Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 99

Judgment.1S.C.No.431/11Ex.

180
INTHECOURTOFSESSIONSFORGREATERMUMBAI
SESSIONSCASENO.431OF2011
TheStateofMaharashtra
(attheinstanceofCSTRailway
PoliceStationC.R.No.A38/2011)......Prosecution
V/s.
1Mohd.ParwezMohd.AnwarulHaq
Age:32years,Occ:Service,
R/at.Thakurpada,RoshaniApartment,
Mumbai.
2Mohd.TabrejMohd.AnwarulHaq
Age:22years,Occ:
R/at.GovernmentCollegeHostel,
R.No.259,2ndFloor,C.Road,
Churchgate(W),Mumbai.
3AbdulHasibMinhajulHaq
Age:23years,Occ:Labour,
R/at.PlotNo.13,ShivajiNagar,
Govandi,Mumbai.
And
At.Dostiya,Post.Gurhanwa,
Kudwa,Chainpur,Dist.East
Chaparan,StateBihar.
.....Accused
Mr.S.MPandit,APPfortheState.
Mr.Shaikh,Adv.foraccusedNo.1.
Mr.Khan,Adv.foraccusedNo.2and3.
CORAM: H.H.THEADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE
SHRIKANTL.ANEKAR
COURTROOMNO.58.
DATE:7thMay2015.

Judgment.2S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

JUDGMENT
(Deliveredon752015)
1

TheaccusedarefacingchargeforoffenceunderSection302,

201ofIndianPenalCodeattheinstanceofCSTRailwayPoliceStation,
havingallegedlycommittedmurder(bystrangulation)ofRehmat,the
wifeofaccusedNo.1ParwezandabandonherdeadbodyinaTrolley
BaginaLocalTrainatMumbra,todisappeartheevidenceofcrime.
2

Factualmatrixofthecaseoftheprosecution,asunveilsfrom

therecordisasunder:
ASI Mokashi was attached to CST Railway Police Station,
Mumbai and was on duty as Station House Officer in the night
interveningbetween14/3/2011to15/3/2011.Hereceivedawireless
message from police control room that a abandoned bag is lying on
platform No.12 at Sandhurst Road Railway Station, Mumbai. On
gettingthisinformation,Shri.Mokashiimmediatelyinformedthisfact
toVijaysinghThakur(theFirstInformant/PW1)onhismobilephone
andaskedhimtoverifythefacts.
3

Shri Thakur proceeded in search of such bag along with

PoliceConstableBhandavlkarandfoundoneTrolleybagoflightgreen
colournearelectricpoleNo.25. Shri.Thakurtriedtoascertainasto
whetheritbelongedtoanybody. However,therewasnobodynearby
thesaidbagtoclaimit.Heraisedsuspicion,hetriedtotakesmellbutit
wasabsent.

Judgment.3S.C.No.431/11Ex.180
4

Shri.Thakurthenopenedthechainofthebagbyaboutone

foot and tried to peep in. He found human legs in the bag. He
therefore,openedthechainandfoundthatonedeadbodywaskeptin
thebaginafoldedcondition.Shri.Thakurimmediatelyinformedabove
factstoASIMokashi.HealsofoundoneShashiGohilpresentthere,who
informedaboutthesaidbagtothePoliceControlRoom.
5

After sometime, police party of CST Railway Station

appearedonthespotanditwasnoticedthatthesaidbagcontained
deadbodyofoneladyagedabout25years,withligaturemarkonher
neck and multiple injuries on her person. Since the death was
apparentlyhomicidal,disclosingabovereferredfact,VijaysinghThakur
lodged his report alleging the offence of murder against unknown
accused.Onthesaidreport,offencevideC.R.No.38/11underSection
302,201cametoberegistered.
6

PIShri.YeramPW31proceededwiththeinvestigationand

firstlydrawntheinquestandsentthedeadbodyforpostmortem.He
thenrecordedspotpanchanama. Theclothesofthedeceasedwhich
consistofaChudidarPyjamaandKurta(therewasnoodhni/duppata)
onherpersonwereseizedunderpanchanama.
7

Thepostmortemofthesaidunknownfemalewasconducted

at J.J. Hospital by the team of three doctors. They have recorded


provisional cause of death of said unknown female to be because of
'compressionofneckwithsubgalealhaematoma'.Atthesametime,they
preservedsamplefor chemical analysis andalso retainedtissuesfor
DNA examination. It also revealed that the said lady was carrying

Judgment.4S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

pregnancyhavingfetusinheruterus.Thetissuesamplesoffetuswere
alsocollectedforDNAprofiling.Thisisprobablybecausetheidentityof
thesaiddeadbodywasnotrevealed.
8

FurtherinvestigationwasthentakenupbyPIinchargeof

thePoliceStationShri.JadhavPW37.Sinceitwasacaseofmurderof
unknownlady,hesentthedetailsalongwithphotographsofthesaid
ladytoallthepolicestationsanddispatchedallIndiaLevelWireless
Messages.Similarly,hepublishedthedetailsandphotoofthesaidlady
toprintandelectronicmedia.Shri.Jadhavduringhisinvestigationhas
then issued letters to Railway Authority and RPF to preserve CCTV
footagecapturedbythecamerasinstalledatvariousrailwaystations.
9

Investigatingmachinerywascluelesstilltheyreceivephone

call of one Abdul Hamid Shaikh resident of Mumbra on 16/3/11


informingthatthedeceasedladywhichhesawonthetelevisionishis
neighbour. Saidwitnessvisitedpolicestationon17/3/11alongwith
hiswifeFahmidaPW12.Thesaidcoupleidentifiedthedeadbodyas
wellastheclothesonherpersontobethatofRehmatParwezHaqthe
wifeofaccusedNo.1Parwez.
10

Upongettinginformationfromthetwowitnesses,needleof

suspiciontiltedtowardsthehusbandofsaidRehmati.e.accusedParwez
andtherefore,initially,hisbrotherTabrejwasarrestedandthereafter,
accusedNo.1ParwezaswellasaccusedNo.3Hasibwerearrested.The
motherofRehmatapproachedpolice.Sheidentifieddeadbodyofher
daughter Rehmat. Her blood sample was drawn for DNA profiling
underExh.110(Colly.).

Judgment.5S.C.No.431/11Ex.180
11

It is the case of prosecution as revealed from the

investigation, that accused No.1 Parwez performed 'Nikaha' with


deceasedRehmaton1012010.Itrevealedthathewasresidingwith
RehmatatPrakashComplex,SantoshNagar,Mumbra.Itrevealedthat
accused Parwez falsely disclosed to his nearer and dearer and
neighboursthatheisworkingasDoctoratK.E.M.HospitalatMumbai.
ItrevealedthathecontractedsecondmarriagewithArshiyaPW9on
4/12/10andwasresidingwithheratFlatNo.303,RoshaniApartment,
C Wing, Thakurpada, Mumbra being tenant of Ayesha Sakharekar
PW11.ItalsorevealedfromtheinvestigationthataccusedNo.1Parwez
did not disclose either to deceased Rehmat about his marriage with
ArshiyaPW9andviceversa.
12

As per prosecution deceased was suspecting that accused

wouldperform second marriage.As perprosecution,accusedParwez


wantedtocontinuehismatrimonialrelationsonlywithArshiya,being
fromawellofffamilyascomparedtodeceasedRehmat.Forthis,hewas
compellingdeceasedRehmattoresideatherparent'shomeatKundva
Chainpur,StateofBihar.Forthispurpose,accusedParwezdisclosedto
theneighboursandothersincludingFahmida(PW12)thatheisgoing
toshiftatDelhiashehassecuredajob.Hetherefore,disclosedthathe
isleavingforDelhiandleftfromtheflatatPrakashComplex,Santosh
Nagar, Mumbra. He booked railway ticket for deceased Rehmat and
accused No.3 Hasib for Delhi. Accordingly, deceased Rehmat and
accusedNo.3HasibleftMumbaibyDadarAmrutsarTrainon6/3/11to
go to Delhi. They were to join accused Parwez at Delhi. Fahmida
(PW12)accompaniedthedeceasedtotheMumbraRailwayStationto
seeoff.

Judgment.6S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

13

ItisacaseofprosecutionthatinfactaccusedParwezdidnot

leaveforDelhiasdisclosedtohisneighbourFahmida.Heelopedfrom
saidarea,butwasatMumbraitselfwithhissecondwifeArshiyaPW9.
14

It is a case of prosecution that, accused Parwez then

accompaniedArshiyaPW9byatrainon9/3/11anddroppedherat
KhandvaStateofM.P.AccusedParwezhowevercontinuedhisjourney
forDelhiinformingArshiyathatheisgoingtogetajob.
15

ItisacaseofprosecutionthatafterreachingDelhi,deceased

RehmatrealisedhavingbeencheatedbyaccusedParwezandtherefore,
insisteduponhimtoreachheragainattheirplaceatMumbra,Dist.
Thane.Sherefusedtogotoherparentshouse.Shedisclosedabovefacts
toFahmidaPW12onmobilephone.Asperprosecution,husbandof
FahmidaPW12agreedforthestayofRehmatattheirhousealongwith
hisotherdaughters.
16

It is the case of prosecution that because of adamant

behavour of deceased Rehmat, accused Parwez started for Mumbai


alongwithdeceasedRehmatandaccusedNo.3Hasib. Theyreached
DadarRailwayStation earlyinthemorningon 14/3/11which was
recorded/capturedbyCCTVcamerasinstalledatDadarRailwayStation.
At per prosecution, accused Parwez and Hasib had taken Rehmat to
Mumbra,which wasrecorded/capturedbyCCTVcamerasinstalledat
MumbraRailwayStation.AsperprosecutionaccusedParweztakenthe
deceasedat303,RoshniApartment,Thakurpada,Mumbra,wherehe
wasresidingwithArshiyaPW9.

Judgment.7S.C.No.431/11Ex.180
17

ItisacaseofprosecutionthatinthesaidFlat,withthehelp

of accused Tabrej, Rehmat was murdered by strangulation and by


inflectingmultipleinjuriesonherperson.Afterfoldingherdeadbody,it
waskeptingreencolourTrolleybag,whichwasgiftedtoArshiyaPW9
byherparents,inhermarriage.Thesaidbagwasthenabandonedina
localtrainatMumbraRailwayStation,byaccusedParwezandTabrej,
which was also recorded/captured by a CCTV cameras installed at
Mumbra Railway Station. As per prosecution, accused Tabrej was
wearingaTshirthavingdigit 93 onhisback.Thesaidbagwasthen
found at Sandhurst Road Railway Station, by First Informant Shri
Thakur.
18

Accused No.1 Parwez was arrested from Khandva Madhya

Pradesh while he was at house of parents of Arshiya PW9. He was


foundinpossessionofoneMobilePhoneofZenmakehavingIMEINo.
356379010828497 and 35637901082505 with Sim Card No.
89917990209118080736havingPhoneNo.919702181561.Arailway
ticketfromKhandvatoMumbaiofJourneydate1632011.Bunchof
keysetc.PanchanamaExh.35tothateffectwasdrawn.
19

Before the arrest of accused Parwez, accused Tabrej and

HasibwerearrestedfromMumbai.Tabrejwasfoundinpossessionofa
MobilePhoneetc.forwhichPanchanamwasdrawn.Duringcourseof
interrogationofaccused,accusedTabrejgavememorandumstatement
on21/3/2011leadingtorecoveryof odhani/dupatta ofthedeceased
from one bag kept in flat bearing No.303 of Roshani Cooperative
HousingSociety,Thakurpada,Mumbra,Dist.Thane.Keysofthesaid
houseweresuppliedbyaccusedParwez.Searchofthesaidpremises
was carried out in which diary, medical books, stethoscope, one

Judgment.8S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

MarriagePhoto Album and other articles were seized under


panchanama.RoomNo.259ofaccusedTabrejintheElphistonCollage
Hostelwassearched,inwhichthesaidTshirthavingdigits 93 onthe
back,newspapercuttinginrespectofdetectionofdeadbodyofRehmat
etcwerefound.
20

ThemobilephonewhichaccusedNo.1Parwezwasfound

using,wasfoundduringtheirpersonalsearch.Itrevealedthataccused
Parwezwasusingthemobilephonenumberwhichwasstandinginthe
nameofMohd.JavedAbdulMannanShaikhPW28,whoishisclose
relative.Hisstatementwasrecorded. Similarly,theapplicationform
submittedbyhimtoIdeaCellularCompanywasalsosecuredfromthe
saidCompany.
21

Mobilecalldetailsrecord(CDR)ofphonenumberofaccused

Parwez and that of accused Tabrej were secured from the cellular
company. Similarly, thecontentsofthemobilephonesandmemory
card of accused No.1 and 2 were extracted from Forensic Science
Laboratory,Mumbaiforwhichnecessaryharddiskwassupplied. The
samewerealsotakenbywayofprintouts.
22

Muddemal articles like cloths found on the dead body,

duppata/odhnirecoveredattheinstanceofaccusedTabrej,receiptbook
oftheclothsmaintainedbyShri.Mohd.ImranJafarAlamShaikh,
23

DNAprofiles/reportsinrespectofaccusedParwez,deceased

Rehmatandthefoetusfoundinherwombwerecollected.Similarlythe
DNAreportofdeceasedRehmatandherMotherwerealsosecured.It
revealedthataccusedParwezisbiologicalfatherofthefoetusfoundin
thewombofRehmat.PW14 SurmaAbdulBariShaikhfoundtobe

Judgment.9S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

biologicalmotherofRehmat.DNAofaccusedTabrejandHasibdidnot
matchwiththatofRehmatorthefoetus.
24

Duringinvestigation,statementofasmanyas39witnesses

wererecorded.
25

The video footage of relevant period captured by CCTV

camerasinstalledatDadarRailwayStation,MumbraRailwayStation
preserved in Digital Video Recorder (DVR)were secured. Certificate
aboutitsauthenticitywassecuredfromMr.PritamShindePW33.The
footagewassenttoForensicScienceLaboratoryforopinionastotheT
ShirtseizedfromtheroomofAccusedTabrejetc.Stillphotoimagesof
thesaidfootageweresecuredinaCompactDiskandthesamewere
developedasDigitalPhotosbyShriIkkePW39.
26

The diary found in the house of accused Parwez at 303

RoshniApts.Mumbra,specimenhandwritingofaccusedParwezandthe
RailwayReservationForm,sizedfromtheofficeofRailway,weresent
toHandwritingExpertforopinion.Itsopinionwassecured.
27

Aftercompletionofinvestigation,chargesheetcametobe

filed.
28

ThelearnedMagistratebyordercommittedthecasefortrial.

29

My learned predecessor framed charge for the offence

punishableundersection302,201ofIndianPenalCode.Theaccused
pleadednotguiltytothecharge.
30

Inordertoprovethecharge,theprosecutionhasexamined

as many as 39 witnesses and has also relied on some documentary

Judgment.10S.C.No.431/11Ex.180
evidenceasunder:
PW1VijaysinghGajjusinghThakur

Ex.19

PW2M.Rehman

Ex.22

PW3AnitaKeshavBhosale

Ex.24

PW4Mohd.RehmanShaikh

Ex.26

PW5ShaikhMotiullhaqDaud

Ex.28

PW6BabluRamashrayChaurasiya

Ex.29

PW7PankajPremajiWaghela

Ex.31

PW8AnandAnilSande

Ex.32

PW9ArshiyaMohd.Parwez

Ex.37

PW10AnilNiranjandasBairagi

Ex.39

PW11AyeshaFaizanSakhrekar

Ex.42

PW12FahmidaAbdulHamidShaikh

Ex.44

PW13ManojPrabhakarDhagvat

Ex.45

PW14SurmaAbdulBariShaikh

Ex.50

PW15ChanduprakashP.Sharma

Ex.72

PW16GulabPandharinathNalawade

Ex.74

PW17ShankarShivalingappaSavnur

Ex.76

PW18KiranVasantBagekar

Ex.79

PW19RizvanaIbrisQureshi

Ex.85

PW20Mohd.ImranZafarAlam

Ex.86

PW21ShrikantHemantLade

Ex.88

PW22RajendraRamchandraMavle

Ex.89

PW23SudhakarSonappaDavare

Ex.90

PW24SumitraKishorSalunkhe

Ex.98

PW25GorakhnathRamdasKhande

Ex.101

PW26BharatBhimraoGaikwad

Ex.103

PW27VilasNilkanthParab

Ex.107

PW28 Mohd. Javed Abdul Mannan Ex.122


Akhtar

Judgment.11S.C.No.431/11Ex.180
PW29VijayEknathShinde

Ex.125

PW30MohammedHazratAnsari

Ex.132

PW31PandharinathRajaramYeram

Ex.137

PW32 Dr. Ashutosh Harshavardhan Ex.139


Mishram
PW33PritamDilipShinde

Ex.143

PW34 Shaikh Mehmood Shaikh Ameer Ex.146


Jahagirdar
PW35DilipRamkrishnaYadav

Ex.149

PW36ShekharMallappaSanghreddy

Ex.152

PW37AshokkumarMahadevJadhav

Ex.156

PW38PramodDeepchandYadav

Ex.167

PW39SubhasIkke

Ex.169

Complainant

Ex.20

Panchanamas

Ex.25,27,30,
Ex.33,34,35

Nikahnama

Ex.38

Leaveandlicenseagreement

Ex.43

StatementofTabrej

Ex.46

Panchanamas

Ex.47,48,77

P.M.Reports

Ex.51

C.A.Reports

Ex.52to70

Report

Ex.75

Examinationreport

Ex.80

DetailsofanalysisintheformofCDs

Ex.81

Letters dated 23/3/2011 including Ex.110


photograph
Letterofhandwritingexpert

Ex.119

Email

Ex.126

CDRalongwithcertificate

Ex.127

Judgment.12S.C.No.431/11Ex.180
Copiesofdrivinglicence

Ex.128&129

Panchanama

Ex.138

Finalcauseofdeathcertificate

Ex.140

CertificatesunderSec.65BofEvidenceAct

Ex.145

12pagesofspecimenhandwriting

Ex.147

Panchanama

Ex.148

12pagesofspecimenhandwriting

Ex.150

6pagesofspecialhandwriring

Ex.153

LettertoC.A.

Ex.163

Panchanamas

Ex.151,154,

Ex.164,168,171
Handwritingexpertopinion

Ex.165

CertificateissuedbyPritamShindePW33

Ex.173

Correspondence

Ex.21,82,83,84.99,102,104,105,
106,108,110,112,114,116,118,
119,141,144,157,159,160,161,
162,163.

31

Afterrecordingthestatementoftheaccusedundersection

313ofCriminalProcedureCode,inwhichtheaccusedhavedeniedall
theincriminatingcircumstanceagainstthem.Ihaveheardthelearned
Addl.PublicProsecutorandlearnedadvocatefortheaccused. Ihave
carefullywentthroughthenotesofargumentsandauthoritiesreliedon
bybothlearnedadvocates.

32

Following points arise for my determination and I have

recordedmyfindingsthereonwiththereasonsgiventhereunder:

Judgment.13S.C.No.431/11Ex.180
Points

Findings

Whethertheprosecutionhasproved
that, dead body found in Green Yes.
Colour BagatStandhrustRoadRly.
Station on 1532011 was that of
Rehmatw/oParwezHaq?

Whetherprosecutionhasprovedthat,
the accused in furtherance of their ProvedagainstaccusedNo.
common intention have committed 1and2only.
murder of Rehmat, wife of accused
No.1Perwez?

Whetherprosecutionhasprovedthat,
accusedwithan intentto disappear
the evidence of crime, carried the
dead body of Rehmat in the Green
Colour Bag to Mumbra Railway ProvedagainstaccusedNo.
Station and abandoned the dead 1and2only.
bodyofRehmatinthesaidBagina
Local TrainatMumbra Dist.Thane,
RailwayStation?

Whatorder?

Asperfinalorderbelow.

