room No.305 in Bharat Nagar

at Bandra (East), Mumbai. ig The Appellant was working as a

wireman and his wife Parveen used to do housework. Aman was

studying in the 3rd standard at the time of the incident. The

school timing was from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. On the day of the

incident at about 11.30 a.m. Aman went out to play with his

sister Muskan. At that time the Appellant and his wife Parveen

were at home. Aman came back home with his sister after half

an hour and he found the door of the house was closed. As the

school timing was from 12.00 p.m to 5.00 p.m., Aman knocked on

the door, but the door was not opened. Aman then knocked

loudly on the door. P.W.4 - Kanija who was residing upstairs on

the mezzanine floor came down. She also knocked on the door.

At that time Aman through the gap in the door saw that his

father (Appellant) had kept one hand on the mouth of his mother

and in the other hand the Appellant was holding a knife. Aman

PNP 3/12 APEAL187-5.10

shouted loudly. Thereupon people gathered. The Appellant then

opened the door and came out. The Appellant then caused injury

to himself on the stomach with a knife. He threw the knife in the

house and tried to run away. P.W.4 - Kanija lodged First

Information \Report. Thereafter investigation commenced. The

dead body of Parveen was sent for postmortem. P.W.7 - Dr.

Savardekar performed the postmortem on the dead body of

Parveen. Dr. Savardekar found in all 20 injuries on the body of

Parveen. Most of them were stab wounds on various parts of the

body including the chest. On completion of investigation,

charge-sheet came to be filed.

3. Charge came to be framed against the Appellant under

Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant

pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.

The defence of the Appellant is that of total denial and false

implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this

case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the

Appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this Appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and the

learned APP for the State. We have carefully considered their

submissions, the facts and and circumstances of this case, the

PNP 4/12 APEAL187-5.10

judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and

the evidence on record. After carefully considering the matter,

for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the

Appellant assaulted his wife Parveen with a knife and caused her

death.

5. The star witness in the present case is P.W.9 - Aman.

Aman was the son of the Appellant and the deceased. Aman was

about nine years of age at the time of the incident. Aman has

stated that the Appellant is his father and deceased Parveen was

his mother. Aman had two brothers and one sister. His brothers

names were Akib and Askan and his sister's name was Muskan.

They were all going to school. Aman's school timing was from

12.00 to 5.00 p.m. Aman has stated that his father was working

as a wireman and his mother used to do household work. Aman

has stated that his father killed his mother on 26 th February,

2009.On that day at about 11.30 a.m. Aman and his sister

Muskan had gone out to play. They returned back after half an

hour. They found that the door of the house was closed. As

their school timing was from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. Aman knocked on

the door, but the door was not opened. Therefore, he

knocked loudly on the door. At that time the lady staying

upstairs(PW4 Kanija) came down. She also knocked on the

door. At that time Aman saw from the gap between the

PNP 5/12 APEAL187-5.10

door that his mother had fallen down and his father

had kept one hand on the mouth of his mother. In the other hand

his father was holding a knife. Aman shouted loudly. Thereupon

some people gathered there. His father then opened the door

and came out. His father then caused injury to himself on the

stomach. His father then threw the knife and tried to run.

6. P.W.4 - Kanija was the neighbour of the Appellant and the

deceased. She has stated that she was residing in Room No.305

at Bharat Nagar, Bandra (East). She was residing on the

mezzanine floor of Room No.305 and on the ground floor of the

room the Appellant along with his four children and wife were

residing. Kanija has stated that on 26 th February, 2009 she was

in her room on the mezzanine floor. Two boys of the Appellant

had gone to school. One son and the daughter of the Appellant

came and saw that the door of the room of the Appellant was

closed. The son and daughter started shouting and knocking on

the door of their house. Kanija then came down from the

mezzanine floor and asked them whey they were shouting. Both

the children told her that their mother is not opening the door.

The Appellant who was inside the house then opened the door.

The Appellant had blood on his person. The Appellant was

holding knife in his hand. The Appellant assaulted himself with

PNP 6/12 APEAL187-5.10

the said knife. Then he threw the knife and ran away. When

Kanija looked inside the room she saw that the wife of the

Appellant was lying in a pool of blood. Kanija then lodged the

First Information Report.

7. Thus the evidence of Aman shows that at 11.30 a.m. when

he went out of the house with his sister Muskan to play, his

parents i.e. the Appellant and his wife were in the house. After

half an hour when Aman came back home, he saw that the door

of his house was closed from inside. When he looked through the

gap in the door, he saw that his father had kept one hand on the

mouth of his mother and in the other hand, the Appellant was

holding a knife. The sequence of events as seen from the

evidence of P.W.9 - Aman shows that it was the Appellant who

assaulted his wife Parveen with a knife and the sequence of

event excludes the possibility of any other person entering into

the house and causing the death of Parveen.

8. In addition to the evidence of Aman, the prosecution is

relying on the evidence of P.W.6 - Shakir who is a panch witness.

Shakir has stated about the bloodstained clothes of the Appellant

being seized. These clothes were sent to the Chemical Analyser.

The C.A. report (Exhibit 51) shows that the clothes of the

PNP 7/12 APEAL187-5.10

Appellant were stained with blood of 'B' group. The clothes of the

deceased were also sent for chemical analysis. The C.A. report

(Exhibit 51) shows that salwar and kurta of Parveen was stained

with blood of 'B' group. From this it can safely be said that the

blood group of Parveen was 'B'. This finding of blood of 'B' group

on the clothes of the Appellant is a strong incriminating

circumstance against him. The Appellant has not furnished any

explanation for the presence of blood of 'B' group on his clothes.

