Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SOHEL MEHABOOB SHAIKH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
17 April 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 483 · 2009 INSC 548
Also cited as
  • (2009) 12 SCC 588 (6 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2009 SC 2702 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 3.4.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 498A and Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short '1.P.C.').

pp. 483–484, margin G

2

Originally there were five accused persons. Out of them, A-2, A-4 and A-5 were acquitted by the Trial Court under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') of the charges relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A ana 323 of the 1.P.C. while the appellant herein and A-3 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the l.P.C.

p. 484, margin B

3

By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the conviction of A-3 but upheld the conviction of the present appellant under Section 302 of the l.P.C.

p. 484, margin C

4

The case of the prosecution is based on certain circumstances and the Trial Court and High Court found those circumstances to be sufficient to warrant the conviction of the · appellant. The High Court found that the accusations for dowry torture were not established and therefor, it acquitted the appellant of the charge relating to Section 498A of the 1.P.C.

p. 484, margin D

5

The judgment of the High court is assailed on the ground that the circumstances highlighted by the Trial Court and the High Court do not form a complete chain in order to rule out the innocence of the accused and to unerringly point at the accused to be author of the crime.

p. 484, margin E

6

The counsel for the respondents on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court.

p. 484, margin F

7

The three circumstances brought on record by the prosecution and highlighted by the Trial Court and High Court are as follows: "(i) Deceased Sofiya met with an unnatural death; '" (ii) Deceased Sofiya had died in the .oom which A was solely and exclusively occupied by her and her husband i.e. accused No.1; (iii) The appellant has not offered any explanation in respect of the incident in which deceased Sofiya had ·sustained burns."

pp. 484–485, margin G

8

We have gone through the evidence on record and we find that the High Court has arrived at some conclusions which, ir our opinion, are based on surmises and ·conjectures, without there being any evidence to support the conclusions. That C being so, we find that the charge against the appellant has not been established.

p. 485

9

The first and third circumstances cannot be considered to be relevant either separately or collectively. So far as the D second· circumstance is concerned. there is no evidence to show circumstantially that accused was present in the room at the time of occurrence. The time of occurrence, even by approximation has not been established by the prosecution.

p. 485

10

We, therefore, set aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. The appeal is allowed.

p. 485

11

The appellant is in jail. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in connection with any other F case. D.G. Appeal disposed of.

p. 485