REASONS
ASTOALLTHEPOINTS:
33

As all the points are interrelated, they are taken up for

commondiscussion.
34

BeforeIembarkuponthedisputedfacts,itwouldbeproper

tofirstmakeabriefmentionofadmittedandundisputedfacts.Accused
havenotdisputedinterserelationshipsbetweenthem.AccusedParwez
hasadmittedthatArshiyaPW9washiswife.Headmittedthathewas
residingwithherat303,RoshniApartment,Thakurpada,MumbraDist.
Thane.AccusedParwezhasadmittedhispersonalsearchpanchanama

Judgment.14S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

Exh.35underwhichMobilePhoneofZenMakewithgivennumbersim
cardandonememorycard,Leatherwallethavinglicence,PANCard,
TrainPass,oneRailwayReservationTicketfromKhandwatoDadaretc.,
currencynotesandbunchofKeyswerefoundwithhimatthetimeof
arrest.
35

Admittedly,thereisnoeyewitnesstotheincidentandthe

case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In view of this, I


propose to reproduce important principles led down by Hon'ble
SupremeCourtinSharadSarda'scase(1984SCCCriminalpage487).
{1}

Thecircumstancefromwhichtheconclusionofguiltistobe
drawn should be fully established. The circumstances
concerned'mustorshould'andnot'maybe'established.

{2}

The facts so established should be consistent only with the


hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
shouldnotbeexplainableonanyotherhypothesisexceptthat
theaccusedisguilty.

{3}

The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and


tendency.

{4}

Theyshouldexcludeeverypossiblehypothesisexcepttheone
tobeproved,and

{5}

Theremustbeachainofevidencesocompleteasnottoleave
anyreasonablegroundfortheconclusionwiththeinnocence
oftheaccusedandmustshowthatinallhumanprobability,
theactmusthavebeendonebyaccused.

36

Itisalsowellsettledthatfalsedefenceraisedbyaccusedis

Judgment.15S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

additionalcircumstancetofillinthegapsinthecaseofprosecution.
37

In a case based on circumstantial evidence it would be

proper to first recapitulate the circumstances, which the prosecution


proposestorelyupontoprovetheguiltoftheaccused.Inpresentcase,
from the facts alleged, the prosecution is relying on following
circumstances and additional circumstances to prove that accused
beforethecourtaretheauthorsofcrime.

CIRCUMSTANCES
A]Deadbodyofaladyfoundon1532011inaGreenColourTrolley
BagonPlatformNo.1/2atStandhrustRoadRailwayStationwasthat
ofRehmatdaughterofSurmaAbdulBariShaikhandwifeofaccused
No.1ParwezHaq.
B]ThataccusedParwezanddeceasedRehmatmarriedtoeachotheron
1212010atDabriDist.Najabgarhandwereresidingashusbandand
wifebetweenJuly2010till6thMarch2011,inaroomletouttohimat
PrakashComplex,SantoshNagar,MumbraDist.Thane.Andthatthe
saidroomisneartheroomofFahmida(PW12),
C] ThataccusedParwezcontractedsecondmarriedwihtArshiyaPW9
on2122010atSailanaDistrictRatlamStateofMadhyaPradesh.
D] ThataccusedParwezandArshiyaPW9wereresidingashusband
andwifeat303,RoshniAppartment,ThakurPada,Mumbraastenants
ofAayeshaPW11during6122010till932011.

Judgment.16S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

E] That the accused Parwez did not disclose about his marriage to
deceasedRehmattoArshiyaPW9andviceaversa.
F] Accused Parwez decided to continue her matrimony only with
ArshiyaPW9andtodesertdeceasedRehmatbycompellinghertostay
atherMother'splace.
G]AccusedParwezwithaviewtodesertdeceasedRehmatfromhislife
falselydisclosedhisneighboursthatheisshiftingtoDelhialongwith
deceasedRehmat,onaccountofanewjob.
H]AccusedParwezeloped/vanishedfromthesaidplacestatingthathe
isgoingtoDelhi. ButhewasverymuchatMumbraat303,Roshni
ApartmentwithArshiyaPW9.
I] AccusedParwezreservedtwotickets of DadarAmrutsarTrainNo.
11057 from Dadar to Delhi in the name of deceased Rehmat and
accusedNo.3Hasib,fortheirjourneyon632011.
J]AccusedParwezalsobookedoneticketofsametrainfromDadarto
KhandwainthenameofArshiyaPW9forherjourneyon932011.He
accompanied her till Khandwa Station and continued his journey to
Delhibythesametrain.
K]ThatdeceasedRehmatfoundthataccusedParwezwasnotatDelhi.
SherealisedthatshehasbeencheatedbyaccusedParwez.

Judgment.17S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

L]ThataccusedParwezstartedinsistingdeceasedRehmattostayather
mother'splace.HoweverdeceasedRehmatwasnotwillingtogotoher
mother's place and instead wanted to stay with accused Parwez at
Mumbra.ShemadeaccusedParweztotakehertoMumbratostayin
thehouseofFahmidaPW12.
M] That accused Parwez informed on 1432011 to his wife Arshiya
PW9thatduetourgentworkhehadtovisitMumbai.
N]Since2009,accusedParwezwasusingIdeaMobileSimCardhaving
mobilenumber9702181561standinginthenameofhisrelativeMohd.
Javed Abdul Mannan Akhtar Shaikh. Mobile Phone with IMEI No.
356379010828505 was found with accused Parwez in his personal
search.
O] Accused Parwez got down at Dadar Railway Station along with
deceased Rehmat and accused No.3 Hasib on 1432011 at early
morningat03:32HrsbyaTrainandwasrecorded/capturedbyCCTV
camerasinstalledthereandwasrecordedinDigitalVideoRecorder.
P] Thereafter Accused Parwez then got down at Mumbra Railway
StationbyaLocalTrainalongwithdeceasedRehmatandaccusedNo.3
Hasib on 1432011at 05:16/17 Hrs and was recorded/captured by
CCTV camera installed there and was recorded in Digital Video
Recorder.
Q] Mobiletowerlocationsabouttheuseofmobilephoneofaccused
ParwezshowsthataccusedwasatMumbraatallmaterialtime.

Judgment.18S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

R]DeceasedRehmatwaslastlyseenaliveinthecompanyofAccused
ParwezandHasibon1432011at05:16/17.
S]ThataccusedTabrejwasusingIdeaCompanyMobilePhonehaving
number9702988355,standinginhisname. AccusedParwezwas in
constant contact with accused Tabrej on mobile phone on reaching
Mumbaionthatday.
T]ThataccusedParweztookRehmatto303,RoshniApartment,Thakur
Pada,Mumbra,whereaccusedTabrejwaspresent.
U]ThatthesaidTShirtArticle5havingdigits93carvedonit'sback,
was found in Room No. 259 of accused Tabrej at Elphiston College
Hostel. That Duppata/Odhni of Rehmat, which is part of Kurta and
PaijamafoundonherdeadbodywasfoundconcealedinaBagkeptat
303,RoshniApts.attheinstanceofaccusedTabrej.
V]TrolleyBagArticle1inwhichdeadbodywasfoundwasoutofthe
giftarticlesreceivedbyArshiyaPW9inhermarriage,fromherparents.
It was lying in her house at 303, Roshni Apartments, Thakur Pada,
Mumbra.
W] Accused No. 1 Parwez and accused No. 2 Tabrej were found at
MumbraRailwayStationat21:58Hrson1432011alongwithTrolley
BagArticle1andwasrecorded/capturedinCCTVCamerainstalledat
thesaidRailwayStation.TrolleyBagArticle1wasfoundonPlatform
No.1/2atStandhrustRoadRailwayStationon1532011atabout2:05

Judgment.19S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

HrsbyThakurPW1havingdeadbodyofRehmat withligaturemark
andotherinjuriesalloverthebody.
X] Mobile Tower Location in respect of Mobile Phone Numbers (in
CDR)showsthataccusedParwezandTabrejwereatMumbraRailway
Stationat21:58Hrs.on1432011.
Y]AccusedTabrejhadTShirtArticle5beforethecourtonhisperson
whenhewascarryingTrolleyBagArticle1atMumbraRailwayStation.
Z]Semen/SpermstainsofaccusedParwezfoundonthePyjamafound
onthepersonofthedeceasedRehmat.
ADDITIONALCIRCUMSTANCES

AA] FalsedenialofRelationshipsbyaccusedParwezandTabrejwith
deceasedRehmat.
AB] NocomplaintbeingfiledbyaccusedParwezaboutmissingofhis
wifeRehmatatanytime.
AC]Thattheconductoftheaccusedpriortoandsincetheincidenthas
beenhighlyunnatural.
AD]FalsepleaofalibiraisedbyaccusedParwez.
38

Nowitistobeseenwhethertheprosecutionhasprovedthe

abovecircumstancesbycogentandreliableevidence? Bytakingup

Judgment.20S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

each and every circumstance one by one I propose to address as to


whetherthecircumstancestakentogetherformachainleadingtoonly
hypothesisthattheaccusedaloneistheauthorofthecrimeandruleout
thepossibilityofhisinnocence.
39

Atthisstageitisworthtonotetheobservationsof Hon'ble

SupremeCourtinStateofH.P.vs.LekhRaj(2000)1SCC247which
hasleddownpresentdaysituationandtheapproachofthecourtwhile
appreciatingtheevidence.Itreadsasunder:
The legal trial is conducted to ascertain theguiltor
innocence of the accused arraigned. In arriving ata
conclusionaboutthetruth,theCourtsarerequiredtoadopt
rational approach and judge the evidence by its intrinsic
worth and the animus of the witnesses. The hyper
technicalities or figment of imagination should not be
allowedtodivestthecourtofitsresponsibilityofsiftingand
weighing the evidence to arrive at the conclusion regarding
theexistenceorotherwiseofaparticularcircumstances
keeping in view the peculiar facts of each case, the social
positionofthevictimandtheaccused,thelargerinterestsof
the society particularly the law and order problem and
degradingvaluesoflifeinherentintheprevalentsystem.The
realitiesoflifehavetobekeptinmindwhileappreciatingthe
evidenceforarrivingatthetruth.Thecourtsarenotobliged
tomakeeffortseithertogivelatitudetotheprosecutionor
loosely construe the law in favouroftheaccused.The
traditional dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be
replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for
administering justice in a criminal trial. Criminal
JurisprudencecannotbeconsideredtobeaUtopianthought
but has to be considered as part and parcel of the human
civilizationandtherealitiesoflife.Thecourtscannotignore
theerosioninvaluesoflifewhichareacommonfeatureof
thepresentsystem.Sucherosioncannotbegivenabonusin
favour of those who are guilty of polluting society and the
mankind."

Judgment.21S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

CIRCUMSTANCEA:
40

Ifweconsiderthedefencesetupbytheaccused,theaccused

personshavedeniedthatdeadbodyfoundingreencolourtrolleybag
was that of Rehmat wife of accused No.1 Parwez. During cross
examination to relevant witnesses as well as while answering in
response to the questions during statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., the
accusedpersonshavedeniedevenrelationshipofaccusedNo.1Parwez
with Rehmat to be that of husband and wife. During course of
argumentslearnedadvocatefortheaccusedhasadmittedthefactthat
accusedNo.1and2arerealbrothersintersayandaccusedNo.3being
theirfirstcousin.HealsoadmittedthattheaccusedNo.1Parwezwas
marriedtoArshiyaPW9.Hehowever,merelysuggestedwhilearguing
that even if the fact of marriage between accused No.1 Parwez and
deceasedRehmatisaccepted,itwillnottakecaseofprosecutiontoany
endbecauseunderthepersonallawofaccusedParwez,hecanperform
morethanonemarriage.However,ascouldbeseenthataccusedNo.1
ParwezhasnotadmittedthatRehmatwashiswife.
41

Inviewofabove,prosecutionwasobligedtoprovebeyond

doubtthatthedeadbodywhichwasfoundingreencolourtrolleybag
onplatformNo.1/2atSandhurstRoadRailwayStationon15/3/11was
thatofRehmatwhichwasdaughterofSurmaShaikhPW14andwifeof
accusedNo.1Parwez.
42

Onthispoint,itisfirstnecessarytoexaminetheevidenceof

Shri.ThakurPW1.Asperhisevidence,hewasattachedtoGRPatCST
RailwayStation,Mumbai.On14/3/11,hewasonnightdutybetween

Judgment.22S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

8.30p.m.to8.00onthenextdayandwasassigneddutyatSandhurst
RoadRailwayStation.
43

AsperPW1Shri.Thakur,hereceivedaphonecallofASI

Shri.MokashiwhowasStationHouseOfficerofCSTRailwayStationat
about 2.05 a.m. on 15/3/2011. Shri.Mokashi informed him having
received wireless message from control room to the effect that one
abandonedbagislyingonplatform1/2oftheSandhurstRoadRailway
Station.PW1Shri.Thakurwascalledupontomakenecessaryinquiry
andreport.
44

Shri.ThakurPW1thensearchedabovesuchbagandfound

samenearPoleNo.25.HewasaccompaniedbyShri.Bhadvalkaranother
P.C.onduty.Shri.Thakurfoundthattherewasnobodyaroundthebag.
Therefore,hetriedtotakesmellobviouslybecausehecarriedsuspicion.
Hetriedtoopenchainandfoundthathumanlegswereinthebag.He
immediatelyreportedthemattertoShri.Mokashionphoneaccordingly
andpolicestaffappearedonthespot.
45

AsperShri.Thakur,thebagwasopenedanditwasfound

thatdeadbodyofyoungladywaskeptfoldedinthebaghavingligature
markon he neck with injuries over her body. He therefore, lodged
reportEx.20againstunknownaccused.Itmaybenotedherthatinview
of multiple injuries found on the body, PW1 though it was case of
murderbyunknownaccused,andtherefore,lodgedsuchreport.When
confrontedwiththetrolleybagbeforetheCourt,heidentifiedthesame
whichisArt.1.

Judgment.23S.C.No.431/11Ex.180
46

Duringthecourseofcrossexamination,thereishardlyany

challenge to the evidence of this witness having found green colour


trollybagcontainingdeadbodyoffemale. Itisconspicuoustonote
herethatitisbroughtonrecordthatclotheslikeSalwarKameezwere
onthepersonofthedeadbodybuthehasnotbeenquestionedasto
whethertherewasDupatta/Odhanionthedeadbody.
47

AscouldbeseenfromtheevidenceofPW1Shri.Thakur,in

responsetophonecallofStationHouseOfficerShri.Mokashi,hevisited
platformNo.1/2ofSandhurstRoadRailwayStationandfoundgreen
colour trolley bag Art.1 lying abandoned containing dead body of a
lady.HehassetcriminallawinmotionbylodgingFIREx.20.
48

Inthisregard,theprosecutionhasalsoplacedintoservice

theevidenceofM.RehmanPW2andPankajWaghelaPW7.Ascould
beseenfromtheirevidence,agreencolourtrolleybagwasfoundat
Standhurst Road Railway Station in abandon condition. During their
crossexaminationnomuchcontroversyhasbeencreatedastothefact
ofdetectionofabandonbagcontainingadeadbodyofalady.
49

From the above referred evidence of Shri Thakur, M.

RehmanandPankajWaghela,thiscourthasnohezitationtorecordthe
findingoffactthatgreencolourtrolleybagwasfoundatsaidrailway
stationinabandonconditionandthebagcontainedadeadbodyofa
lady.
50

Itisnowcrucialtoexamineastowhethertheprosecution

hasprovedtheidentityofthedeadbodyfoundinthesaidbag.Inthis

Judgment.24S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

context, as per evidence of Shri. Jadhav PW37, on receipt of


investigation ofthis crimeon15/3/11,he issuedStatelevelandAll
Indian level wireless messages as well as details of dead body were
givenonPrintandElectronicMedia. Asperhisevidence,deadbody
wassenttoJ.J.HospitalbecauseDNAtestingwasnotavailableatSt.
George Hospital where dead body was initially sent by Shri. Yeram
PW31 who carried initial investigation. On careful reading of cross
examinationofJadhavPW37,thereisnochallengeevenbysuggestion
ofdenialthatStatelevelandAllIndialevelwirelessmessagesweresent
anddetailsofdeadbodywerepublishedonPrintandElectronicMedia.
51

This takes up to the evidence Fahmida PW12. Fahmida

PW12isaladyresidingatNo.204,Bwing,PrakashComplex,Santosh
Nagar, Mumbra, Dist.Thane. As per her evidence, accused Parwez
approached through one Ganesh Bitla for a room on rent. As per
evidence,this was in somewhere June, 2010. She claimedthat one
roomwasthenselectedinthesaidapartmentonFirstFloor,Bwing.It
wasgivenonrenttoaccusedNo.1Parwezsince2010.AsperPW12,
accusedParwezstartedresidinginthesaidroomalongwithRehmatas
hiswife.HedisclosedthathewasworkingasDoctorinKEMHospital.
52

AsperFahmidaPW12,on16/3/11,whilewatchingAajTak

NewsChannel,shecameacrossnewsitemaboutdetectionofdeadbody
inabagatSandhurstRoadRailwayStationandthefactofthesaid
dead body was also displayed. She immediately identified the said
photograph tobethatofherneighbour. Sheaccordinglycontacted
policecontrolroomandthentoCSTRailwayStation.Onthenextday,
shevisitedpolicestation.Shewastakentohospitalforidentificationof

Judgment.25S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

thedeadbody.Sheclaimedthatsheidentifieddeadbodytobethatof
Rehmat wife of accused No.1 Parwez. Fahmida also identified the
clothesofthedeceasedtobetheonewhichgiftedtoherandweregot
stitchedfromtailorknowntoher.
53

For the limited purpose of identification of dead body of

Rehmatbythiswitness,ifwecarefullyscrutinizethecrossexamination
ofFahmidaPW12,itissignificanttonotethatherevidencethatshe
sawphotographsofdeceasedRehmatontheTVwhilewatchingAajTak
NewsChannelandvisittoCSTRailwayStationhasnotbeenchallenged
atall. ShedeposedthatshevisitedJ.J.Hospitaltoidentifythedead
body. An attempt was made to question her that deceased Rehmat
mighthavedisclosedherfalselythatshegotmarriedtoaccusedNo.1
Parwez. However, it is further got confirmed from her mouth that
deceasedRehmatwassayingthataccusedParwezwasherhusbandand
theywereresidingthereashusbandandwife.Shewasalsoquestioned
aboutfirsthusbandofRehmat.Butsheclaimednoknowledgeabout
further details.She however confirmedthat first husband of Rehmat
wasmentallychallengedandRehmathadgivenTalakhtohim. With
thismaterial,thereishardlyanysubstanceinquestioningthiswitness
astowhethershehadoccasiontoseeanydocumentofTalakh. Fact
remainsthatdeceasedandaccusedParwezwereresidingashusband
andwifeinPrakashComplexbeingneighboursofthiswitnesshasnot
beenchallengedatall.
54

Prosecution has also relied on evidence of Mohammed

HazratAnsariPW30.AsperPW30,heknowsaccusedParwezaswell
asdeceasedRehmatbeingfromsamevillage. Asperhisevidenceon

Judgment.26S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

12/1/10, accused Parwez and deceased had been to him at village


Dabri,Najabgarhdisclosingthattheywantedtomarryeachother.This
witnesscalledforKaziandwiththehelpofoneNekMohammed,Ful
Mohammed and other five to six persons, Nikah was performed on
Meher of Rs.51,000/ offered by accused Parwez. He has produced
photocopyofNikahnamaatX1.HeclaimedthatNikahnamabearshis
signature andthatof NekMohammed,soalsoParwezanddeceased
Rehmat.
55

Duringcrossexaminationofthiswitness,headmittedthat

parentsofRehmatwerenotwithher. Itisratherconfirmedthatsaid
marriage took place in his house No.26. He however, claimed no
knowledgeaboutmaritalstatusorotherwiseofdeceasedRehmat. He
admitted that as per Islamic Law, married woman cannot have
subsequentmarriageduringlifetimeofherfirsthusband.Headmitted
thatMuslimmancanperformfourmarriages.
56

ItwasarguedonbehalfofaccusedthatwhetherRehmatwas

alreadymarriedladywhetherTalakhwasgiventoherbyherprevious
husbandhasnotbeenbroughtonrecordandtherefore,thereisdoubt
aboutlegalityofmarriagebetweenaccusedParwezandRehmat.Imay
note here that this Court is not expected to examine legality of the
marriage.Apartfromthis,factthataccusedParwezhimselfhadtaken
her to PW30 for performing Nikah itself indicates that he was rest
assuredthathecanvalidlymarryRehmatunderhispersonallaw.
57

ObjectionwasraisedwhileexhibitingNikahnamaasproved

document and therefore, it appears that it was marked X1 for

Judgment.27S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

identification.Duringthecourseof arguments,nosubmissions were


madeonbehalfoftheaccused.Whatisimportanttonotehereisthe
fact that nature of document i.e. Nikahnama is such that it's first
copy/primary evidence must necessarily be with the accused Parwez
anddeceasedRehmat.Therefore,primaryevidenceofsaiddocument
being in the custody of accused, prosecution cannot be expected to
produce the same. This being so, photocopy which is brought on
record,onwhichPW30hasadmittedhissignaturetohavebeenmade
while the said Nikahnama prepared. Above evidence is sufficient to
provethesaiddocument. Itisratherpertinenttonotethatfromthe
mouthofPW30whichisbroughtonrecordthatcontentsofNikahnama
werenarratedandexplainedbyaccusedParweztotheKazi. Accused
himself has offered Meher of Rs.51,000/. With above material on
record,thereishardlyanydoubtaboutgenuinenessandauthenticityof
theNikahnamaproducedbythiswitnessfromhispropercustody.Said
documentcanverywellbelookedintoassecondaryevidenceasitis
provedthatprimaryevidenceisinthecustodyandpowerofaccused.
Therefore, I have no hesitation to read the Nikahnama as proved
document and I propose to mark it as Ex.132/X1 being a proved
document.
58

Inthiscontext,theprosecutionhasalsoreliedonevidenceof

SurmaShaikhPW14whoismotherofdeceasedRehmat.Sheclaimed
thatRehmatwasmarriedtooneNiralebuthewasdumb. Therefore,
RehmatgotTalakhfromhim.Shewasresidingwithher.Shedeposed
thatRehmatthenmarriedtoaccusedParwezintheyear,2010. She
claimedthatRehmatwasresidingwithaccusedNo.1atMumbra.Asper
herevidence,wheneversheusedtomakeaphonecall,Rehmatwasnot

Judgment.28S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

allowedtospeakwithherindetailandsheusedtotalktoheronlyfor
two minutes. As per her evidence, she was called at CST Railway
StationandwasinformedthatRehmatisnomore.
59

During cross examination, Surma Shaikh PW14 was

questionedaboutfirstmarriageofRehmatwhichsheadmittedtohave
takenplaceinherpresence. Itisbroughtonrecordfromhermouth
thatRehmathasgivenKhula(Talaq)toherfirsthusbandNiraleand
becauseofthathewasangry. Sheadmittedthatshedidnotattend
marriageofRehmatwithaccusedParwez.
60

Ascouldbe seen that defence has brought on record that

RehmathadgivenTalaqtoherearlierhusbandandthatishow,she
performedNikahwithaccusedParwez. ThefactthatPW14didnot
attendmarriageofRehmatindicatethatitwaswithoutherknowledge
or wish. The period when the said marriage was performed is
corroboratedbybyFahmidaPW12.IfweconsiderevidenceofPW30
aboutmarriageofaccusedParwezandRehmatinJanuary,2010,and
thefactthatasperFahmidaPW12,Rehmatstartedresidingnearher
houseinJuly,2010andwascarryingpregnancyofaboutfourmonths
areindicativeofthefactthatwhatisdeposedaboutmarriagebetween
accusedParwezanddeceasedRehmatbyPW30isafactproved. Co
habitation of accused Parwez with deceased Rehmat in Prakash
Complex adjacent to Fehmida PW12 as husband and wife is
corroborativefactofmarriagebetweenthem.
61

Anattemptwasmadebythedefenceadvocatetoarguethat

sincefirsthusbandofRehmatdidnotgaveTalaqtoher,shecouldnot

Judgment.29S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

havegivenKhula. AndthiswouldshowthatRehmatcontinuedtobe
thewifeofsaidNiraleandsocalledmarriageofaccusedParwezcannot
besaidtobelegal. ThisCourtisunabletoacceptaboveproposition.
Thisisbecause,tothesatisfactionofaccusedParwez,therewasvalid
separation between Rehmat and her first husband and therefore he
contractedmarriagewithher.Thiscourtisnotexpectedtorecordany
findingastovalidityofthemarriagebetweenParwezandRehmat.Fact
that they were residing as husband and wife is enough material as
provedfromFahmidaPW12toconcludethattheywerehusbandand
wife.
62

Above all these, the prosecution has preserved samples of

deadbodyfoundinthebagwhiledrawingpostmortem.Inthiscontext,
asperDr.AshutoshMishramPW32whileconductingautopsyofthe
deadbodyonunknownladyfoundinthebag,samplesweredrawnfor
DNA. Asperhisevidence,fetuswasfoundintheuterusofthesaid
deadbodyanditssampleswerealsodrawnforDNA.
63

To the above evidence of Dr. Ashutosh Mishram PW32

about drawing of samples and being preserved and being sent for
analysis,thereisvirtuallynochallenge.Eventhereisnosuggestionthat
nosuchsamplesweredrawnforDNAprofiling.Inresponsetoquestion
U/s.313ofCr.P.C.,thereisnochallengetothateffect.
64

Inthisregard,asperShri.JadhavPW37,bloodsamples,nail

clipings,heirs,vaginalswabandothersamplesoffetuswereretained
andweresenttoCAvideEx.108.AsperJadhavPW37,on23/3/11,
motherofdeceasedRehmatbynameSurmaShaikhPW14visitedthe

Judgment.30S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

policestationandidentifieddeadbodytobethatofherdaughter.Her
bloodsamplesweredrawnforDNAprofilingandsameweresentfor
analysis. Said document and evidence of Shri. Jadhav being
unchallengedneedstobeacceptedasitstands.Itmaynotbeoutof
place to mention here that the defence has not controverted the
evidence of carriers of muddemal and samples i.e. Khande PW25,
GaikwadPW26andParabPW27.Exceptsuggestionsofdenialthereis
virtuallynocrossexaminationtosaidwitnesses.
65

AsperShri.Jadhav,bloodsamplesofaccusedParwezwere

alsodrawnforDNAprofilingunderlettertoSaintGeorgehospital.Said
letterisatEx.163.Itissignificanttonotethatthereisnochallengeto
theaboveevidenceofShri.JadhavandthedocumentsproducedatEx.
163. Since the samples were drawn by Government Hospital,
presumptionattachedtoSectionU/s.114ofIndianEvidenceAct,official
acts must have been performed by the Doctors in discharge of their
officialfunction.Ithastobepresumedthatallprecautionsmusthave
been taken while drawing samples. Even otherwise, while answering
statementU/s.313ofCr.P.C.,accuseddidnotdenyhavingdrawnhis
samplesbuthasratherclaimedthatheisunawareofit!AsperShri.
JadhavallthesamplesweresenttoanalyserunderletterEx.102.The
reportofDNAprofilingisthenprovedintheevidenceofDr.Shrikant
LadePW21.
66

Evidence of Dr. Shrikant Lade PW21 would show steps

takenbyhimwhileexaminingthesamplessenttotheLaboratory. As
per Shri. Lade, Salma Khatun Abdulbari Shaikh vide Case No. DNA
144/11, of their laboratory, was found to be biological mother of

Judgment.31S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

SternumofunknownfemalehavingDNAcaseNo.132/11.Ascouldbe
seenfromtherecord,thesamplesofbloodetc.ofdeadbodyfoundin
thebagweresenttotheanalysisofDNAcaseNO.132/11.Similarlyas
perShri.Lade,DNAcase oftheir LaboratoryNo.136/11ofaccused
ParwezrevealedthatheisbiologicalfatherofDNAofPlacentaoffetus
found in the womb of dead body found int he bag. He proved the
reportsEx.56whichreadsasunder:
1)SalmaKhatunAbdulbariShaikhofF.S.L.M.L.Case
No.DNA144/11isconcludedtobebiologicalmotherof
DNAofSternumofunknownfemaleofF.S.L.M.L.Case
noDNA132/11.2)DNAofSternumofunknownfemale
of F.S.L.M.L. Case no.DNA132/11 and Mohd.Parwez
AnwarulHaaqisconcludedtobethebiologicalparents
of DNA of Placenta of fetus of Unknown female of
F.S.L.M.L. Case No.DNA 136/11. 3) Mohd. Tabrez
Mohd. Anwarul Haq is excluded to be the biological
fatherofDNAofPlacentaoffetusofUnknownfemaleof
F.S.L.M.L.CaseNo.DNA136/11.4)AbdulHasibMohd.
Minhajul Haq Shaikh is excluded to be the biological
fatherofDNAofPlacentaoffetusofUnknownfemaleof
F.S.L.M.L.CaseNo.DNA136/11.
67

Cross examination of PW21 Shri. Lade consists of bare

denialandnothingelse.Apartfromit,whileansweringinresponseto
statementunderSection313ofCr.P.C.,theaccusedhaveclaimedno
knowledge of the said findings. They have not disputed the fact of
drawingtheirbloodsamplesforDNAtestingandtheresults.Thereis
nodenialtotheresultsalso.
68
SofaracceptabilityofDNAfindings,Imayusefullyreferto
thelandmarkjudgmentofHon'bleSupremeCourtinDharamDeoYadav
..vs..StateofUttarPradesh(2014Cr.L.J2371=20142Crimes127)
relevantparagraphreadsasunder:

Judgment.32S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

34.TheDNAstandsfordeoxyribonucleicacid,whichisthebiological
blueprint of every life.DNA is madeupof adouble standard structure
consisting of a deoxyribose sugar and phosphate backbone, crosslinked
withtwotypesofnucleicacidsreferredtoasadenineandguanine,purines
andthymineandcytosinepyrimidines.ThemostimportantroleofDNA
profileisintheidentification,suchasanindividualandhisbloodrelations
such as mother, father, brother, and so on. Successful identification of
skeletonremainscanalsobeperformedbyDNAprofiling.DNAusuallycan
be obtained from any biological material such as blood, semen, saliva,
hair,skin,bones,etc.ThequestionastowhetherDNAtestsarevirtually
infalliblemaybeamootquestion,butthefactremainsthatsuchtesthas
cometostayandisbeingusedextensivelyintheinvestigationofcrimes
andtheCourtoftenacceptstheviewsoftheexperts,especiallywhencases
rest on circumstantial evidence. More than half a century, samples of
humanDNAbegantobeusedinthecriminaljusticesystem.Ofcourse,
debate lingers over the safeguards that should be required in testing
samplesandinpresentingtheevidenceinCourt.DNAprofile,however,is
consistentlyheldtobevalidandreliable,butofcourse,itdependsonthe
qualitycontrolandqualityassuranceproceduresinthelaboratory.Close
relatives have more genes in common than individuals and various
procedures have been proposed for dealing with a possibility that true
sourceofforensicDNAisofcloserelative.Sofarasthiscaseisconcerned,
theDNAsamplegotfromtheskeletonmatchedwiththebloodsampleof
thefatherofthedeceasedandallthesamplingandtestinghavebeendone
by experts whose scientific knowledge and experience have not been
doubtedintheseproceedings.Wehave,therefore,noreasontodiscardthe
evidenceofPW19,PW20andPW21.Prosecutionhas,therefore,succeeded
inshowingthattheskeletonrecoveredfromthehouseoftheaccusedwas
thatofDianadaughterofAllenJackRoutleyanditwasnoneotherthan
theaccused,whohadstrangulatedDianatodeathandburiedthedead
bodyinhishouse.
69

Withoverallevidenceofwitnessesandidentificationofthe

deadbodybynearersanddearerscoupledwithDNAfindingsatEx.56,
thisCourthasnohesitationtorecordthefindingoffactthatdeadbody
found in green colour trolley bag Art.1 was that of Rehmat wife of
Parwez.ShewasdaughterofSurma/SalmaShaikhPW14. Inresult,
CircumstanceAexpressedabovestandsprovedbeyondanydoubt.

Judgment.33S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

CIRCUMSTANCESBtoE:
70

Asdiscussedabove,whileassessingcircumstanceA,thereis

clearevidence of Fahmida PW12thataccusedParwez anddeceased


Rehmatwereresidingashusbandandwifeadjacenttoeachherhouse
inPrakashComplex,Mumbra.Shehasgonetotheextentofdeposing
thatRehmathaskeptsomeofherluggageinherhousewhileleavingfor
DelhialongwithaccusedNo.3Hasib.Evidenceofthiswitnessisnatural
andinspiresconfidenceofthisCourt,becausenobodywouldadmitthat
sheowesomegoods,whichthiswitnesshasadmittedtohavekeptby
Rehmatatherplace.Thereisabsolutelynochallengetoherevidence
that accused Parwez occupied said room in July, 2010 and left
somewherepriorto6thMarch,2011.
71

SofarasmarriageofbetweenaccusedParwezandArshiya

PW9,thesamehasnotbeendisputedanditisratheranadmittedfact.
Even otherwise evidence of Arshiya PW9 on this point is not under
challenge.ShehasproducedNikahnamafromherpropercustody.She
hasalsoclaimedthatshehasfileddivorceproceedingagainstaccused
No.1Parwezandallthesefactsarenotunderchallengebytheaccused.
AsperArshiyaPW9,afterhermarriagewithaccusedParwez,shewas
broughtatMumbraandtheywereresidingathusbandandwifeat303,
RoshniApartment,Thakurpada,Mumbrabetween6/12/10to9/3/11.
72

On this point, prosecution has also examined Ayesha

SakhrekarPW11whoisownerofthesaidpremisesandthroughher
evidence,leaveandlicenceagreementcametobeprovedatEx.43.In

Judgment.34S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

fact,theevidenceofAyeshaSakhrekarPW11isaadmittedfactbythe
accusedinresponsetoanswersinstatementunderSection313Cr.P.C.
73

Whatcould be seen from the evidence of Fahmida PW12

andArshiyaPW9,thatduringoverlappingperiodfromDecember,2010
to March, 2011 i.e. for about three months, accused Parwez was
residingatboththeaboveplacesalongwithRehmatandArshiyaPW9
astheirhusband.
74

The basic thrustof thecase of the prosecution is thatthe

accusedParwezdidnotdiscloseabouthermarriagetoArshiyaPW9.At
thesametimehedidnotdisclosehavingcontractedsecondmarriage
withArshiyaPW9,tohisfirstwifeRehmat. Onthispoint,obviously
natureoffact(nondisclosurebyaccused)issuchthatprosecutioncan
not be expected to have a clear evidence as to knowledge of first
marriageandsecondmarriagerespectivelytoRehmatandArshiyaand
itbeingnotdisclosedbyaccusedParwez.AtleastaccusedParwezhas
notclaimedinhisstatementunderSection313Cr.P.C.thathedid
discloseabouthisfirstmarriagewithRehmattoArshiyaandabouthis
marriagewithArshiyatoRehmat. Arshiyainherevidence(para14)
hasspecificallydeposedthatshewasnotknowingRehmatnorcameto
knowfromaccusedParwezthathewasmarriedtoRehmat. Tothis
pieceofevidenceofArshiya,thereisvirtuallynodenial.
75

Onthispoint,evidenceofFahmidaPW12wouldshowthat

RehmatwassuspectingthataccusedParwezisgoingtoperformsecond
marriageandtherefore,thereusedtobequarrelsbetweenthem. Itis
pertinenttonotethatrelationsbetweenFahmidaanddeceasedwereso

Judgment.35S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

closethatasperFahmida,shegifteddressmaterialtoherandgotit
stitchedfromtailorknowntoher.ShealsoaccompaniedRehmatwhile
purchasing Nose Ring/ Chamki. She fairly admitted during cross
examinationthatshepurchasedsaiddressmaterialfromfootpathand
therefore,cannotbeacceptedtohaveitsbill.
76

Inthisregard,prosecutionhasalsoexaminedMohd.Alam

PW20whoisladytailorfromMumbra. Asperthiswitness,hegot
stitchedclothesforRehmat.Healsoproducedabillbookhavingreceipt
No.246atEx.87.
77

Crossexaminationtothiswitnesswouldshowthathemet

deceasedRehmatontwooccasions.Hewenttotheextentofclaiming
thatthereisanothercustomerRehmat,butshewasaccompaniedby
oneFaizali.This answer duringcross examinationhasconfirmedthe
identityofdeceasedRehmattobetheonewhowasaccompaniedby
FahmidaPW12toPW20.Thiswitnesshasalsoidentifiedphotographof
deceasedRehmat tobethesameRehmatforwhomhegotstitched
Dress/clothesArt.2.
78

It is also significant to note that the sample pieces of the

clothesaffixedatreceiptEx.246andclothesArt.2weresentforopinion
ofC.A.Infact,theclothesArt.2anditsOdhaniwhichispartofArt.2
arethesameclotheswhichweregotstitchedbyFahmidafordeceased
Rehmat.
79

OnanalysisofKurta,Paijamafoundonthedeadbodyand

theOdhaniattheinstanceofaccusedTabrej(markedasArticle2before

Judgment.36S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

thecourt)alongwiththepiecesofclothsattachedtothereceiptbook
Exh.246,itwasfoundasfollows:
ClothsofExhibits1,2,3andcorrospondingclothpiecefrom
receiptNo.246ofreceiptbookexhibit4tallyamong
themselvesinrespectofhue,apperance,design,physico
textileandthermalcharacteristics'
80

In the light of above report, and thick relations between

deceasedRehmatandFahmidaPW12,itwasverynaturalforRehmat
todiscloseaboutherpersonalrelationswithherhusband. Ithasnot
been suggested to Fahmida that Rehmat in fact had knowledge that
accused Parwez had contracted second marriage with Arshiya PW9.
The factthatthere usedtobe frequentquarrelbecauseRehmatwas
suspecting that Parwez is going to perform second marriage itself
indicatesthatRehmatwasunawareofsecondmarriageofParwezwith
ArshiyaPW9.
81

As against above, as per evidence of Arshiya PW9, the

marriage proposal of accused Parwez was given by him while at


Khandva, Madhya Pradesh. As per her evidence, accused Parwez
disclosed that he was taking education in medical college and after
completionofhisMBBS,hehadplansofmarriage.Herevidencewould
show that the marriage was thus performed on 4/12/2010. She
producedNikahnamainUrduScriptatEx.38.
82

ItispertinenttonotethatcrossexaminationtoArshiyaPW9

is not on the line that Parwez did disclose to her about her first

Judgment.37S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

marriagewiththedeceased. Aboveall,whenadmittedly,Nikahnama
Ex.38issignedbyaccusedParwez. Admittedly,accusedParwezhas
disclosedhismaritalstatusasunmarriedinthesaiddocument. That
wouldshowthatthefactoffirstmarriagewithdeceasedRehmatwas
suppressed by accused Parwez while contracting Nikahnama with
ArshiyaPW9.ThecrossexaminationtoPW9isnotonthelinethatfact
offirstmarriageofPerwezwasknowntoher.Atthesametime,hedid
not disclose Parwez having performed second marriage with Arshiya
PW9on4/12/2010.
83

Itwasstronglyarguedonbehalfoflearnedadvocateforthe

accusedthatasperMohammedanLaw,accusedParwezbeingMuslim
can perform four marriages and it is not prohibited. He, therefore,
contendedthatsecondmarriageofaccusedwithArshiyaPW9isofno
consequence.
84

Ihavegiventhoughtfulconsiderationtotheaboveargument.

However, above argument if fallacious and misdirected. Here, the


CourtisnotquestioningthefactofsecondmarriageofaccusedParwez
withArshiyaPW9,butthequestionisabsenceofknowledgeornon
disclosure by accused Parwez about his marriage with Rehmat to
ArshiyaandhissecondmarriagewithArshiyatodeceasedRehmat.This
nondisclosurehasitsownconsequenceandbearinginthelightoffact
thataccusedParwezwasprovedtoberesidingwithhisboththewives
simultaneouslyintwodifferentplacesatMumbrabetweenDecember,
2010toMarch,2011.
85

During the course of cross examination to either Arshiya

Judgment.38S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

PW9 or to Fahmida PW12, no attempt was made to suggest that


accused Parwez did disclose about his marriage either with Arshiya
PW9 or with Rehmat so as to say that there was no controversy
betweenArshiyaPW9anddeceasedRehmat.Withabovematerialon
record,Ihavenohesitationtoconcludethattheprosecutionhasproved
CircumstancesBtoEexpressedabovebeyondallreasonabledoubt.
CIRCUMSTANCESFtoM:
86

Circumstance G basically pertains to motive suggested

behindthecommissionofcrime.Itisafeelingprevailedinthemindof
accused Parwez. One cannot expect the prosecution to lead any
evidence about such feeling. This feeling of accused, therefore, will
havetobeperceivedandgatheredfromvariouscircumstanceemerging
fromtheevidenceofwitnessessoalsotheconductoftheaccused.
87

ItismomentoustonoteherethatasperFahmidaPW12,

ever since the accused Parwez secured ranted accommodation in


PrakashComplex,hedisclosedthatheisaDoctorworkingwithKEM
Hospital,Mumbai.Theaccusedhasallthethroughdeniedthatheisa
Doctor or hasdisclosedthe above factstoanybody. It is,therefore,
necessary to minutely scrutinize the evidence of Fahmida PW12.
DuringentirecrossexaminationtoFahmida,thereisevennowhisper
denyingherversionthataccusedParwezhasdisclosedhimselftobea
DoctorandworkingwithKEMHospital.Thereisevennosuggestionto
her that she is deposing false about such disclosure. In fact such
disclosureisinevitable,becausethereisnodenialtotheevidenceof
ArshiyaPW9thataccusedclaimedhimselftobetheDoctor.

Judgment.39S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

88

What is important is the fact that sudden surrender of

tenancybyaccusedParwezandhisdisclosurethatheisgoingtoshiftat
Delhiashehassecurednewjob.Inthisregard,asperFahmidaPW12,
accusedParwezleftthesaidpremisesdisclosingthathehassecureda
jobatDelhiandwouldbeshiftingtoDelhi.Onthispointalso,therewas
nocrossexaminationonbehalfofaccused. Theaccusedhasmerely
denied having disclosed such facts to Fahmida as already discussed.
ThereisnoreasonforFahmidatodeposefalseagainstaccusedbecause
shehadgoodrelationswhichweredevelopedwithDeceasedRehmat.It
isprovedfromtheevidenceofFahmidaandArshiyathataccusedwas
verymuchpresentatMumbratill9/3/2011tillheaccompaniedArshiya
up to Khandwa, State of Madhya Pradesh by Train, by which they
traveledtogether.
89

InviewoffactthataccusedParwezhasdeniedthatheisa

Doctorbyprofession,hishousesearchi.e.303,RoshniAppartmenthas
revealedthatBooksusedinthestudyofMedicalScience,Stethoscope
usuallyusedbyDoctorswerefoundinhishouse. Ifaccusedhasnot
disclosedhimselfasaDoctor,acommonmanisnotlikelytohavesuch
booksandapparatusathishome. ArshiyaPW9beingwifeofaccused
ParwezhasalsocorroboratedthataccusedParwezclaimedhimselftobe
theDoctorworkingatK.E.M.HospitalMumbai. Foralltheseproved
facts, thereisnoexplanationcomingforwardfromaccusedParwez.
He did not disclose as to what were the circumstances in which he
suddenlydecidedtoshiftatDelhi.Thereisnoexplanationastowhat
madehimtokeepbagandbaggagesinthehouseofFahmidaPW12
andtosendRehmatandaccusedHasibtoDelhi?

Judgment.40S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

90

Evidence of Fahmida PW12 shows that initially accused

ParwezleftforDelhiandaftershiftingbagandbaggagestoherroom,
RehmatwenttoDelhialongwithaccusedNo.3Hasib.Shewentonto
deposethatsheherselfdroppedRehmattoMumbraRailwayStationon
6/3/11toseeoffastheyweretotravelbyDadarAmritsarTrain.
91

In this regard, the prosecution has secured/seized the

reservation application form at Ex.147(colly.). In fact, reservation


applicationformisshowingtheapplication/requisitionforjourneyon
6/3/11 by DadarAmritsar Train No.11057. Said Form and specimen
handwritingoftheaccusedParwezweresenttohandwritingexpert.It
ispertinenttonoteherethatspecimenhandwritingsofaccusedParwez
were obtained under panchanama on various pages as deposed by
ShaikhMehmoodPW34,DilipYadavPW35andShekharSanghreddy
PW36.Aspertheirevidence,accusedPerwezwasaskedtowritethe
matter from the diary which was seized from the house search of
accusedParwezat303,RoshniApartment,Thakurpada,Mumbra.Said
diaryisatArt.22.AboveevidenceisalsoconfirmedbyShri.Jadhave
PW37.CorrespondenceprovedfromShriJadhavwouldshowthatabove
materialwassenttoHandwritingExpert.Thehandwritingexpertafter
due comparison of all the handwritings sent to him has recorded
opinionthatmatter/writting whichismarkedasQ8ABon the said
reservationformandthespecimenwritingsatS1toS42atEx.147to
153(colly.),aswellasnaturalwritingsappearingonthediaryArt.22are
written by the same author. The opinion of handwriting experthas
been admitted by the accused which is at Ex.165. (Advocate for the
accusedNo.1endorsedontheoriginalopinionitselfwhereasadvocate

Judgment.41S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

forotheraccusedendorsedonthephotocopyoftheopinionwhichis
mentioned in the Roznama dated 29/1/2015). With said expert
opinionthereisnoroomofdoubtthatitwereaccusedPerwezwhohas
securedthesaidreservation.
92

In the light of said opinion, it is crystal clear that it was

accusedParwez whohasappliedforreservationof deceasedRehmat


and accused Hasib on 6/3/11 from Dadar to New Delhi. There is
virtually no explanation coming forward from accused Parwez as to
whatmadehimtomakesuchapplicationforreservationandwhatwere
thecircumstanceswhichmadehimtosentdeceasedRehmatalongwith
accusedNo.3toNewDelhi.IntheentirestatementU/s.313ofCr.P.C.,
the accused Parwez and Hasib are silent about above referred
circumstances.
93

WhatcouldbegatheredfromthesaidreservationForm,in

factdeceasedRehmatandaccusedHasibhavetraveledbythesaidTrain
on6/3/11becauseitwasFahmidaPW12whohadreachedRehmatto
MumbraStation. Sincetheaccusedhavedeniedtherelationshipwith
thedeceased,itis notexplainedastowhatmadehim tohave such
reservation?Thiscircumstanceshowspreviousconductoftheaccused
relevantinitself.
94

Apartfromthis,theprosecutionhasalsoexaminedSumitra

SalunkhePW24. SheisInchargeChiefReservationOfficeratDadar
RailwayStation.ShedeposedthatpursuanttorequestletterEx.99,she
furnished reservation charge of train No.11057(old Train No.1057)
DadartoAmritsardated6/3/11. Thisiscomputergeneratedcopyof

Judgment.42S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

S8boggy.ThechartismarkedArt.26.Shedeposedthatnamesofthe
passengers in reservation chart in the said boggy were confirmed as
appearinginit.
95

ItappearsthatobjectionwasraisedtomarksaidchartasEx.

26.Duringcrossexamination,sheadmittedthatshehasnotprepared
chartEx.26anddoesnotknowaboutthefactualcontents. However,
herevidencethatthecharttakenoutbywayofcomputergenerated
copy print out is not under challenge. There is no challenge to her
evidence as regards authenticity and genuineness of the said chart.
SincePW24isreservationsupervisorandiscustodianoftherecord,
chartwhichiscomingfromherpropercustodywillhavetobereadin
evidence being proved document. Said chart is nothing but entries
madebytheRailwayAuthoritiesindischargeoftheirofficialfunctions.
Inabsenceofanyevidencetothecontrary,presumptionascontained
U/s.114ofEvidenceActwillhavetoberaisedwithregardtotheduties
performed by PW24. Apart from it, contents of said chart about
confirmationofreservationofdeceasedRehmatandaccusedNo.3Hasib
iswellcorroboratedbyreservationapplicationformEx.147asstated
above.
96

Whatissignificantfromtheabovematerialisthefactthat

the accused Parwez left his house at Prakash Complex at Mumbra


claimingthatheisgoingtoDelhiandthishappenedsomewherepriorto
6/3/11asdeposedbyFahmidaPW12.
97

In this regard, evidence of Arshiya PW9 is of great

importance. SinceherrelationswithaccusedParwezbeingwifeand

Judgment.43S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

husband is not under challenge, she is best witness to disclose


whereabouts of her husband at a particular point of time. As per
Arshiya,PW9,inJanuary,2011,herparentshadbeentoMumbaito
fetchherbacktoKhandva.Herparentsstayedatherplaceforabout4
to5daysandthereaftershelefttoKhandvaalongwithherparentson
10/1/11.Thereafter,accusedParwezhadbeentoKhandvatofetchher
back.Asperherevidence,shealongwithaccusedParwezreturnedto
theirplaceatMumbraon14/2/11.
98

AsperArshiyaPW9,afterabout15daysthereafter,accused

ParwezwastogotoDelhiashewastosecureajobintheStateof
Bihar.Tothisevidence,thereisnochallenge. Thiswouldshowthat
accusedParwezdidnotvisitDelhibutitwasinfacton9/3/11,only
accused Parwez and Arshiya left Mumbra to reach Khandva. If we
considertheevidenceofFahmidaPW12,theaccusedlefthishouseat
PrakashComplexstatingthathehadtogotoDelhi. However,asper
evidenceofArshiyaPW9,theaccusedwasat303RoshniApartmentat
leastbetween14/2/11to9/3/11. Thus,hedidnotgotoDelhiatall
until10/3/11. ThisisbecauseasperArshiyaPW9,shegotdownat
KhandvawhereasaccusedParwezproceededtoDelhibythesametrain.
99

In this regard, prosecution has also relied on reservation

applicationformEx.147(colly.).Infact,theseformswereconfrontedto
ShaikhMehmoodPW34andtheseareformswhichweresecuredfrom
theRailwayAuthoritiesasdeposedbyShri.JadhavPW37.Asindicated
above,theaccusedhasadmittedthehandwritingexpertsopinionatEx.
165 which also pertains to question document i.e. Reservation
applicationformmarkedbytheexpertasQ7alongwithS1toS42and

Judgment.44S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

otherexhibitsfromdiaryArt.22whichcontainsspecimenandnatural
handwritingofaccusedParwez.
100

InviewofsaidreservationformandtheevidenceofArshiya

PW9,itisclearthatArshiyaPW9travelledfromDelhitoKhandvaon
9/3/11. Said reservation form proved to be in the hand writing of
accused Parwez speaks in volume. It is significant to note that the
accusedParwezdidnotobtainhisownreservationalongwithArshiya
PW9 but has accompanied her up to Khandva and from Khandva
continuedhisjourneytoNewDelhibysametrain.
101

Theevidencediscussedabovewouldcrystallizethatinfact

whenRehmatreachedNewDelhisomewhereon7th or8th ofMarch,


2011,obviouslyaccusedParwezwasnotatNewDelhibecausehewas
along with Arshiya PW9 and reached New Delhi somewhere on
10/3/11.
102

In this regard, therefore, evidence of Fahmida PW12 is

relevant. As per Fahmida, after she dropped Rehmat to Mumbra


RailwayStation on 6/3/11,on 8/3/11,she receiveda phone call of
Rehmat.AsperFahmida,Rehmattoldherthatthoughshereachedat
Delhi,ParwezisnotstayingatDelhiandhehascheatedher.Rehmat
furtherdisclosedtoherthatshewasatDelhiRailwayStationonlyand
thatshehasbeeninformedbyaccusedParwezthatsheshouldgotoher
parentsplace.RehmatalsodisclosedtoFahmidathatshewasnotready
togotoherparent'splaceandshedisclosedaccusedParwezthatshe
wantedtoresidewithhimonly.

Judgment.45S.C.No.431/11Ex.180
103

The close relationship between Fahmida PW12 and

deceased Rehmat has already been noticed. Therefore, it was very


obviousforRehmattomakeaphonecalltoFahmidaandtoshareabout
herwellbeingorotherwiseonreachingDelhi.Ideallyspeaking,unless
sharedbyRehmat,Fahmidacouldnothavegatheredanyknowledgeas
tothewhereaboutsofaccusedParwezbecauseshehadnoopportunity
orsourcetoknowthefactsatanytimefromanysourceexceptfrom
Rehmat.Veryinterestingly,thedefencehasnotatallchallengedthe
aboveevidenceofFahmidaduringhercrossexamination.Thereiseven
nowhisperorsuggestionofdenialtotheabovereferredevidenceof
Fahmida. Since it is Fahmida who had talked with Rehmat and
FahmidahasdeposedbeforetheCourtastowhatisdisclosedtoherby
Rehmat and she having perceived it being disclosed by Rehmat on
phone,atnorateitcouldbesaidtobehearsayevidence.Atthemost,
disclosurebyFahmidathatRehmattoldherthataccusedParweztold
Rehmattogotoherparentsplacewouldbehearsayevidence.Evenif
that aspect is deleted from the evidence of Fahmida, her consistent
evidence as to what she has talked with Rehmat will have to be
acceptedasitstands.
104

RelationshipbetweenaccusedParwezanddeceasedRehmat

was deteriorating atleast after he contracting marriage with Arshiya


PW9.AscouldbeseenfromtheevidenceofFahmidaPW12,Rehmat
wassuspectingeitheraccusedParwezhascontractedsecondmarriage
orhislikelytocontractanothermarriage.Butitseemsthatshewasnot
certain that accused Parwez has contracted marriage with Arshiya
PW9.ItispertinenttonotethattheevidenceofFehmidaPW12that
accusedwasinsistingRehmattostayatDelhioratherparentsplaceis

Judgment.46S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

alsocorroboratedbyshortmessageserviceextractedfrommobilephone
ofaccusedParwez.
105

The said extracted SMS (Short Message Service) were

proved from PW18 Kiran Bagekar at Ex.80. What is received to


accusedParwezaretwoSMSon21/2/11areasfollows.
APjabmerekodawanahidejyegatomaydillivenahiaungi
jabdukhkasaharanahihatomujhekharchadijyemaydilli
nahijaungimujheelajkajarurinahidawkaj
Maydillinahijaungitikatwapiskardijyemaynahijaungi
pilizapmujhbakasjijyemerekojanekadilnahihamera
dilrorahahasorybaksdijye
106

Ascouldbeseenfromsaidmessages,whichareincoming

messages, sender was obviously Rehmat. She has made complaint


against Parwez about his conduct in insisting her to stay at Delhi.
Exceptaboveinference,noinferencecouldbedrawnfromthesaidSMS.
BecauseaccusedissilentinhisstatementU/s.313ofCr.P.c.Astowhois
senderofthesaidmessagesandwhyheorsheissayingso.Inresponse
toquestionNos.90to92,accusedParwezisabsolutelysilentoffering
anyexplanationaboutsuchmessages.Itisnothiscaseeitherduring
crossexaminationtoArshiyaPW9thatsaidmessagesweremade by
her,notduringcrossexaminationhehasclaimedthatthesamewere
sentbyArshiya.SincethesaidSMSwasopenedandreadbyaccusedas
couldbeseenfromEx.80,hisexplanationwasverymuchwarrantedif
atalltherewasanyexplanationavailabletohim.

Judgment.47S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

107

The mater does not stop her but as per Fahmida PW12,

Rehmatwantedtostaywithher. SinceFahmidadidnotagreetoit,
RehmatcontactedherhusbandAbdulHamidanduponhis approval,
Rehmatwasallowedtostayattheirplace.Admittedly,Rehmatdidnot
visittheirplacethereafter.Thisseemstobeverynaturallookingatthe
relationshipbetweenRehmatandFahmida.Itisinterestingtonotethat
contentsofMobileSimandMemoryCardofaccusedParwezandTabrej
havebeenextractedbyForensicScienceLaboratoryKalina. Thesaid
reports are at Exh. 81 proved from Kiran Bagekar PW 18 who is
Scientific Officer with Forensic Science Laboratory Kalina. To this
witnessthereisvirtuallynocrossexaminationonaboveaspect.Ascould
beseenfromtheSMSsenttoaccusedTabrez,hehaswrittenfollowing
SMSon21/2/2011,obviouslybyaccusedParwez:
Maineabhifehmidakofonekarke
bolahrahmatkodwakliya300
rupyadede,meaanekbaaddunga,
hosketoklshammehichalejao.
108

If we consider above message which is in Hindi, accused

TabrezisinformedbyaccusedParwezthathe(Parwez)hasrequested
FahmidaPW12bymakingphonecallthatsheshouldgiveRs.300to
Rahmetandhewouldrepayitonhisreturn.Healsorequestedherto
takeRehmatonnextdayevening(obviouslytotheDoctor).
109

What is important to note that accused are silent about

exchangeofsuchSMS,whileansweringinstatementunderSection313

Judgment.48S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

ofCr.P.C.ItisnottheircasethattheyareknowntosomeotherRehmat
orFahmida,thanbeforethecourt.Inabsenceofsuchcasebeingmade
out,thedefenceofbaredenialisofnoavailtotheaccused.Thefacts
provedinfactshowsthataccusedarefalselydenyingtheirrelationship
withthedeceasedRehmatandacquaintancewithFahmidaPW12.
110

Above SMS shows that accused Parwez was relying on

FahmidaPW12incaseofhisabsence.Therefore,evidenceofFahmidais
relevant because in all human probabilities after accused Parwez
reached New Delhi on 10/3/11, he insisted Rehmat to go to her
parent'splace.AndRehmatrefusedtostayatherparent'splace.Upon
herinsistenceandadamantbehaviour,accusedprobablyagreedtohave
reachherattheplaceofFahmidaPW12.Howeveritseemsthathehad
nointentionstoallowRehmattostayinthehouseofFahmida.Thisis
because it is nobody's case that Fahmida was informed by accused
ParwezabouthisintentiontokeepRehmatatherplace. Thiswould
havebeenmostnaturalconductonthepartofanyhusbandlikeParwez.
Suchnondisclosure shows thatthere was something different in the
mindofaccusedPerwez.
111

Whatissignificanttonotehereisthefactthattill8/3/11,

whilesharingwithFahmidaPW12,RehmatwantedtostayatMumbra
only. Therefore, what must have transpired between the accused
Parwez and deceased Rehmat from 10/3/11 onwards is something
whichcouldbewithintheknowledgeofaccusedParwezalone.Because
Rehmatisnomorealive.
112

At this stage, evidence of Arshiya PW9 needs careful

consideration. AsperArshiyaPW9accusedParwezaccompaniedher

Judgment.49S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

uptoKhandvaon10/3/11andproceededforDelhi.Thiswouldshow
thataccusedmusthavereachedNewDelhieitherinnightof10/3/11or
onthenextmorningi.e.on11/3/11.AsperArshiyaPW9,shetriedto
contactParwezonphoneon12/3/11and13/3/11,butParwezdidnot
receivehercall.Onlyinnightof13/3/11,whenshemadeaphonecall,
itwasattendedbyalady.Probablyatthattime,accusedParwezwas
accompaniedRehmatandprobablyRehmatpickedupthesaidphone
call.
113

Veryinterestingly,ArshiyaPW9disclosedthaton14/3/11

whenshemadeaphonecalltoaccusedParwez,Parwezinformedher
thathehadtogotoMumbaiurgently.TotheaboveevidenceofArshiya
PW9,thereisvirtuallynochallengeonbehalfofaccused.Lookingat
Arshiya'srelationswithaccusedParwez,shehadnoreasontodepose
whathastranspiredbetweenthatperiod. Itisveryeasytoclaimfor
accused that because she had developed bad relations with accused
Parwez and has lodged divorce proceedings, she is deposing false.
However, she had no reason to depose false more so when accused
Parwezhasnoexplanationastohiswhereaboutsbetween12/3/11to
14/3/11.
114

Ascouldbeseenfromtheaboveassessmentofevidenceof

the witnesses and documentary evidence produced on record,


prosecution has successfully established circumstances F to M stated
above.
CIRCUMSTANCEN.
115

ItisthecaseofprosecutionthataccusedParwezhasbeen

Judgment.50S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

usingIdeamobileSimcardNo.9702181561.Inthisregard,evidenceof
Mohd.Javedisplacedintoservice. HeisexaminedasPW28.Asper
Mohd. Javed, he is a businessman and originallyhails from State of
Bihar.HehasbeenstayingatMumbrasincelast15years.Hedeposed
that accused Parwez is his relative through his maternal aunt. He
claimed that he heard that accused Parwez was taking education in
medicine.HedeposedthatmobileSimcardNo.9702181561isinhis
name. HeclaimedthataccusedParwezhadtohimintheyear,2009
andrequestedhimtofillupapplicationformtoobtainthemobileSim
card. As per this witness, he signed the said application form and
supplied photo copy of his driving licence to accused Parwez. Very
interestingly,saidapplicationformwassecuredfromthemobileservice
providerbytheprosecutionandwasconfrontedtothiswitness.This
witnesshasidentifiedhissignatureonsaidapplicationformatEx.128,
soalsohisphotographandcopyofhisdrivinglicence.Hedeposedthat
itwasaccusedParwezwhoobtainedmobilesimcardonthebasisof
documents supplied by him and the application signed by him. He
specificallydeposedthathehimselfneverusedsaidmobilesimcardat
anytimeanditwasaccusedParwezwhowasusingit.
116

Duringcrossexamination,itisnotthecaseofaccusedthat

Mohd.JavedPW28isoninimicaltermswithhimsoastodeposedfalse
againsthim.Itisratherbroughtonrecordthathehasmadesignatures
onthreedifferentplacesandaccusedParwezinformedhimthathedoes
nothaveidentityproofandtherefore,wantedtohavemobilephoneSim
cardinthenameofthewitness. Heclarifiedthathedidnotsuspect
accusedParwezuntilpolicecontactedhim.Heflatlydeniedthathewas
threatenedbythepoliceanddeposingfalse.Ascouldbeseen,thereis

Judgment.51S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

virtuallynochallengetotheevidenceofthiswitness. Lookingatthe
truthfulnessofthiswitness,thereisnoreasontodisbelievehim.
117

As per prosecution, accused Parwez was using the said

numberofIDEACellularCompanyandforthatrelianceisplacedonthe
personalsearchpanchanamaofaccusedParwezatthetimeofhisarrest.
Interestingly,personalsearchpanchanamaofarrestofaccusedParwez
hasbeenadmittedbythedefenceatEx.35.
118

As could been seen from the said personal search

panchanama,accusedwasfoundinpossessionofonemobilephoneof
ZenmakehavingtwoIMEInumbersi.e1)356379010828497and2)
356379010828505.TheseIMEInumbersareofgreatimportancewhile
assessingotherevidenceledbytheprosecution.
119

Onthebasisofthisnumberalone,itcanbeascertainedasto

whether the mobile phone instrument having such identification


number was used to make calls from a particular mobile Sim card
numberofanyoftheserviceprovider.
120

In view of evidence of Mohd. Javed and personal search

panchanamaofaccusedParwezatEx.35,prosecutionhassuccessfully
establishedcircumstanceNdisclosedabove.
CIRCUMSTANCEOTOR.
121

As could be seen from the case of the prosecution, the

accusedParwezandHasibaccompaniedbydeceasedRehmatgotdown
atDadarRailwayStationintheearlymorningon14/3/11andfrom

Judgment.52S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

there, they reached Mumbra Railway Station by local train. As per


prosecution, this is supported by mobile tower locations where the
mobilephoneofaccusedParwezwasused.Itisthus,deceasedRehmat
waslastlyseenaliveinthecompanyoftheaccusedParwezandHasib
on14/3/11atabout5.16hours.
122

Inordertoprovetheabovecircumstances,theprosecution

hasreliedonCCTVfootagerecordedinDigitalVideoRecorderinstalled
atDadarRailwayStationandMumbraRailwayStation.Thefootageis
copiedinCompactDiscs,whichareproducedatArticle23to25which
were marked as exhibit through the evidence of Chanduprakash
SharmaPW15,GulabNalawadePW16andShankarSavnurPW17so
alsoidentifiedbyPritamShindePW33.Thechallengetotheevidenceof
PW 15 to 17 is only on the point that they have not drawn the
panchanamawhileacceptingordeliveringthesaidCD's.Howeversuch
challengewouldhardlybegivenimportanceinviewofthefactthatas
per PW33 (who has derived data in it) the said CD's are same and
containsamedataandcannotbetampered.
123

Prosecution has examined Pritam Shinde PW33 to prove

variousCD'scontainingthedatacopiedfromdigitalvideorecorderof
the respective railwaystations. As per PritamShinde PW33,in the
year,2011,hewasworkingastechnicianwithSnyderElectricIndian
Pvt.Ltd.ThesaidcompanyreceivedorderofinstallingCCTVcameras
at various railway stations and locations of Central Railway, Harbor
RailwayLine andrailwaystations betweenVashiandThaneRailway
Stations. As per his evidence, accordingly, CCTV cameras were
installed.Heclaimedthat14CCTVcameraswereinstalledatMumbra

Judgment.53S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

RailwayStation,platformandbridge.Similarlycameraswereinstalled
atDadarRailwayStation.
124

As per his evidence, digital video recorders were installed

and were kept in the office/cabin of Station master of each Railway


Stationandthefootageusedtobecapturedallthe24hoursofallthe7
daysofweek.Hedeposedthattheyusedtomaintainsuchrecordfor15
days.Thesaidcompanyusedtomaintaintheentirerecordandusedto
supplycopy,ifrequired.Asperhisevidence,healonewasallowedto
accessthedigitalvideorecorderbeinginchargeof53locationsatthe
materialtime.
125

Asperhisevidence,onreceiptofintimationfromRPFabout

supplyofCCTVfootageofMumbraRailwayStationason14/3/11,he
wascalledatMumbraRailwayStationon23/3/11.Ontherequestof
officerofRPF,inablankcompactdisksuppliedtohim,heobtained
copy of CCTV footage from digital video recorder installed at that
stationandhandedoverthesaidcompactdisktothesaidofficer.When
confronted with the compact disk Art.23(colly.), he deposed that it
containsthedatacapturedbycameraNo.8installedatMumbraRailway
Station. HeidentifiedallthethreeCDSArt.5,6and7 tobethevery
sameinwhichdatawascopiedbyhim.HealsoclarifiedthatCDArt.7
containsdatarecordedbycameraNo.3whereasCDArt.5containsdata
captured by camera No.13 on platform No.2. He confirmed that it
contains the very same data which he copied from digital video
recorder.
126

Pritam Shinde PW33 has then clarified that in similar

Judgment.54S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

fashion,heaccesseddigitalvideorecorderinstalledatDadarRailway
StationandsuppliedthesameinablankCDprovidedtohimwhich
contains data recorded by camera No.16 installed at platform No.7.
SaidCDisatArt.24.
127

As per Pritam Shinde PW33, he issued certificate to GRP

policehavingtakenoutdatafromrespectivedigitalvideorecorderand
thesaidcertificateisatEx.145andEx.173. (Ex.173wasadmittedin
viewofpursisgivenbyboththepartieson11/2/15.
128

As per cross examination to Pritam Shinde PW33, he

clarifiedthatthecontentsofCDcannotbetamperednorCCTVfootage
canbehacked. HeadmittedthatnopanchanamawasdrawnbyRPF
police while obtaining the CDs from him. The rest of the cross
examination is rather informative or getting knowledge from the
witnessthanchallengingthestepstakenbyhim.Headmittedthathis
appointmentletterEx.144containssignatureofauthoritysignatoryof
thecompanybuthedoesnotknowhisname.Inanyevent,thiswitness
hadnoreasontodeposefalseastowhathehassaidabouthiscapacity
inthecompany.
129

ItwasstronglyarguedthatwhethertheCDsuppliedtothis

witnesswasblankornothasnotbeenascertained.Itisalsoarguedthat
becausenopanchanamawasdrawnwhileacceptingsaidCDfromthe
witness,itloosesevidentiaryvalue.
130

ItmaybenotedherethatasperPritamShindePW33,he

was supplied with blank CD to copy the data from digital video

Judgment.55S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

recorder.OncehewassatisfiedthatitwasblankCD,thereisnofurther
questionarisentocarryoutanytestetc.Evenotherwise,itishardtoto
digestthathecouldhavegeneratedfabricatedrecordingthattoofor
RPF police. So far as nondrawal of panchanama is concerned, the
action of RPF police cannot be questioned because RPF police were
dischargingtheirpublicfunctions.
131

Itisnobody'scasethatsaidRPFofficerhadanyreasonto

create the false record against the accused. Therefore, presumption


U/s.114 of Indian Evidence Act will have to be raised in respect of
officialactsperformedbyRPFpolice.
132

ItissignificanttonotethatasperShri.JadhavPW37,on

receiptofinvestigation,heimmediatelyinformedRPFtopreserveand
tosupplytheCCTVfootage.LettersEx.159and163wouldshowthat
hehascalledforCCTVfootageofrelevantperioddated14/3/11andit
wasaccordingtothesaidcorrespondencebyresponsiblepublicofficer,
RPFauthoritieshavesecuredthesamewiththehelpofPritamShindein
thevariousCDsatArt.5to8. Therefore,sofarasobtainingofCCTV
footagebyPritamShindePW33isconcerned,itisabsolutelyvalidhe
beingonlypersonwhoisauthorisedtoaccessitandtosupplyitscopy.
133

Inthisregard,learnedadvocatefortheaccusedhaverelied

onjudgmentofHon'bleSupremeCourtinAnvarP.V.V/s.P.K.Basheer
&Ors.,CivilAppealNo.4226of2012,dt.18thSeptember,2014. As
perhiscontention,inviewoflawlaiddowninthesaidauthority,CCTV
footagecontainedinCDArt.23to25cannotbelookedinto.

Judgment.56S.C.No.431/11Ex.180
134

I have given careful consideration to the argument in the

lightofauthoritycitedin Anvar'scase(citedsupra).Inthisregard,it
may be noted that admittedly, the original data/CCTV footage
containingrecordingusedtobestoredindigitalvideorecorderinstalled
atvariousRailwayStationsinthecabinofStationMaster.Lookingat
nature of device i.e. digital video recorder, it cannot be expected to
carrysameallthethroughintheCourtbecauseitwillhamperfurther
recording. Therefore, in view of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act,
whensaidoriginaldigitalvideorecorderissuch,itcannotbemovedto
theCourtoflawanditssecondaryevidenceisadmissible.
135

Whatislaiddowninpara10onwardsofthejudgmentin

Anvar's case(cited supra) is that on satisfaction of preconditions


mentioned in Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as amended by
InformationTechnologyAct,suchsecondaryevidenceisadmissibleifall
therequirementsU/s.65(B)ofIndianEvidenceActaresatisfied.
Section65BofIndianEvidenceActrunsasunder.
1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any
informationcontainedinanelectronicrecordwhichisprintedonapaper,
stored, recorded or copies in optical or magnetic media produced by a
computer(hereinafterreferredtoasthecomputeroutput)shallbedeemed
to be also a document,if the conditions mentioned in this section are
satisfiedinrelationtotheinformationandcomputerinquestionandshall
beadmissibleinanyproceedings,withoutfurtherprooforproductionof
theoriginal,asevidenceofanycontentsoftheoriginalorofthefactstated
thereinofwhichdirectevidencewouldbeadmissible.
2)Theconditionsreferredtoinsubsection(1)inrespectofa
computeroutputshallbethefollowing,namely:
(a) the computer output containing the information was
producedbythecomputerduringtheperiodoverwhichthecomputerwas
used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any

Judgment.57S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

activitiesregularlycarriedonoverthatperiodbythepersonhavinglawful
controlovertheuseofthecomputer;
(b)duringthesaidperiod,informationofthekindcontained
in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so
containedisderivedwasregularlyfedintothecomputerintheordinary
courseofthesaidactivities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the
computerwasoperatingproperlyorifnot,theninrespectofanyperiodin
whichitwasnotoperatingproperlyorwasoutofoperationduringthat
partoftheperiod,wasnotsuchastoaffeccttheelectronicrecordorthe
accuracyofitscontents;and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record
reproducesorisderivedfromsuchinformationfedintothecomputerin
theordinarycourseofthesaidactivities.

(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or


processinginformationforthepurposesofanyactivitiesregularlycarried
onoverthatperiodasmentionedinclause(a)ofsubsection(2)was
regularlyperformedbycomputers,whether
(a)byacombinationofcomputersoperatingoverthatperiod;
or
(b) by different computers operating in succession over that
period;or
(c) by different combinations of computers operating in
successionoverthatperiod;or
(d)inanyothermannerinvolvingthesuccessiveoperationover
thatperiod,inwhateverorder,ofoneormorecomputersandoneormore
combinationsofcomputers,
allthecomputersusedforthatpurposeduringthatperiodshallbetreated
for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and
referencesinthissectiontoacomputershallbeconstruedaccordingly.
(4)Inanyproceedingswhereitisdesiredtogiveastatementin
evidencebyvirtueofthissection,acertificatedoinganyofthefollowing
things,thatistosay,
(a)identifyingtheelectronicrecordcontainingthestatement
anddescribingthemannerinwhichitwasproduced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the
productionorthatelectronicrecordasmaybeappropriateforthepurpose
ofshowingthattheelectronicrecordwasproducedbyacomputer;
(c)dealing with any of thematterstowhich theconditions

Judgment.58S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

mentionedinsubsection(2)relate,
andpurportingtobesignedbyapersonoccupying,aresponsibleofficial
position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the
managementoftherelevantactivities(whicheverisappropriate)shallbe
evidenceofanymatterstatedinthecertificate;andforthepurposesofthis
subsectionitshallbesufficientforamattertobestatedtothebestofthe
knowledgeandbeliefofthepersonstatingit.
(5)Forthepurposesofthissection,
(a)informationshallbetakentobesuppliedtoacomputerifit
issuppliedtheretoinanyappropriateformandwhetheritissosupplied
directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any
appropriateequipment;
(b)whetherinthecourseofactivitiescarriedonbyanyofficial,
informationissuppliedwithaviewtoitsbeingstoredorprocessedforthe
purposesofthoseactivitiesbyacomputeroperatedotherwisethaninthe
course of those activities, that information,, if duly supplied to that
computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those
activities;
(c)acomputeroutputshallbetakentohavebeenproducedby
a computer whether it was produced by it directly or(with or without
humanintervention)bymeansofanyappropriateequipment.
Explanation. For the purposes of this section any reference to
informationbeingderivedfromotherinformationshallbeareferenceto
its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other
process.]
136

Keeping in mind above provisions, if we consider the

evidenceofPritamShindePW33inthelightofcertificateissuedatEx.
145and173,hehascertifiedthathealonebeingtechnicianinchargeof
allthesiteswasauthorisedtoaccessdigitalvideorecordersinstalledat
various railway Stations (emphasis by me ). He clarified that data
capturedbytheCCTVfootageusedtoberecordedinsaiddigitalvideo
recorderallthethrough.Duringtherelevantperioddated14/3/11,all
the CCTV cameras were in working condition on both the Railway
Stationsandhehimselfhasobtainedtherelevantfootagefromdigital

Judgment.59S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

videorecorderinCDArt.23to25andsuppliedittoRPFofficer. He
certifiedthatsaiddigitalvideorecorderusedtobemaintainedinusual
course of business and data obtained by him in CD's has not been
tampered and it contains the true recording by the digital video
recorder.OnminutereadingofevidenceofPritamShindePW33and
thecertificateissuedbyhim,itqualifiesalltherequirementsofSection
65(B) of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, in view of judgment of
Hon'bleSupremeCourtinAnwar'scase(citedsupra),datacontainedin
CD'sArt.23to25canverywellbelookedinto.
137

Admittedly, all the four CD's were played/run before this

Courtonearlieroccasionandthesamewererun/playedon20/3/15in
presence of learned APP and learned advocates appearing for the
accusedintheopenCourt.Exceptfortheobjectionstatedabove,there
isvirtuallynochallengebytheaccusedabouttheauthenticityandthe
contentsofthedata.
138

Learned advocate for the accused has strongly contended

thatfacesofthepassengersappearinginCCTVfootagecapturedbyall
thecamerasarenotclearandtherefore,itcannotbesaidthatitwere
theaccusedParwezandHasibwhowerefoundtobeaccompaniedby
Rehmatattherelevanttimeon14/3/11.
139

What is significant here is the fact that accused in their

statementunderSection313Cr.P.C.aresilentastotheabovefacts.
Theyhave merely denied about the taking of CCTVfootage and the
evidence of Pritam Shinde PW33. The accused nowhere denied that
they have not traveled to Mumbai and reached at Dadar on early

Judgment.60S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

morningon14/3/2011asclaimedbytheprosecutionbyprovingCCTV
footage.Theyhavenotpositivelyclaimedthattheyhavenottraveled
byanytrainnorhavereachedatDadarRailwaystationon14/3/2011
atearlymorningorhavethentraveledtoMumbrabylocaltrain.Thisis
verycrucialbecauseofotherevidenceledbytheprosecution.
140

Inthiscontext,DigitalphotographsatArticle18to18/4are

producedintheCourt.Itmaynotbeoutofplacetomentionherethat
saiddigitalphotographsarenothingbutStillImagesofCCTVfootage
containedinCompactDiscsArticle23to25.Itmaybementionedhere
thattheprosecutionhassentsaidCompactDiscstotheForensicScience
Laboratorysoastopreparestillimages. Forthistheprosecutionhas
examinedSubhasIkkePW39.AsperthiswitnessbyletterExh.106,the
Compact Discs were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory Kalina. On
30/1/2012onesealedenvelopwasreceivedwhichcontainedaCompact
DiscandareportmarkedatExh.170.AfterdrawingPanchanamaExh.
171thesaidDiscwasopenedontheComputerofthePoliceStation,
which contained four folders having 22 photographs. He got it
developedandtheCDwasleased.Heidentifiedthesaidphotographsto
besamewhichareArticle18to18/4.
141

Cross examination to PW 39 it is rather confirmed that

FahmidaPW12andherhusbandwereshownthesaidphotographsand
they identified accused in the same. This is in fact corroborated by
FahmidaPW12inherevidencetotheeffectthatshewasshownthesaid
photographsafter910monthsoftheincident.PW39deniedthatthe
photographsarenotcleartoidentify.Hedeniedthathemanipulated
thephotographs.

