Md. Mahiruddin & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 223 Of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.92 of the Patna High Court in Crl. A. No. 10 of 1988)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.92 of the Patna High Court in Crl. A. No. 10 of 1988)
Petitioner: Md. Mahiruddin & Ors.
Respondent: State of Bihar
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 223 Of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.92 of the Patna High Court in Crl. A. No. 10 of 1988)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.92 of the Patna High Court in Crl. A. No. 10 of 1988)
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 23, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. B.B.Sinhe, Advocate (A.C.) for the appellants
Mr. A.K.Jha, Advocate for the Respondent.
Mr. A.K.Jha, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Circumstance consid-ered – High Court re-appreciating evidence and concluding that incriminating circumstances were satisfactorily established – False explanation by accused soon after the incident considered, which even supplied missing link – Held that accused were rightly convicted by trial court and conviction was rightly upheld by High Court Appeal dismissed.
(Para 2, 3, 4)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Circumstance consid-ered – High Court re-appreciating evidence and concluding that incriminating circumstances were satisfactorily established – False explanation by accused soon after the incident considered, which even supplied missing link – Held that accused were rightly convicted by trial court and conviction was rightly upheld by High Court Appeal dismissed.
(Para 2, 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI, J.
1. The appellants are challenging the judgment of the Patna High Court in Criminal appeal No.10/88, whereby the conviction of the appellants was upheld.
2. The three appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Bibi Matluwa by the trial court after considering the circumstances which were proved against them. The High Court on reappreciation of the evidence has also come to the conclusion that the prosecution had satis-factorily proved the incriminating circumstances which establish the guilt of the appellants. The trial court and also the High Court took into consideration the false explanation given by the appellants soon after the incident as regards the cause of death of Bibi Matluwa.
3. In our opinion, the courts below were right in relying upon these circumstances and the false explanation given by the ap-pellants which supplied the missing link in the chain of circum-stances which was otherwise complete.
4. Having gone through the evidence and the judgments of both the courts below, we are satisfied that they were rightly con-victed by the trial court and their conviction has been rightly upheld by the High court.
5. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
1. The appellants are challenging the judgment of the Patna High Court in Criminal appeal No.10/88, whereby the conviction of the appellants was upheld.
2. The three appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Bibi Matluwa by the trial court after considering the circumstances which were proved against them. The High Court on reappreciation of the evidence has also come to the conclusion that the prosecution had satis-factorily proved the incriminating circumstances which establish the guilt of the appellants. The trial court and also the High Court took into consideration the false explanation given by the appellants soon after the incident as regards the cause of death of Bibi Matluwa.
3. In our opinion, the courts below were right in relying upon these circumstances and the false explanation given by the ap-pellants which supplied the missing link in the chain of circum-stances which was otherwise complete.
4. Having gone through the evidence and the judgments of both the courts below, we are satisfied that they were rightly con-victed by the trial court and their conviction has been rightly upheld by the High court.
5. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