9.

The defence taken by the Appellant is that some person had

entered into his house and assaulted his wife Parveen and also

assaulted him. However, the evidence of Aman shows that when

he left the house, his parents i.e. the Appellant and Parveen were

in the house. Aman has clearly stated that when he came home

the door of the house was closed from inside. The evidence of

P.W.4 - Kanija shows that there was only one exit door to the

room of the Appellant. The said door as seen from the evidence

of P.W.9 - Aman and P.W.4 - Kanija was closed from inside. Had

some person entered into the house of the Appellant and

assaulted his wife Parveen, then in such case the Appellant would

have rushed his wife to the hospital and would not have latched

the door of the house from inside. Thus, we find that the defence

raised by the Appellant is palpably false. Giving of false

PNP 8/12 APEAL187-5.10

explanation furnishes one more link in the chain of circumstances

against the Appellant.

10. It is the prosecution case that the Appellant assaulted his

wife Parveen with a knife and caused her death. This is

supported by the medical evidence. P.W.7 - Dr. Savardekar who

conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Parveen on

external examination found 20 injuries which are stated below :

"1) 2 x 5 cm. stab wound on the right side of the

umbiliqus into sub-cutaneous deep.

2) 2 x 1 cm. stab wound with gapping 6 to 7 cms. below

the left breast within anterior axillary line X sub-cutaneous deep.

3) 3 x 1.5 cm. stab wound over the left breast about 1.5

cm. above the areola x cavity deep.

4) 1.5 x .5 cm. stab wound on left breast medially in the line of the nipple.

5) 3.5 x 1.5 x sub-cutaneous deep stab wound on the

right side of the neck.

6) 6 x 5 x sub-cutaneous deep on over the left upper arm posteriorly slashed skin tag was present.

7) 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm. x sub-cutaneous deep posteriorly left side 2 cm deep over back.

8) 3 cm x 1.5 cm. x 2 cm vertically elliptical 2.5 cm. left to spinal column at level of T2.

9) 5 cm. x 2.5 cm. into cavity deep over the right side of the back, 4.5 cm right to spinal column at level of T2.

           10)      4.5 cm x 1 cm x spinal deep 16 cm below the nape of





     PNP                                     9/12                            APEAL187-5.10

           neck, vertically placed.
           11)      4.5 cm x 1.5 cm x cavity deep over the back, 3.5 cm




                                                                                

to the left side of spinal column at the level of T12.

12) 4 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm over the back right side 9 cm from

spinal column.

13) 6 x 2.5 cm x 3 cm obliquely placed over the right side of the back, 9 cm from the spinal column at the level of L-1.

14) 2.5 x 1 cm x sub-cutaneous deep over the posterior superior iliac spine.

15) 4 x 2.5 cm x cavity deep below scapula ® at level of T-

7.

16)

2.5 cm x 1 cm x sub-cutaneous deep over left side lower border of mandible.

17) 2.5 x 1 cm x sub-cutaneous deep left side over angle of mandible.

18) 3 cm x .5 cm x sub-cutaneous deep in left side 4 cm

below angle of mandible.

19) Stab injury over the right forearm, 5 cm x 2 cm x sub-

cutaneous deep over lateral side.

20) 5 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep obliquely and elliptical

place present in the mid clavicular line on the right side of the chest along the lower border of thoracic cage."

11. According to the medical evidence most of the injuries are

stab wounds and majority of blood injuries were found on the

neck, chest and abdomen.

12. The Appellant has also been convicted under Section 309 of

the Indian Penal Code. The evidence of P.W.9 - Aman shows that

the door of his house was closed from inside. When he peeped

PNP 10/12 APEAL187-5.10

through the door, he saw that his father had kept one hand on

the mouth of his mother and in the other hand his father was

holding a knife. Aman shouted loudly, whereupon some people

gathered. His father then opened the door of the house and

came out. Then his father caused injury to himself on the

stomach and threw the knife. The evidence of P.W.4 - Kanija also

shows that the Appellant came outside the house and assaulted

himself with a knife and threw the knife. In addition, the

prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W.8 - Dr. Jyoti Mehta.

Dr. Jyoti Mehta has stated that when the Appellant was brought

to the hospital, history was given of self inflected stab injury by

knife on the abdomen at around 12 p.m. at home. On

examination she found two stab injuries on the abdomen and

linear abrasion on abdomen. Dr. Jyoti Mehta has opined that the

injuries as seen by her on the Appellant can be caused by any

sharp weapon and they will be possible by knife (Article A).

13. On going through the record, we are of the opinion that

there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt

that the Appellant committed murder of his wife Parveen by

stabbing her with a knife. Thus, we find no merit in the Appeal.

The Appeal is dismissed.

PNP 11/12 APEAL187-5.10

Office to communicate this order to the Appellant who is in jail.

We quantify legal fees to be paid by the High Court Legal

Services Committee to Ms. Rohini Dandekar at Rs.5,000/-.

                                                        
    (A.S. GADKARI, J.)                             (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




                                                  
                                     
                                    
        
     







     PNP                                   12/12                            APEAL187-5.10




                                                                               
                                         CERTIFICATE




                                                       

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment.