Shabeebi W/O Mohammad Safir vs State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 10157 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Shabeebi W/O Mohammad Safir vs State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2025

                           -1-
                                     CRL.A No.1209 of 2010
                                  c/w CRL.A No.676 of 2010



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
     DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                         BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1209 OF 2010
                        c/w
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.676 OF 2010

In Crl.A. No.1209/2010

BETWEEN:

SMT ASKARI BEGUM
W/O YAKUB BAIG,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.745,
FORT ROAD D.PURA TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. SHARASS CHANDRA, ADV.)


AND:

1.     SHABEEBI
       W/O MOHAMMAD SAFIR,
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
       R/AT CHICKPETE,
       D.B PURA TOWN,
       BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

2.     STATE BY DODDABALLAPURA P.S.
       (REP. BY SPP)
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.B.K. SWAMY, ADV. FOR R1,
 SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R2.)
[CASUE TITLE AMENDED V/C/O DATED: 08.03.2011]
    THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 372 PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE AND CONSEQUENTLY ENHANCE THE SENTENCE
AWARDED BY LOWER COURT ORDER DT: 31.05.10/3.06.10
                            -2-
                                    CRL.A No.1209 of 2010
                                 c/w CRL.A No.676 of 2010



PASSED BY THE DIST., AND S.J., & P.O., FTC-I, BANGALORE
(R) DIST., BANGALORE IN S.C.NO. 233/09 - CONVICTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC.

In Crl.A. No.676/2010

BETWEEN:

SHABEEBI
W/O MOHAMMAD SAFIR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
CHIKKAPET
D.B. PURA TOWN,
DODDABALLAPURA
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
                                             ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.B.K. SWAMY, ADV.)


AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DODDABALLAPURA POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OFFICE OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE.
                                           ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 374 (2) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DT.31.05.2010 / 03.06.2010 PASSED BY THE DIST. & S.J. &
P.O. FTC-I, BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE IN
S.C.NO.233/09-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC.

     THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 16.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   -3-
                                             CRL.A No.1209 of 2010
                                          c/w CRL.A No.676 of 2010




CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                         CAV JUDGMENT

The appellant Shabeebi D/o Mohammed Safir who is

accused, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.676 of 2010

challenging the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence

dated 31st May, 2010 passed in S.C.No.233 of 2009 by the

District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Bangalore Rural District,

Bangalore (for short "the trial Court), whereby the accused is

convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 of Indian

Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default

of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of fifteen days.

2. Victim-PW1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1209

of 2010 seeking enhancement of sentence passed by the trial

Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are

referred to as per status and rank before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts, leading to both these appeals are that,

Doddaballapura Town Police submitted charge-sheet against the

accused for offence punishable under sections 120B and 307 of

Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that

accused was a maid servant in the house of PW1-Smt. Askari

Begum and she was working as such in the house of PW1 for

the past seven years; she has borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/-

and the said amount was not repaid. It is the case of the

complaint that the complainant and her children have conspired

to kill PW1 and to rob the valuable jewels and money from

house of PW1. Further, it is alleged that, in furtherance of the

said conspiracy and common intention, on 16th April, 2009 at

about 10:45 am, the appellant and her daughter entered the

house of PW1 and appellant alleged to have gagged-up the

mouth of PW1 and the daughter the appellant has caught hold

the hand of PW1, and the of son of appellant alleged to have

assaulted on the mouth of PW1 and other parts of her face.

When PW1 started to scream, the son of the accused took the

mantle of his sister and tied it to the neck of PW1 and pulled

her down and thereafter, he poured kerosene on the body of

PW1 and tried to light fire. Thus, the accused committed

offence under Sections 120B and 307 read with Section 34 of

Indian Penal Code.

5. Sri K.B.K. Swamy, learned Advocate was appointed

as standing Counsel to the accused at the request of the

accused and after hearing the arguments, the trial Court has

framed charges for commission of offence under sections 120B

and 307 of IPC and the same was explained to the accused in

the language to her. Having understood the same accused

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, fifteen witnesses

were examined as PWs1 to 15, fourteen documents were

marked as Exhibits P1 to P14 and seven material objects were

marked as MOs1 to 7. On closure of prosecution side evidence,

statement of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal

Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the

evidence appearing against her and during the course of cross-

examination of prosecution witnesses, Exhibits D1 to D3 were

marked.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial

Court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under

section 120B of Indian Penal Code and convicted the accused

for the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and

sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of two years with fine of Rs.1,000/-. The trial Court has

also set off the period of detention undergone by the accused

for a period of seven months four days. Being aggrieved by the

Judgment of conviction and order on sentence under section

307 of Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused has preferred

Criminal Appeal No.676 of 2010. The complainant injured-

Askari Begum has also preferred appeal under section 372 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking enhancement of sentence

passed by the trial Court.