Judgment.61S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

142

Ascouldbeseenthatinsteadofchallengingtheevidenceof

PW39, there is confirmatory cross examination in which there is no


challengeastothefactofreceiptofCDscontaining22photographsand
hehavingdevelopeditproperly.Similarlythereisnochallengethat22
photographsatArticle18to18/4tobethesame.
143

ItmaybementionedherethatsincethephotographsArticle

18to18/4aredigitalphotographsandstillimagesofthesamefootage
capturedbyCCTVcameratherewasnofurtherneedtoproveit.Since
thestillimagesarepreparedbyForensicScienceLaboratoryKalina,at
the most it could be said that the running form in CD's has been
convertedinstillforminoneCDwhichispartofPanchanamaExh.171.
Saiddigitalphotographsdonotgenerateanynegativebeingstillimages
ofadatacapturedbyCCTV.Assuchsaidphotographscouldbereadin
evidence as they stands. For this I may take useful recourse to the
Jugement in Vaman Narain Ghiya ..Vs.. State of Rajasthan in Cri.
AppealNo.70/2009dated15/1/2014.Sincetheprosecutionhasduly
provedtheCompactDiscsatArticle23to25byprovingthecertificate
underSection65BofEvidenceAct,fromPritamShindePW33,said
photographscouldsafelybereadinevidence.Itcannotbeforgotten
thatthereisvirtuallynochallengetothefactthatthesaidCD'swere
sent to Forensic Science Laboratory Kalina who have
developed/converted in still photographs atArticle 18 to18/4. The
processundertakenbyForensicScienceLaboratoryKalinaiswelltaken
carebySection292(asamendedbySection25ofCr.P.C.Amendment
Act2005)andSection293ofCodeofCriminalProcedure.

Judgment.62S.C.No.431/11Ex.180
144

Above22photographswereshowntoFahmidaPW12inthe

Court. Shedeposedthatinthesaidphotographsshowsthataccused
ParwezisaccompaniedbyRehmatandaccusedHasibisbesidethem.
CrossexaminationofPW12onthispointwouldshowthatshecouldnot
disclose as to the place where said photographs were taken. She
admittedthatthesamewerenottakeninherpresence.Sheadmitted
thatFacesinthephotographsarenotvisibleandtherearesomany
peopleofsimilarfeatures.Shehoweverdeniedthatonseeing/viewing
thesaidphotographsshewillnotbeabletosayastowhoistheperson.
SheadmittedthatRehmatwas notwearingVeil. She admittedthat
Parwezusedtowearshirtandpantandusedtoputintheshirtinthe
pant. She admitted that none of the person in the photographs
includingthepersonidentifiedasaccusedParwezishavingshirtinthe
pant.Shedeniedthatsheidentifiedtheaccusedinthephotographson
thesayofpolice.
145

Ascouldbeseenthatbasicthrustofthecrossexaminationof

PW12isthatthe faces in the photographs are notclear. The core


questioniswhetherapersonlikeFahmidaPW12whohasdeveloped
closerelationswithRehmatandwasknowingaccusedParwezatleast
for9months,priortosuchidentificationbeinghisneighbour,couldnot
haveidentifiedthemwithoutclearfaces?Theansweriscertainly'No'.
Thisisbecausewhenapersoniswellknown,hecouldbeidentifiedvery
easilyfromhisphysique,wayofwalking,gesturesetc.Inpresentcase
alsoRehmatwaslikeaclosefriendofFahmida,whohadgiftedclothsto
her.Theybeingneignbours,wereknowingeachothersinceJuly2010.
Similarly accused Parwez was husband of Rehmat to whom she was
knowingsinceJuly2010.Accusedshiftedhisbagandbaggagestoher

Judgment.63S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

houseobviouslytotakeawayonsomeday.Assuchlookingattheclose
relationship,theimageorpersonalityofRehmatandthatofAccused
ParwezwaswellknowntoFahmida,sufficientforhertoidentifythem
in photographs at Aticle 18 to 18/4. Photographs contain various
minutedetailslikeclothsonthepersonofacouplewhoarewalking,
substantial part of their face, hair style etc. All these factors are
sufficientforFahmidaPW12toidentifythemtobedeceasedRehmant
accompaniedbyaccusedParwezandHasib.
CIRCUMSTANCESTOU.
146

Toprovethemobilephonenumberbeingusedbyaccused

Tabrej,theevidenceofVijayShindePW29 whoisNodalOfficerof
IDEACellularLtdistotheeffectthatmobileNo.9702988355standing
in the name of accused Mohd. Tabrej. This evidence is admitted by
accusedMohd.TabrejinresponsetoquestionNo.133duringstatement
U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. Thus, with the evidence of Shri. Shinde and
admitted by accused Mohd. Tabrej, this court has no hesitation to
concludethattheprosecutionhasprovedthattheaccusedTabrejwas
usingthesaidmobilephonenumbereverysinceitwasappliedtothe
Cellularcompany.
147

ThroughShri.Shinde,PW29,CDRdetailsinrespectofsaid

mobilephonehasbeenprovedatEx.127(colly.). OnfirstpageonEx.
127,asperShri.Shinde,itcontainsdetailsofmobiletowerandthesite
atwhichitisinstalled.Thereafter,thereisachartshowingthedetails
likedateandtimeofcall,itsdurationandthecallingnumberandthe
receiving number, IMEI code etc. If we carefully examine the CDR

Judgment.64S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

detailswhicharedulyprovedinviewofcertificateU/s.65BofIndian
EvidenceActprovedthroughShri.VijayShindewhoisNodalOfficer,
onewillfindthataccusedParwezwhowasusingthemobilephoneof
hisclose relative Mohd.JavedAbdul Mannan Akhtar PW28 having
phoneNo.9702181561wasinconstantcontactwithaccusedTabrejIf
we carefully examine columns and the site address of the tower
location,whereboththephonenumberswereoperated,itismentioned
thaton14/3/11between7.58a.m.to10.37a.m.,thereareasmanyas
fourcallsbetweenaccusedParwezandaccusedTabrej.Oncomparative
readingofthetowerlocationandtheCDRdetails,firstcallmadeby
accusedParweztoaccusedTabrejwasinitiatedfromtowerhavinglast
digit50323whichishavingsitenameasGaneshKrupaandsiteaddress
as opposite Parsik Tunnel, old MumbaiPune Road, Mumbra. If we
considerthecolumnNo.Anumber,whichisadmittedlyacallingnumber
andBnumberwhichisreceipant,twocallsmadebetween7.58a.m.to
8.19 a.m., they were operated from very same tower location i.e.
OppositeRashidTunnel,oldMumbaiPuneRoad,Mumbra. Sincethe
callingpartyat8.11a.m.wasaccusedTabrejandandtherecipientof
thesaidcallwasaccusedParwez,itisclearfromtheevidenceofShri.
Shinde that when said call was initiated by accused Tabrej, he was
operatingfromthetowerlocationi.e.GaneshKripa,ParsikTunnel,old
MumbaiPune Road,Mumbra. This would showthat accused Tabrej
waspresentatMumbraattherelevanttime.
148

What is significant to note is an admitted fact that the

accusedTabrejwasresidinginElphinstonCollegeHostel,RoomNo.259
situatednearChurchGateRailwayStation.Ifthatbeso,corequestion
astohowtheaccusedTabrejhasoperatedhismobilephoneearlyinthe

Judgment.65S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

morningon14/3/11fromMumbra.Itisnothiscaseeithersuggested
to Shri. Shinde or claim U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. that he handed over his
mobilephonetosomebodyforuseandsaidpersonhasusedhismobile
phonefromMumbra.ItisalsonotcaseoftheaccusedTabrejthathis
mobilephonewasmisplacedorstolensoastosaythatitwasnotused
by him from given mobile tower situated at Mumbra. Therefore, it
couldsafelybeinferredthataccusedTabrejwasatMumbraon14/3/11
earlyinthemorningatabout7.58a.m.
149

CombinereadingoftheevidenceofPrintamShindePW33

(asregardsproofofCCTVfootage)andthatofFahmidaPW12would
show that the accused Parwez was found getting down at Dadar
RailwayStationbyTrainandthenreachingatMumbrabyLocalTrain
whichwasalsocapturedbyCCTVcamerainstalledatMumbraRailway
Station.ItwasclearfromtheevidenceofFahmidaPW12thatParwez
wasaccompaniedbydeceasedRehmat.Themobiletowerlocationand
theCDRwouldshowthatthecallmadebytheaccusedParwezat3.15
a.m.tophoneNo.8103138442wasmadebyoperatingtowersituatedat
VarshaAdarshCooperativeSociety,towerlocationNo.405799144283
whichissituatednearKurlaRailwayStationKurla. Probablythiscall
was made before train could reach at Dadar. The CCTV footage at
Dadar RailwayStationshowsthatafteralightingfromtrain,accused
ParwezandRehmatwereproceedingtowardsbridgefromtheplatform
atabout3.32a.m.ThisCourtcantakejudicialnoteofthefactthatthe
trainwhichwascomingtowardsDadarcouldhavereachedatDadar
fromKurlawithin10to12minutes.
150

OncarefulreadingofthesaidCDRdetails,onewouldfind

Judgment.66S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

thattheaccusedParwezmadesaidcallat7.58a.m.,toaccusedTabrej
fromtowerlocationsituatedatMumbrawhichshowsthatatthattime
hewasvarymuchatMumbra.ThisisbecauseasperCCTVfootageof
Mumbra Railway Station shown in Compact Disc Article 23 and
photographsArt.18/2to18/14,accusedParwezwasfoundalongwith
RehmatatMumbraRailwayStationatabout5.17a.m.

151

Theimportantaspectnowisthematerialtoshowthatthe

accused have taken Rehmat to 303, Roshni Apartment, Thakurpada,


Mumbra.Itwasarguedbydefencethatthereisnoevidencetoshow
thataccusedanddeceasedRehmatwereatsaidplace24Hrs.priorto
postmortem. ThisisbecauseasperDr.MesharmPW32,thetimeof
deathmustbepriorto24Hrs.priortopostmortem,whichcomesprior
to4.15p.m.on14/3/2011.
152

Admittedlythereisnodirectevidenceofanywitnesswho

hadseen accusedtakingRehmat to303,RoshniAppartment.Thisis


obviousbecauseitwasweehourswhenaccusedParwezandRehmat
gotdownatMumbraRailwayStation,asprovedfromCCTVfootagein
CDArticle23andphotographsExh.18.Itisunusualtoexpectthatat
suchearlymorning,itispossibleevenforneghboursof303,Roshni
Appartment tonoticethemovementsoftheirneighbours,leasttobe
saidaboutpasserby.
153

Theprosecutionforthispurposeisrelyingontwoinstances.

OneisrecoveryofOdhaniofthedressofRehmatwhichwasonher
person when her dead body was found, at the instance of accused
Tabrej.SecondinstanceisthetrolleybagArt.1inwhichthedeadbody
ofRehmatwasfound,whichwasgiftedtoArshiyaPW9inhermarriage

Judgment.67S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

and said bag was lying at 303, Roshani Apartment, Thakurpada,


Mumbra.
154

TheprosecutionhasreliedontheevidenceofShri.Yeram

PW31. As perPW31,on 20/3/11,accusedTabrejvoluntarilymade


statement to him, that Scarf/Odhani has been kept at 303, Roshni
Apartment,Thakurpada,Mumbra.Same was recordedin presence of
panchas.AccusedthenledthemtothesaidplaceatMumbra. Asper
Shri. Yeram the keys of the said premises were supplied by accused
Parwez who was arrested at that time. As per Shri.Yeram, accused
Tabrejtookoutoneblackhandbagfromtheloftinthekitchenofthe
saidpremisesandtookoutScarf/Odhaniwithchocolatewhitecolour
designwhichismadepartofArt.2.HeidentifiedsaidhandbagArticle
21, which was shown to Manoj PW13 a public panch acted to
panchanama.
155

It would not be out of place to mention here that at one

placeShriYeramhasstatedParwezhasmadesuchstatement.Itwas
arguedbydefencethatthereisdoubtaboutsuchstatementbeingmade
byaccusedTabrej.OncarefulreadingoftheevidenceofShriYeramhe
hasdeposedasfollows:
On 20/3/2011 when accused Mohd. Parwez was in our
custodyheintendtogiveadisclosurestatement.Ithencalled
panchas and in their presence he had disclosed that he is
willingtoshowthespotwherethedeceasedwhowashis sister
inlaw waskilled and thescarf by which thedeceasedwas
killed as well as the spot where the dead body of the
deceasedwasshifted.
(emphasissuppliedbyme)
156

Whatcanbeseenthatthoughsomepartofaboveevidenceis

Judgment.68S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

inadmissible,butthe witness (ShriYeram)was clear thatit was the


statementofaccusedwhoisbrotherinlawofthedeceased.Assuchitis
highlyprobablethatwhilestatingthenameofaccused,ShriYeramgot
confused or since the names of accused are quite similar, while
recordingthedepositiontherewasmistakewhilerecordingthename.
This possibility just can not be ruled out because there is correction
madebymylearnedpredecessorinsubsequentpartofthedeposition
aboutthe nameof accusedbycorrecting nameofTabrej in place of
Parwez.Assuchthereisnoforceintheaboveargumentofdefence.
157

Prosecution has also relied on panch witness Bablu

Chaurasiya PW6 who acted as public punch for panchanama Ex.30.


SimilarlyprosecutionhasexaminedManojDhagvatPW13whoactedas
panchtothememorandumandrecoverypanchanamaEx.46ad47.
158

There is hardly any material in the cross examination of

PW6andPW13todisbelievethem.Theyhaveinfactcorroboratedthe
evidenceofShri.YeramasregardsthesearchofroomofaccusedTabrej
atElphistonCollegeHostelaswellasmemorandumgivenbyaccused
TabrejleadingtorecoveryofDupattawhichispartofArt.2.Thereis
nothingtoshowthatsaidpanchwitnessesaresubjectofinfluenceof
police.
159

Much was argued by defence about Odhni being part of

Article2.ItisclaimedthatitwasalreadywithpolicealongwithKurta
andPyjama,buthasbeengotup. ButthewitnesseslikeShri.Thakur
PW1,M.RehmanPW2,AnitaPW3,PankajPW7areveryconsistentin
their evidence that only Kurta and Paijama were found on the dead

Judgment.69S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

body of Rehmat. Similarly Fahmida PW12 was also shown the said
cloths.ItwasonlywhenshewasshownOdhniduringherevidence,it
appearsthatsinceitwaspartofsamesuit,itwasmarkedasArticle2.
This can not amount to a fact that Fahmida admitted that she was
shownsaidOdhni.Infactshehasclarifiedinherexaminationinchief
itselfthatsaidOdhniwasshowntoheron21/3/2011only. Sinceit
was marked as collective article along with Kurta and Paijama, no
advantagecouldbetakenthereform.
160

Asdiscussedabove,OdhaniwhichispartofArt.2wassent

alongwithKurtaandPyjamafoundonthepersonofdeceasedRehmat
to the C.A. Similarly receipt book No.246 having pieces of cloths
produced by tailor Mohd. Imran Zafar Alam PW20 were sent for
analysis.ThereportofanalysisisatEx.63asmentionedabovewould
showthatOdhanifoundattheinstanceofaccusedTabrejfromflatNo.
303, Roshni Apartment, Thakurpada was part of Kurta and Pyjama
foundonthepersonofdeceased.
161

ThedetectionofOdhaniofthesaiddressonthepersonof

deceasedRehmatisverycrucialbecauseinspiteoffactthatkeysofsaid
housewerewithaccusedParwez,accusedTabrejwasknowingastothe
exactlocationofsaidOdhani(blackbagArticle21).Thisestablishesthe
specialknowledgetotheaccusedTabrejandhisintentiontoconceal
saidOdhaniinablackhandbagthattooonloftofthekitchen.
162

Inthisregard,Iproposeto reproducesection27ofIndian

EvidenceAct.
S.27: Howmuchofinformationreceivedfromaccusedmaybe

Judgment.70S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

proved : Providedthat,whenanyfactisdeposedtoasdiscoveredin
consequenceofinformationreceivedfromapersonaccusedofanyoffence,
inthecustodyofapoliceofficer,somuchofsuchinformation,whetherit
amountstoaconfessionornot,asrelatesdistinctlytothefactthereby
discovered,maybeproved.
163

Thus in order to make a fact, on the information of the

accusedadmissible,itmustbeinconsequenceofinformationgivenby
theaccusedwhileinthecustodyofapoliceofficer.Itisalsomadeclear
thatsuchinformationifleadingtodiscoveryoffactsodisclosedititself
isrelevant.
164OncetherecoveryofDuppata/odhniofRehmatisaccepted
tobeattheinstanceofaccusedTabrez,threepossibilitieswouldappear
asheldinStateofMaharashtra..vs..Sureshreportedin20001SCC
471=20001ACR266SC.Para26ofthesaidjudgmentreadsasunder
:
'We too countenance three possibilities when an accused points out the
place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed
withoutstatingthatitwasconcededbyhimself.Oneisthathehimself
wouldhaveconcealedit.Secondisthathewouldhaveseensomebodyelse
concealingit.Andthethirdisthathewouldhavebeentoldbyanother
personthatitwasconcealedthere.Butiftheaccuseddeclinestotellthe
criminalcourtthathisknowledgeabouttheconcealmentwasonaccount
ofoneofthelasttwopossibilitiesthecriminalcourtcanpresumethatit
wasconcealedbytheaccusedhimself.Thisisbecauseaccusedistheonly
personwhocanoffertheexplanationastohowelsehecametoknowof
suchconcealmentandifhechoosestorefrainfromtellingthecourtasto
howelsehecametoknowofit,thepresumptionisawelljustifiedcourse
tobeadoptedbythecriminalcourtthattheconcealmentwasmadeby
himself. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the principle
embodiedinSection27oftheEvidenceAct.'

Judgment.71S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

165Inpresentfactsofthecase,itwasforaccusedTabreztotell
thecourtwithmereprobabilitiesaboutothertwopossibilitiesindicated
above, by Hon'ble Supreme Court. However the accused has not
explainedanythingaboutitinhisstatementunderSection313ofCode
ofCriminalProcedure.TheDuppatta/OdhniwhichispartofArticle2
wassentforChemicalAnalysisastoitsfabric.ByaLetterprovedfrom
ShriJadhavPW37,opinionwassoughtaboutthefabricoftheSalwar
andPayjamafoundonthedeadbodyofRehmatandtheOdhniwhich
was found in a bag kept in 303, Roshni Appartment. As discussed
above,ChemicalAnalyzerfoundbothmatcheseachotherandthefabric
issamevideExh.63. ItisunusualtobelievethatdeceasedRehmat
wouldhavewornonlySalwarandKurtawhilereturningfromDelhi.
DetectionofOdhni/DuppataofsamesetofDressshowsherpresencein
303,RoshniApartment,ThakurPada,Mumbra.
166

SaidrecoveryattheinstanceofaccusedTabrejalsoshows

his presence at 303, Roshni Appartment along with Rehmat. Such


inferenceisinevitablebecauseaccusedTabrejhasnotexplainedother
tosituationsinwhichhecouldbesaidtohaveknowledgeofsaidOdhni
at that place. Apart from it, while discussing evidence as regards
various circumstance, it is found that since early morning, accused
Tabrej was at Mumbra and was using his mobile phone from tower
locationatMumbra.Hehasnotexplainedastowhenhepartedfrom
his brother Parwez on 14/3/2011. All there circumstance clearly
establishactiveinvolvementofaccusedTabrejinthecrime.
167

MostcrucialpartofsaidOdhniisthatasperC.A.Report

Exh.63,saidOdhniwasfoundstainedwithhumansaliva.Sinceitwas

Judgment.72S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

partofKurtaandPaijamaofdeceasedRehmat,itwasforaccusedTabrej
toexplain aboutdetection of human saliva,necessarilytobethatof
deceased,foundonit.Saidfactissorelevantthatitshowsknowledge
toaccusedTabrejastotheexistenceofRehmat,whathappenedtoher
etc. Non explanation of above material by accused Tabrez clearly
implicatehiminacrime.
168

AsperevidenceofShriYeramPW31,afterarrestofaccused

TabrejfromElphistonCollegeHostel,hisroomNo.259wassearched
under panchanama Ex.30. As per his evidence, apart from other
articles, paper cutting of Mumbai Mirror having photograph of dead
bodyofdeceasedwasfound. HealsodeposedthataTshirthaving
digits93embossedatthebackwasfoundatsaidroom.
169

Public Panch Bablu Chourasia PW6 has been examined to

supportthesaidseizure.AsperthiswitnessonvisittosaidRoomNo.
259oftheHostel,accusedTabrejcollectedthekey'sfromtheManager
andopenedtheroom. Asperthiswitness,articleslikemobilephone,
newspapercuttinginrespectofdeceasedRehmat,oneTShirthaving
figure 93init'sback,photographsofRehmatetcwererecoveredfrom
saidroom.NeedlesstosaythatthewitnesshasadmittedArticles4to8
statedabove,whichwereshowntohim.
170

Crossexaminationofboththeabovewitnessesisofdenialof

whattheyhavedeposed. PW6couldnotrecollectastowhetherthe
HostelManagerwasaladyora man.Restof thecross examination
consistofsuggestionsofdenial.Exceptthatthereisnothingfruitfulto
disbelievesaidwitnesses.