8. Sri K.B.K. Swamy, learned Counsel appearing for

the Appellant/accused would submit that there is no motive in

the case. The case of the prosecution is that the accused has

committed offence with an intention to rob jewel and cash.

However, PW1 has not whispered anything about the motive of

the accused. Admittedly, the accused have not robbed any

jewel or money from the possession of PW1. PW2-Assain Abbas

who is the son of PW1, is a chance witness and not an eye-

witness. CW3-Sarwar Pasha, who is examined as PW5, is

shown as alleged eye-witness. He has clearly admitted in his

cross-examination that when they visited the spot, the incident

had already occurred. This admission made by the PW1 clearly

goes to show that he is not an eye-witness. However, the

investigating officer has planted him as an eye-witness. It is

the case of the prosecution that the son of PW1 and son of

friend of PW1 i.e. Sarwar Pasha-PW5, said to have come to the

scene of offence and took the injured to Janata Nursing Home

wherein the history was given regarding the incident. The

name of the accused is not disclosed before the medical officer.

The wound certificate-Exhibit P4 reveals that injured-Askari

Begum was admitted to hospital on 16th April 2009 at 11:45 am

with history of alleged assault. But it does not reveal the name

of the accused and also does not reveal as to the details of

alleged offence. Exhibit P6-wound certificate issued by Mallya

Hospital is also cryptic. The medical officer has not disclosed

anything as to the cause of injury and also the name of the

accused. In Exhibit P1-complaint, it is stated that Shabeebi and

Reshma caught hold of the complainant and the son of the

accused-Wasim gave blow to her face and she sustained injury

to left eye. Wasim also assaulted to her teeth and while she

tried to scream and to escape from them, the said Wasim

poured kerosene and tried to light fire with a matchstick. At

that time, when the complainant came, the accused fled the

scene. This scene of occurrence is not witnessed by the PW2,

but only at the instance of the injured-PW1, the complainant

has stated the same in the complaint. Therefore, it is clear that

PW2 is not an eye-witness to the incident. In the absence of

evidence of PW2 and 5, the remaining evidence of PW1 is to be

examined. The evidence of PW1 is not trustworthy. The real

genesis of the case has not been disclosed by the investigating

officer at the earlier point of time. There is a delay of two hours

in filing the complaint. Only as an after thought, they have

implanted this accused. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the

accused under section 120B of Indian Penal Code. When the

trial Court has acquitted the accused under section 120B of IPC,

the question of conspiracy does not arise.

9. It is further contended by the counsel for the

appellant that the trial court erred in not appreciating the

defence that, while the appellant/accused was working in

the house of PW1, he accidentally broke an aquarium, for

which PW1 started hitting the appellant. Upon seeing this,

the appellant's son, out of concern for his mother, fisted

PW1. Except for this, the allegations of attempted

strangulation or pouring kerosene on PW1 are false.

10. The investigating officer did not properly

investigate the case and, in a mechanical manner,

submitted the charge-sheet against the accused, which is

not sustainable under law. He would further submit that

the investigating officer admitted that he did not enquire

from the injured or the medical officer. The intimation

regarding the medico-legal case was not sent to him, and

no person was sent to record the statement of the injured

on April 16, 2019, at Janata Nursing Home. The

investigating officer also admitted that he did not record

any explanation for the delay in filing the complaint. The

First Information Report reached the court on April 16,

2009, at 2:00 pm, and the delay in dispatching the FIR is

also unexplained.

11. The investigating officer clearly admitted that he

did not examine the eyewitness regarding the loan

borrowed by accused No.1 from Strishakti Sangha.

Further, he admitted that he did not send the injured's

blood sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).

Without sending the injured's blood sample, items 4, 5,

- 10 -

and 6, which are "O" group blood, were sent to the FSL.

Since the injured's blood sample was not sent, Exhibit

P7--the FSL report--cannot aid the prosecution.

12. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the

appeal. Alternatively, if this Court concludes that the

accused has committed the offence under Section 307 of

the Indian Penal Code, since the appellant has already

undergone custody for seven months and four days, is

over 50 years old, is a poor maid servant, abandoned by

her husband, and has to look after her children, and there

was no intention to rob jewels or money from PW1 or to

kill the injured, the Court may confirm the sentence only

to the period already undergone by the appellant/accused

in custody.

13. On all these grounds, modification of the

sentence passed by the trial court is sought.

14. As against this, Sri R. Rangaswamy, learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, would

submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the

- 11 -

evidence on record in accordance with law. The presence of

accused is not disputed by the injured. Injury caused to PW1 is

also not disputed. Absolutely, there are no grounds interfere

with the Judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and

accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

15. Sri Omkar, learned Counsel appearing for the victim

would submit that admittedly accused is the maid servant of the

victim. The injury to the left eye at Exhibit P6 is one of the

chemical injury. Injuries 1, 2 and 4 are grievous in nature and

hence considering the injuries caused to PW1, he prayed for

enhancement of sentence passed by the trial Court.