Judgment.73S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

171

Theonlyprecautionthatthiscourthastoexamine,istorule

outthepossibilityofplanting.LookingatthepapercuttingofMumbai
Mirror,thesameissuchthatitisnotpropertoactuponthesame.Itis
alsobecause thenews was alreadypublishedandwasknown tothe
police.AsregardsTShirtArticle5isconcern,it'splantingasarguedby
the defence can not be accepted. There is strong reason to this
inference.ThefactthatsaidTShirthaving 93 figureonit'sbackhas
anysignificanceinthecasewasdisclosedtothepolicemachineryonly
onreceiptofCCTVfootageofMumbraRailwayStation.Tillthattime
therewasnoreasontoknowthatsaidTShirthasanysignificancein
thecase.AscouldbeseenfromtheevidenceofPritamShindePW33,
there is no challenge to his version that CCTV footage of Mumbra
Railway Station was given only on 23/3/2011 and not before that.
WhereasTShirtArticle5wasfoundon19/3/2011itself.Assuchthe
caseofplantingofsaidTShirthastoberuledout.Similarityarticles
like photographs of deceased Rehmat, Railway Pass etc. are not the
articleswhichcouldbesaidtohavebeenplantedbypolice.
172

For above reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the

evidenceofShriYeramandChourasiatotheextentofseizureofsaidT
ShirtArticle5canverywellbeactedupon,byignoringtherecoveryof
News Paper Cutting. Other articles would hardly be said to be
incriminatingtheaccused.
CIRCUMSTANCEV:
173

ItisthespecificcaseoftheprosecutionthattrolleybagArt.1

Judgment.74S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

in which the dead body of Rehmat was found is out of gift articles
receivedbyArshiyaPW9inhermarriagewithaccusedParwez.Itwas
receivedtoherfromherparentsandatthematerialtime,saidbagwas
lyingin303RoshniApartment,Thakurpada,Mumbra.
174

Toprovethisfact,theprosecutionisrelyingontheevidence

ofArshiyaPW9.Shedeposedinherevidencethatapartfromvarious
articleswhichshereceivedinmarriage,shealsoreceivedtrolleybag
Art.1. All these articles were lying in her house at 303 Roshni
Apartment. She also clarified that she received all the articles on
executionofbondfromtheCourt.Muchwasarguedthatsheclaimed
tohavereceivedallthearticles,buttrolleybagArt.1isfactlyinginthe
Court.Obviously,whatevershehasreceivedasperorderoftheCourt
are the articles which were lying at 303, Roshni Apartment,
Thakurpada,Mumbraafterarrestofaccused. Itisnobody'scasethat
eventrolleybagArt.1wasreceivedbyArshiyaasperorderoftheCourt
andthiswastakenbyhimfrom303,RoshniApartment,Thakurpada,
Mumbra.Assuch,argumenthasnoforce.
175

TheidentityoftrolleybagArt.1tobethesamewhichwas

received by Arshiya in her marriage was challenged. During cross


examination,ArshiyawassuggestedthatArshiyahasadmittedthather
parentshavepurchasedmostofthearticlesofhermarriage. Shehas
notpurchasedbagArt.1andhadnooccasiontoseesaidbagbeforeher
marriage. She,however, disclosedthat said bag was purchased from
ShivamStoresatRatlam.Sheadmittedthattheremaybesomanysuch
bags available in the market. Very interestingly during cross
examination,itisbroughtfromhermouththattherewasidentification

Judgment.75S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

markonthehandleofthesaidbagbymarkerpenandonthatbasis,she
hasidentifiedsaidbagtobetheverysamewhichshereceivedinher
marriage.Whatissignificanttonotefromtheanswerelucidatedduring
crossexaminationisthatreasonforthewitnesstoidentifythebagis
stillconfirmedleavingnoroomofdoubtthatshecouldhaveidentified
saidbagonthebasisofsaididentifyingmarkappearingonthehandle
of the bag. Even the witness has claimed that she had seen such
numbers by market pen on the bag before the Court. In fact on
examinationofArt.1beforetheCourt,thereisnumberinHindiscript
onthehandleofbagArt.1madeofwhiteink/paint.
176

ItisseenthatmarriageofArshiyawithaccusedParwezwas

performed on 4/12/10. Admittedly they started residing at Roshni


Apartment, Thakurpada, Mumbra after marriage till the incident.
Therefore,timeandagainArshiyahadgonetoseethesaidbagforthe
periodofmorethanthreemonths.Therefore,thenatureofthebag,its
identifying futures, colour etc. were well engrossed on her memory
sufficientforhertoidentifythesamebeforetheCourt.Thetimegapis
veryshortbecausetheevidenceofArshiyawasrecordedinDecember,
2012.Therefore,shehadnodifficultytoidentifythebagwhichshehad
seenonlyinMarch,2011.Forthisreason,thereisnoreasontodoubt
thattrolleybagArt.1isthesamewhichwasreceivedbyArshiyainher
marriagebywayofgiftfromherparents.
177

Bywayofcorroboration,theprosecutionhasexaminedAnil

NiranjandasBairagiPW10beforetheCourt.Asperthiswitness,heis
runningShivamGeneralStoresatRatlam,StateofMadhyaPradesh.He
claimedthatbagArt.1waspurchasedfromhisshopandandthesaid

Judgment.76S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

factwasdisclosedbyhimtothepolicewhenthepolicehadbeentohis
shopinthemonthofMarch,2011.Asperthiswitness,hesoldthesaid
bagtoRizvanaQureshiPW19motherofArshiyaPW9.Duringcross
examinationtothiswitness,itisbroughtonrecordthatthoughheisnot
maintaininganyrecordofsaleandpurchaseofthebagsandwillnotbe
abletoidentifyeachandeverybagwhichhesoldbutitisbroughtfrom
hismouththathehimselfhasmentionedcodenumberonthebagbyhis
own handwriting by marker ink pen. He also claimed that number
appearingonthehandleofthebagiswrittenbyhim.Restofthecross
examinationconsistsofbaresuggestionofdenial.
178

Itisseenfromtheevidenceof NiranjandasBairagiPW10

thathecouldidentifytrolleybagArt.1tobesoldfromhisshoponthe
basisofnumberswrittenbyhimonthehandleofthebagtobethe
identifyingmarksufficientforhimtoidentifysaidbag.Thiswitnessis
nowayconcernedwithaccusedandthereforehadnoreasontodepose
falseonoath.Therefore,Ihavenohesitationtoaccepthisevidencein
toto.
179

Apartfromabove,prosecutionhasalsoexamined Rizvana

QureshiPW19whoismotherofArshiyaPW9. AsperRizvana,bag
Art.1waspurchasedfromBairagi'sshopatRatlam.Sheidentifiedbag
Art.1beforetheCourttobetheverysamewhichwaspurchasedbyher.
180

CrossexaminationofRizvanaQureshiPW19isontheline

thatshe hasnotobtainedsignatureofParwezonthelistofarticles
giftedtohim.Iamafraidthatsaidcrossexaminationwouldnotserve
any purpose looking at the relation between Rizvana and accused

Judgment.77S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

Parwezweethatmotherinlawandsoninlaw.Itisunusualtoaccept
thatwithsuchrelations,nobodywouldobtainacknowledgmentofthe
articlesthattoowhicharegiftedinthemarriage.
181

RizvanaQureshiPW19hasadmittedthattherearesomany

bagsavailableinthemarketlikeArt.1.Shealsoadmittedthatshedid
notdiscloseanyidentifyingmarkonthebag. However,suchanswers
would hardly matter in view of her evidence that said bag was
purchased from Niranjandas Bairagi PW10 from Ratlam. There is
corroborative evidence of Niranjandas Bairagi PW10 that there is
sufficientidentificationofbagArt.1tobetheverysamewhichwassold
byhimtoRizvanaPW19.
182

Therefore, taking into account evidence of above three

witnesses,IhavenohesitationtoconcludethattrolleybagArt.1isthe
samewhichwasreceivedbyArshiyaPW9inhermarriagewithaccused
Parwezandwaslyingat303RoshniApartment,Thakurpada,Mumbra
atmaterialtime.Hence,circumstanceVprovesbeyonddoubt.
CIRCUMSTANCEWTOY:
183

Asdiscussedabove,PritamShindePW33hassecuredCCTV

footageofMumbraRailwayStationon23/3/11inrespectoffootage
captured on 14/3/11 at about 21.58 hours. As per his evidence,
compactdiskArt.23wassuppliedbyhimtotheconcernedRPFofficer
aftercopyingthedatefromDVRinstalledatMumbraRailwayStation.
Heconfirmedthatitcontainsthefootagebetween14.40p.m.To12.20
p.m.On14/3/11.

Judgment.78S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

184

SincesaidCCTVfootageisdirectlyprovedthroughPritam

ShindePW33,alongwithcertificateU/s.65BofIndianEvidenceAct,
whichisatEx.145and173. SincethesaidCDwassenttoForensic
ScienceLaboratorytohavestillimages/photographs,takingchargeof
CD is duly proved from evidence of Chanduprakash PW15, Gulab
Nalawade PW16 and Shankar Savnur PW17. These are police
personnelwhohavetakenchargeofCDsfromRPFofficialsalongwith
respectivelettersandhandeditovertoI.O.
185

Itwasarguedonbehalfofaccusedthatnopanchanamawas

drawn while accepting CDs. Core question is whether tampering of


such CDs was possible or was in fact done. As per Pritam Shinde
PW33,therewasnoscopefortamperingofthedatecontainedinthe
disk. Apart from it, there is no cross examination to any of
ChanduprakashPW15, GulabNalawade PW16orShankarSavnur
PW17 that they have manipulated or tampered or had occasion to
tamperdateintheCDs. Imaynotethatsaidthreewitnesseswere
performing their public duty being responsible police personnel.
Therefore,presumptionU/s.114ofIndianEvidenceActisattachedto
theiractions. Inabsenceofanytangleevidenceitisbecausetheyare
policeofficers,theirevidencecannotbedoubted.
186

AsperShri.IkkePW39,CDsweresenttoForensicScience

Laboratory to have still photographs of its contents. He accordingly


receivedCDswhichispartofEx.170whichcontains22photographsin
differentfolderswhichweredevelopedandplacedonrecordArt.18/3.
Asalreadydiscussed,withthesephotographsanditsproofintheform

Judgment.79S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

ofCDcontainingCCTVfootage,thereisnodifficulttolookintothesaid
photographs.
187

FahmidaPW12wasconfrontedwithphotographsduringher

evidenceinwhichsheidentifiedaccusedNo.1and2tobethepersons
whowerecarryingtrolleybag.Shehasadmittedthatsheisunawareas
towhen these photographs were obtained, but factremains thather
admissionrelatesbacktothecontentsofCCTVfootagewhichisfrom
MumbraRailwayStationasdeposedbyPritamShindePW33. With
combinedreadingofevidenceofboththeabovewitnesses,itisrather
provedonrecordinthelightofCDArt.23andthestillimagesArt.18/3
thataccusedNo.1and2areseencarryingthetrolleybagatMumbra
RailwayStationbetween21.58.43to21.58.48hours.
188

Atthisstage,itisnecessarytolookintotheCDRandmobile

towerlocationsatEx.127(colly.)provedfromtheevidenceofShri.Vijay
ShindePW29,NodalOfficerworkingwithIDEACellularCompany.On
minuteexaminingofCDRinrespectofmobilephoneusedbyaccused
No.1Parwezon14/3/11inbetween7.58a.m.on14/3/11till10.33
a.m. 15/3/11, mobile phone of accused No.1 Parwez having No.
9702181561 was continuously used from mobile tower location No.
4457991750323sitenameasGaneshKripahavingaddressatopposite
ParsiteTunnel,oldMumbaiPuneRoad,Mumbraofrelevantdetailsi.e.
IMEI number of the mobile phone found in possession of accused
Parwezatthetimeofhispersonalsearchetchavebeentalliedinthe
saidCDRatEx.127(colly.)
189

Atthesametime,mobilephoneofaccusedTabrejbearing

Judgment.80S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

No.9702988355 was used from very same tower location ever since
1.33p.m.On14/3/11till11.27p.m.Onthatday.Itisalsoconspicuous
to note that few calls made by accused Tabrej or received by him
between10.02.46p.m.To10.9.33p.m.On14/3/11,whereinmobile
towerlocationNo.4057991750312beingsitenameKwajaPalacehaving
siteaddressKwajaPalaceLimitedoppositeRailwayStationMumbrahas
beenused.ThiswouldconspicuouslyshowthataccusedTabrejwasat
MumbraRailwayStationduringthattime.Sincelastcallwasmadeby
usingmobiletowerlocationatGaneshKripa,examiningCCTVfootage
provedbyPritamShindePW33andidentifiedbyFahmidaPW12,itis
conclusively established that accused Tabrej was at Mumbra Railway
Stationwhenthesaidtrolleybagwascarriedbyhim.
190

There is one more aspect as regards the identification of

accusedTabrejtobethepersonwhowaspullingthesaidtrolleybag
andwasfollowedbyaccusedParwezandthesaidcircumstanceistheT
shirtonthepersonofaccusedTabrejatthesametime.Itisconspicuous
fromcontentsofCCTVfootageaswellasstillphotographsArt.18/3,
personpullingtrolleybaghadTshirthavingfigures93inbigdigitson
the back of the T shirt. As already discussed, CCTV footage were
obtainedonly23/3/11.Therefore,nobodyhadknowledgeastowhatis
capturedinCCTVfootage.Therefore,whatisprovedonrecordinthe
formofcircumstanceUdiscussedaboveis recoveryofTshirtArt.5
havingdigits93onitsback.
191

TheCCTVfootageArt.18/3soalsophotographsofaccused

Tabrej and T shirt Art.5 were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory,


KalinafortheiropinionvideEx.106.ForensicScienceLaboratoryafter

Judgment.81S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

due examination of all the material has sent report Ex.80 which is
provedfromtheevidenceofKiranBagekarPW18.Ascouldbeseen
fromtheevidenceofKiranBagekarPW18,afteranalysissaidreport
was prepared. Cross examination to Shri. Bagekar is rather
confirmatory as regards the CD which was sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory. ItisalsoconfirmedthatphotographsmarkedatEx.G,H.
andIbytheexpertweresentforanalysis.Obviously,headmittedthat
hehimselfcannotidentifythepersoninTshirt.Thus,thereishardly
anychallengetohisevidenceasregardsreportEx.80.
192

AscouldbeseenthatphotographofsaidTshirtwas for

examinationandasperresult,itisobservedthatTshirtmarked 93
ownedbyamaninphotographclip(Art.18/3/)isfoundsimilartotheT
shirt of which the photograph is proved at Ex.9. Similarly T shirt
appearing in the photograph clip of Olive Green Colour which is
producedbeforetheCourtatArt.5isfoundsimilartotheTshirtinthe
photograph.Ofcourse,theexpertcanopineaboutsimilarityandthey
cannotconcludebywayoffindingwhichissent.
193

WhatisepochalinthiscaseisthatsaidTShirthaving 93

digits on its back itself is unique in nature. Since it was found in


possession of accused Tabrej in his room 259 of Elphiston College
Hostel and that it is proved from mobile tower and CDR details Ex.
127(colly.)thathewasatMumbraRailwayStationatmaterialtime,in
allhumanprobabilities,theirisnootherinferencebutthepresenceof
accusedTabrejontheRailwayStationhavingsaidTShirtonhisperson
could be drawn. It is more so because Fahmida PW12 has also
identified accused Tabrej in said CCTV footage in the form of still

Judgment.82S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

imagesatExh.18/3.
194

In view of above assessment of the material, prosecution

hassuccessfullyprovedcircumstanceWtoYindicatedabove.
CIRCUMSTANCEZ:
195

AscouldbeseenfromtheevidenceofinquestPanchAnita

BhoslePW3semenstainswerefoundneartheprivatepartofdeceased
Rehmat. ThePyjamaArticle2wassentforChemicalAnalysis.Asper
Exh.63semenstainswhichwerefoundonsaidPyjamawerereferredto
DNAanalysis.
196

DNAanalysiswascarriedout,inwhichsaidsemenstainson

Pyjama were also analysed. Results of analysis at Exh. 69 reads as


follows:
1)TheDNAprofileofsemendetectedonex2pyjamaandbloodsample
ofMohd.ParwezAnwarulHaqareidentical&fromoneandsamesource
ofmaleoriginDNAprofilesmatchwiththematernalandpaternalalleles
in the source of blood. 2) The DNA profile of semen detected on ex2
pyjamaandbloodsampleofex2Mohd.TabrezMohd.AnwarulHaqare
notidentical&notfromoneandsamesourceofmaleoriginDNAprofiles
didnot match withthematernalandpaternalallelesinthesourceof
blood.3) TheDNAprofileofsemendetectedonex2pyjamaandblood
sampleofex3AbdulHasibMohd.MinhajulHaqShaikharenotidentical
&notfromoneandsamesourceofmaleorigin DNAprofilesdidnot
matchwiththematernalandpaternalallelesinthesourceofblood.
197

As can be seen from the Statement of Accused Parwez

underSection313Cr.P.C.,heclaimednoknowledgeofsuchmatching
ofDNA.Asalreadydiscussedthereisvirtuallynochallengeasregards
drawingofsamplesandtheauthenticityoftheprocessundertakenby

Judgment.83S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

Forensic Science Laboratory Kalina. The same is admissible under


Section292and293ofCr.P.C.
198

Itwasarguedonbehalfofaccusedthatevenifitisproved

that semen stains were that of accused Parwez, it is not of any


consequence, being husband of deceased Rehmat. On careful
considerationofaboveargument,itissignificanttonotethataccused
ParwezhasnotadmittedhebeinghusbandofthedeceasedRehmat.He
didnotdisclose anyreasonfor witnessestodepose false aboutsuch
relationship. He did not disclose, if not marital tie, in which
circumstancehewasresidingwithRehmat.Inviewthis,whenthereis
overwhelmingevidencetoshowthathemarriedtoRehmatandwas
residingashusbandandwifenearthehouseofFahmidaPW12,false
defence of denial raised by accused goes against him. Half hearted
admissionbytheadvocateforaccusedaboutsuchrelationshipatthefag
end during arguments can not mean that accused has admitted or
explainedabovecircumstanceappearingagainsthim.
199

Detection of semen of accused Parwez on the Pyjama of

deceasedRehmathavefarreachingconsequencesofarashiscomplicity
inthecommissionofcrime.AccusedParwezissilentinexplainingasto
whenafter6/3/2011hewasinthecompanyofRehmat.Atwhattime
heleftthecompanyofthedeceased?AsperFahmidaPW12,fewdays
prior to 6/3/2011 accused disappeared from the Prakash Complex
sayingthathewasgoingtoDelhi.ThusatanyrateifaccusedParwez
wasnotinthecompanyofdeceasedRehmatatleastsince6/3/2011,
and that be so, in absence of any explanation coming forward from
accused Parwez,detectionofhissemenstainsonthePyjamaofthe