16. Having heard on both sides, the following points

would arise for my consideration:

1) Whether the appellant in Criminal appeal No.676 of 2010 has made out ground to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court?

2) Whether appellant in Criminal appeal No.1209 of 2010 has made out a ground for enhancement of sentence of passed by trial Court?

    3)    What order?
                              - 12 -





Regarding Point No.1:

17. I have examined the materials placed before me. It

is the case of prosecution that the accused was a maid servant

in the house of PW1 and was working as such for the past

seven years. She had borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- and the

said amount was not repaid. The complainant and her children

conspired to kill PW1 and rob the jewel and cash from the

house of PW1. In furtherance of their conspiracy, on 16th April

2009 at about 10:45 am, the appellant and her daughter

entered the house of PW1 and alleged to have gagged up the

mouth of PW1 and her daughter caught hold of the hand of

PW1 and the son of appellant alleged to have assaulted on the

mouth of PW1 and other parts of her face. When PW1 started

to scream, the son of the accused took the mantle of his sister

and tied to the neck of PW1 and pulled her down. Thereafter,

he poured kerosene on PW1 and tried to light fire. Thus,

accused committed offence under sections 120B and 307 with

section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

18. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution

has examined fifteen witnesses as PWs1 to 15, fourteen

documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P14 and seven

- 13 -

material objects were marked as MOs 1 to 7. During the course

of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, Exhibits D1 to

D3 were marked.

19. PW1-Askari Begum has deposed in her evidence that

she know that accused. Accused 2 & 3 are juvenile delinquents.

She, her husband and Irshad Abbas, live in her house. They

have built a separate house at the Doddaballapur. She knew

the accused since she was a child and she had worked in their

house for the last three years. She used to give her Rs.700/-

for food and clothes. After a month of joining the job, the

accused took Rs.5,000/- for admission of her child to school

and after a few days, she again asked for Rs.10,000/-, which

she gave. She again took a loan of Rs.20,000/- and again

Rs.5,000/-, totally a sum of Rs.40,000/- from her. She gave

the amount to the accused from the money which her son used

to send to her who was staying at London. She gave the

money to the accused, thinking that she would do her house

work and also take good care of her while her children were

away. The accused again asked for Rs.40,000/- to repay the

loan which she had taken from Women's Association to which

PW1 told the accused that she did not have the money. Two

- 14 -

years before the incident accused asked for an amount of

Rs.2,000/- and when she told that she didn't have the money

but only had a ring, the accused had taken the ring with a

promise to return it within a week and never came back.

About 5 to 6 days before the incident, the accused came and

said that she would repay the loan. When she enquired her as

to from where she would get the money, she replied, "Why do

you care? I will repay the loan". Six months ago on 16th April

2009 at about 10.00 am, the accused came to the gate of the

house, She went and opened the gate. The accused and her

daughter Reshma came inside. She gave both of them the

breakfast and went to kitchen to cook. The son of accused also

came and stood at the kitchen door when she asked about why

he had come, he said he came to take his mother. PW1 told

him to stay in the veranda, and he went to veranda. On that

day, her husband had gone to Chennai and she was alone at

home. When she brought the utensils, accused gagged her

mouth and tightly held the neck of PW1 with her hands. She

told her son to beat and burn her. The daughter of the

accused closed the windows, turned the TV volume to its

maximum, and also turned on the fan to full speed. The son of

the accused came from the veranda and told his mother to live,

- 15 -

and he grabbed her neck and pushed her against the wall and

hit her mouth with his fist to which her mouth started to bleed.

He also hit on her eyes. Then the accused and her daughter

and son held her hands tightly. When she screamed more, the

son of the accused took his sister's mantle and tied it around

her neck and all the three of them together threw her down.

The son of the accused went and brought kerosene and poured

it on PW1. He took out a matchbox and try to light it, but it did

not ignite as it was oily. She screamed even loudly and son of

the accused step on her neck with his foot and tried to light the

matchstick, but it did not light up. At that time, PW1 threw the

wardrobe keys and told them that they can't take the money

and Jewellery from the wardrobe and leave her alone. In the

meantime, her elder son Assain Abbas came with his friend

PW3. Accused fled the scene and PW1 informed her son about

the incident. Then they took her to Janata Nursing Home for

treatment and further to Mallya Hospital at Bangalore for

higher treatment. The accused knew that she had money and

Jewellery in her house, so they wanted to kill her and rob the

money and jewellery to repay their debt. She has also stated

that when kerosene was poured on her, she was wearing a

saree, skirt and jacket. She has also identified MOs1 & 2.

- 16 -