Judgment.84S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

deceased speaks in volume. On proof of this circumstance beyond


doubt,theprosecutionhasconclusivelyestablishedthataccusedPerwez
wasnotonlyinthecompanyofdeceasedRehmat,butwasintimatewith
her,justpriortoherdeathi.e.priorto4.15pmon14/3/2011.
ADDITIONALCIRCUMSTANCES
200

By way of additional circumstances, most important

circumstance whichisalreadyassessedis false denialofrelationsby


accusedNo.1and2withdeceasedRehmat.Asalreadyindicated,there
ishalfheartedadmissionduringcourseofargumentswhichcannotbe
equated with clear admissions. When it is proved on record with
overwhelmingevidencethatdeceasedRehmatwaswifeofaccusedNo.1
Parwez and sisterinlaw of accused Tabrej, their false denial about
relationshipfillingapsevenifleftoutinthechainofcircumstance.
201

AllthethroughtheaccusedParwezhasnotexplainedabout

hisconductindisclosingtoRehmatandneighbourslikeFahmidathat
heisproceedingtoDelhibefore6/3/11. Itisinfactprovedfromthe
evidenceofArshiyaPW9thataccusedParwezwasverymuchat303,
RoshniApartment,Thakurpada,Mumbraatmaterialtime.Thisconduct
ofaccusedNo.1Parwezishighlyunnaturalbecausehehasdisclosed
falseinformationaboutheproceedingtoDelhiatanytime.Atthesame
time,itisprovedonrecordthataccusedParwezhimselfhassecured
reservation for his wife Rehmat to be accompanied by accused No.3
Hasibon6/3/11. HebeinghusbandofRehmat,hisconductishighly
unnaturalbecauseRehmatisnottraceableatleastsince8/3/11because
shemadelastcalltoFahmidaonthatday.Whenitisprovedfromthe

Judgment.85S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

evidence of Arshiya PW9 that accused Parwez accompanied her till


Khandva,StateofMadhyaPradeshandhasproceededtoDelhi,inall
probabilities,hemusthavereachedDelhion10/3/11.Theconductof
the accused in not disclosing about whereabouts of his wife Rehmat
speaksinvolume. IfRehmatwasmissing,naturalconductofaccused
Parwezbeingherhusbandwouldhavebeentolodgemissingcomplaint.
However, there is no such conduct coming forth from the accused
Parwez.
202

Onthetopofeverything,whileansweringstatementU/s.313

ofCr.P.C.,accusedParwezhasclaimedthatatthetimeofincident,he
wasatKhandva,StateofMadhyaPradesh.Thispleaofalibiisfalseto
theknowledgeofaccusedbecauseasperArshiyaPW9,accusedParwez
leftforDelhion10/3/11andreturnedtoKhandvaonlyon17/3/11in
theearlymorning. WhenitisprovedonrecordthataccusedParwez
made phone calltohis wife Arshiyaon14/3/11thatheis goingto
Mumbai, it is established that he was at Mumbai at relevant time.
Therefore,hisfalsepleaabouthisabsenceatMumbaibetween14/3/11
to17/3/11isalsooneoftheadditionalcircumstancewhichfillinlapse
ifatallleftoutinthechainofcircumstancesindicatedabove.
203

It is well settled that above referred additional

circumstancewouldworkasconnectinglinkoradditionallinktoshow
complicity of the accused to the crime and therefore, all such
circumstancegoagainsttheaccusedNo.1and2.
CONCLUSION
204

In view of above assessment of evidence on record,

Judgment.86S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

circumstancesasstatedaboveatSr.Nos.AtoZstandsproved.Onceit
isprovedthatdeceasedRehmatwasinthecustodyofaccusedParwez
on1432011intheearlymorninghours,thefactofdetectionofher
odhaniat303RoshniApts.Mumbra,thefactthatTrolleyBagArticle1,
inwhichdeadbodyofRehmatwasfoundwaslyingatsaidpremises,
being gift article received by Arshiya in her marriage with accused
Parwez,clearlyestablishthatshewasatsaidplaceaftershewasseenin
thecompanyofaccusedParwez.Evenifitissaidthattherearesome
missing circumstance, in fact there are no, then the additional
circumstanceindicatedabovewouldfillinthegapsleftout.
205

As per the evidence of Dr. Meshram that the death of

Rehmatwaspriorto24Hrs.ofpostmortem.Thatmeansshediedprior
to4pmon14/3/2011.Withthismaterialevidence,consideringdaily
pursuitsthatmusthavebeenfollowedbyRehmatafter6/3/2011atno
ratesuchsemenstainsofaccusedcouldhavefoundonherperson.In
thelightofevidenceintheformofCCTVfootagecapturedatDadarand
MumbraRailwayStations,thereisnoescapefromthelegalinference
thataccusedParwezwaswiththedeceased. Itisratherconclusively
proved that accused Parwez was very much in the company of the
deceasedatleastafterreachingMumbraRailwayStationon14/3/2011,
earlyinthemorning.
206

At this stage, it is necessary to have look on medical

evidence.AsperDr.Meshram,theyfoundfollowingexternalinjuries.
1Ligaturemarkaroundthenecksituatedatthelevelof
thyroidcartilage,moreprominentlyvisibleonleftlateral
sideofneckfromcentertomidline.Thehyoidboneshows

Judgment.87S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

bilateral fractureat thejunctionof body and cornue.2)


RightBlackEye,3)Contusiononrightcheekregionofsize
12x14cmsredcolour,muscledeep,4)Contusionbehind
andposterialtorightearsix4x4cms,5)Contusionof
righthorhead2x2cmsmuscledeep,6)Contusionofleft
horhead2x3cmsmuscledeep,7)Contusionofleftcheek
3x1cmsmuscledeep,8)Abrasionbehindleftear2x3
cms., 9) Contusion upper lip 2 x 1 cms, 10) Contusion
lowerlip2x2cms,11)Contusionleftshouldertop4x3
cms, 12) Contusion left lower limb 1.5 x 1 cms, 13)
Petechial haemorhages over chest, chin, shoulder, skulp
region.

Atthesametimehefoundfollowinginternalinjuries.
1)SubgalealHemotomaoverrightsideof12x8cms.,2)
SubgalealHemotomarightandleftoccipitialregionofsize
18x2.5cms.3)Brainsubarachnoidhemorrhageatplaces,
4)SubPleuralhemorrhage,5)Bloodintrachea,,6)Lungs
showshemorrhages,7)Bloodwithinoralcaveties,8)
Uterusfoetuspresent.
207

It was argued by learned advocate for accused that as

mentionedinPostmortemnotes,therewere15injuriesonthepersonof
deceased,assuchtherehastobebleedingsoalsofromthemouthofthe
deceasedRehmat,whenshewasfoundintheTrolleyBag.Ifthatbeso
thereshouldhavebeentrailofbloodifthebagArticle1wouldhave
beenbroughtfrom3rdfloor,whereFlatNo.303issituateatRoshani
Apts.Mumbra.Asperhissubmissionssincenobloodstainsoranyother
evidencewasfoundatsaidflat,theprosecutionhasfailedtoprovethat
FlatNo.303RoshniAptsistheplacewhereRehmatwasmurdered.
208

Ihavegiventhoughtfulconsiderationtoaboveargument.To

better appreciate this argument, at the outset it is to be noted that


evidenceofDr.Meshramwouldshowthattherewasligaturemarkon

Judgment.88S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

theneckofthedeadbody. SameiscorroboratedbyThakurPW1,M.
Rehman PW2,Anita PW3,Pankaj Waghela PW7, whohave seen the
deadbodywhenitwasfoundintheTrolleyBagArticle1.Thereisno
crossexaminationtosaidwitnessestoshowthattherewasnoticeable
bleedingeitherfromthemouthofthebodyorfromtheinjuriesonher
person. Inviewofthismatter,itisclearthattherewasnobleeding.
Whatisadmittedtobethebleedingfrommouthisabloodasnotedin
PostmortemreportExh.51incolumnNo.13.Whatisalsonotedisthe
factthatthemouthwasclosedandthetonguewasinsidethemouth,
And blood was seen within oral cavity. Thus there was no profuse
bleedingsoastosaythatitcouldhavefailed.Itisalsosignificantto
notethatasperInquestExh.25therewaslittlebloodthatcameoutof
themouth.Notonlythis,KurtaandPayjamaatArticle2weresentto
chemicalanalyzer.ItsreportatExh.63wouldshowthattherewasno
blooddetectedonthesame.
209

Above material wouldshowthattherewas nosuchactive

bleedingfromtheinjuriesonthepersonofRehamtduetowhichthere
couldhavebeenbloodintheTrolleyBagArt.1,whichinturncould
have fallen on the floor, staircase etc. from where the said Bag was
carried.Forthisreasontherecouldbenotrailofblood,asarguedbythe
defence.
210

Aboveall,asperDr.Meshram,Rehmatdiedofstrangulation.

TheexternalinjuriesfoundonherpersonarementionedincolumnNo.
17ofPostmortemNotes.Thesamearecontusionsandabrasionsonly.
There is nothing to show that there was profuse bleeding from the
injuries,ratheritcouldnothavebeen,becausecontusionsandabrasions

Judgment.89S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

willnotcausesuchillustriousbleeding.Assuchtherecouldbenosuch
trail of blood, which the inmates of Roshni Apartments could have
noticed,from where theTrolley BagArticle1was taken toMumbra
RailwayStation.
211

In the result of above assessment of medical evidence,

detection of semen, CCTV footage, there is no room of doubt that


RehmatwasinthecompanyofaccusedParwezandTabrejandHasib
aftershewasfoundaliveatMumbraRailwayStation.
212

SofarasaccusedHasibisconcerned,unlikeaccusedTabrej

thereisvirtuallynoevidenceonrecordtoascertainhiswhereabouts
after he was seen at Mumbra Railway Station on 14/3/2011.
AdmittedlyhewasnotresidingatMumbra,itisseenfromtheevidence
ofShri.JadhavPW37thatthoughMobilePhonewasseizedfromhim
onhispersonalsearch,itsCDRwerenotobtained.Itcouldbesaidthat
since the same were not showing his presence at Mumbra area, the
samewerenotproduced/proved.Thereisnothingthatisrecoveredor
discoveredathisinstance.Insuchcircumstance,exceptthefactthathe
accompanieddeceasedRehmattoDelhion6/3/2011andreturnedon
14/3/2011alongwithaccusedParwezanddeceasedRehmat,thereis
nothingtoimplicatehiminthecrime.
213

ThetimeofdeathofRehmatispriorto4pmon14/3/2011.

Withprovedevidenceonrecord,shewasseenaliveinthecompanyof
accusedNo.1and2at5.15am.DetectionofOdhniofdeceasedat303,
RoshniApartments,ThakurPada,Mumbra,thefactthatherdeadbody
wasfoundkeptinTrolleyBagArticle1whichwaslyingatsaidflatgo

Judgment.90S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

to show that she was taken to said flat only. On proof of said fact,
Section106ofIndianEvidenceActwouldcomeintoplay.Itwasfor
accused to explain as to what happened with Rehmat after she was
takento303,RoshniApartments,ThakurPada,Mumbra?
214

Byrelyingonauthoritiesini) MahammadShabbirAkbar

ShaikhV/s.TheStateofMaharashtra,CriminalAppealNo.484of
2012,dt.4th July,2014(BombayHighCourt)ii) BhanwarSingh&
Ors. V/s. State of M.P., Criminal Appeal No.300 0f 2007, dt.16th
May,2008(SupremeCourtofIndia)iii)Sahadevan&Anr.V/s.State
of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No.1405 of 2008, dt.8th May,
2012(SupremeCourtofIndia),itwasarguedbydefencethat'deceased
lastseenwithaccused' theorycannotbeusedinthiscaseduetotime
gap between the time of death and the time when accused were
allegedlyfoundwiththedeceased.
215

Oncarefulreadingofaboveauthorities,infactnonofthem

isidenticalwiththefactsofpresentcase.Assuchnonofthemcouldbe
appliedtothepresentfacts.Inpresentcase,infactitisnotonlyproved
thatdeceasedwaslastseenaliveinthecompanyofaccusedpersonsbut
it is alsoprovedthat she was in the custody of No.1 and 2at 303,
RoshniApartments,ThakurPada,Mumbra.
216

Onthis point,Imayreproducepara9ofthejudgmentof

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Kirkan ..vs.. State Of


Maharashtra,200610SCC681:
9.Inthecaseinhandthereisnoeyewitnessoftheoccurrence

Judgment.91S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

andthecaseoftheprosecutionrestsoncircumstantialevidence.
Thenormalprincipleinacasebasedoncircumstantialevidenceis
thatthecircumstancesfromwhichaninferenceofguiltissought
tobedrawnmustbecogentlyandfirmlyestablished;thatthose
circumstancesshouldbeofadefinitetendencyunerringlypointing
towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken
cumulativelyshould form achainsocompletethatthereisno
escapefromtheconclusionthatwithinallhumanprobabilitythe
crimewascommittedbytheaccusedandtheyshouldbeincapable
ofexplanationonanyhypothesisotherthanthatoftheguiltof
theaccusedandinconsistentwithhisinnocence.
217

Inpara11ofabovecase,Hon'bleSupremeCourthasruledas

follows:
11.Ifanoffencetakesplaceinsidetheprivacyofahouseand
in such circumstances where the assailants have all the
opportunitytoplanandcommittheoffenceatthetimeandin
circumstancesoftheirchoice,itwillbeextremelydifficultfor
the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the
accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as
noticedabove,isinsisteduponbytheCourts.AJudgedoesnot
presideoveracriminaltrialmerelytoseethatnoinnocentman
ispunished.AJudgealsopresidestoseethataguiltymandoes
notescape.Botharepublicduties.(SeeStirlandv.Directorof
PublicProsecution1944AC315quotedwithapprovalbyArijit
Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh
MANU/SC/0585/2003:2003CriLJ3892).Thelawdoesnot
enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such
characterwhichisalmostimpossibletobeledoratanyrate
extremelydifficulttobeled.Thedutyontheprosecutionisto
leadsuchevidencewhichitiscapableofleading,havingregard
tothefactsandcircumstancesofthecase.Hereitisnecessaryto
keepinmindSection106oftheEvidenceActwhichsaysthat
whenanyfactisespeciallywithintheknowledgeofanyperson,
theburdenofprovingthatfactisuponhim.Illustration(b)
appendedtothissectionthrowssomelightonthecontentand
scopeofthisprovisionanditreads:

(b)Aischargedwithtravelingonarailwaywithoutticket.The

Judgment.92S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

burdenofprovingthathehadaticketisonhim.
Where an offence like murder is committed in
secrecyinsideahouse,theinitialburdentoestablishthecase
wouldundoubtedlybeupontheprosecution,butthenatureand
amountofevidencetobeledbyittoestablishthechargecannot
be of the same degree as is required in other cases of
circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a
comparativelylightercharacter.InviewofSection106ofthe
Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the
inmatesofthehousetogiveacogentexplanationastohowthe
crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get
awaybysimplykeepingquietandofferingnoexplanationon
thesupposedpremisethattheburdentoestablishitscaselies
entirelyupontheprosecutionandthereisnodutyatallonan
accusedtoofferanyexplanation.
218

InpresentcasealsodeceasedRehmatwasinthecustodyof

accused.WhenaccusedNo.1and2wereonlyinmateinthehouseno.
303 Roshni Appartments, along with deceased, they are under
obligationtoexplainthefactswithintheirspecialknowledge.However,
the accused has remained silent so far as all the incriminating
circumstancesprovedagainstthem.Theaccusedaresilentastowhat
happenedafterRehmatwastakentosaidFlat?
219

Since suchexplanation is not coming forward, there is no

forceinthesubmissionsoflearnedadvocateforaccusedthatthereis
hugegapbetween5amon14/3/2011,whenRehmatwasaliveandthe
time when her dead body was found to Thakur PW1 at 2 am on
15/3/2011. In fact such argument is fallacious because as per Dr.
Mesharmthedeathwas priorto24 Hrs.ofpostmortem(emphasisby
me). Since it is a case of death by strangulation, it is practically
impossibletogiveexacttimeofdeath.Whenitwaspriorto24Hrs.of
postmortem,it musthave been anytime between 5am to4pmon

Judgment.93S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

14/3/2011.
220

The mobile phones of accused No. 1 and 2 were sent to

Forensic Science Laboratory Kalina to extract it's contents. As per


evidenceofKiranBahekarPW18,contentsofmobilephoneofboththe
accusedwereextractedbyusingproperforensicmethod.Hehasproved
theentirereportalongwithextractsatEx.80(colly.). TheSMS(short
message services) shared between the accused Tabrej and accused
ParwezafterincidentclearlydemonstratesthatevenaccusedTabrejhad
participated in the commission of the crime i.e. Murder of Rehmat.
Thee is outgoing message from out box of the message window of
accusedTabrej. Followingarethemessagessentobviouslytoaccused
Parwez.
N.B.T.mediyahekwoladies4mahinesepregnent
thi.ordelhipolicenemum.policesecontactkrbataya
kekladkidelhisemumbaibhagihuihe
Mumbaimirormevwahinewsfotoksathdiyahejonbtme
diyahe

221

Withabovemessages,itiscrystalclearthatbecauseaccused

Tebrezwasculpritofthecrime,wasinconstancecontactwithaccused
No.1Parwezandwassupplytheinformationtohimsofaractionsof
policeareconcerned.Probably,therefore,Dr.Mishramhasalsoopined
thatcausingof15injuriesonthepersonofRehmatwithstrangulationis
jobofmorethanoneperson.
222

AstheaccusedParwezandTabrejaresilentastowhenthey

Judgment.94S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

parted from the company of Rehmat in that morning, except said


accused,nooneelsecouldhavecommittedhermurderin303,Roshni
ApartmentsThakurpada,Mumbra.

223

Accused with intention to cause death of Rehmat

StrangulatedherwithDuppata/Odhni.ThefactthatsaidDupata(part
of Article 2) was found at the instance of accused Tabrez, his
involvement in the actual crime is also established. Mobile Towar
location at Exh. 127, of his mobile phone would show that since
morning he was at Mumbra. Similarly CCTV footage of Mumbra
RailwayStationasidentifiedbyFahmidaPW12wouldshowthathewas
wastheonewhowaspullingtheTrolleyBagArticle1whichprovedto
have contained the dead body of Rehmat. With detection of Odhni
whichispartofArticle2athisinstancefrom303,RoshniApartment
clearly establish his involvement in the commission of crime with
accusedPerwez.
224

As could be seen that the circumstances taken together

formsachain.Fromthechainsoestablished,thereisnoescapefrom
theconclusionthatwithinallhumanprobabilitiesaccusedNo.1and2
alone have committed murder of Rehmat. The probabilities are such
theyareincapableofexplanationtoanyhypothesisotherthanthatof
theguiltofthesaidaccusedandareinconsistentwiththeirinnocence.
225

Assuch,IhavenohesitationtoconcludethataccusedNo.1

and 2 have committed murder of Rehmat by strangulation and by


assaultingher.TheinjuriesonthepersonofRehmatcorroboratethis
inference.Assuch,theaccusedParwezandTabrejaretheauthorsof

Judgment.95S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

crimeandnoneelse.WithnumberoninjuriesonthepersonofRehmat,
the ligature mark shows that she died a homicidal death. The
surroundingcircumstanceemergingfromtherecord,theintentionand
knowledge to cause death is well underlined. For these reasons,
ingredients of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code punishable under
Section302ofIndianPenalCodeareconclusivelyestablished.
226

SofarasoffenceunderSection201ofI.P.C.isconcern,there

isoverwhelmingevidenceonrecordthatitwereaccusedPerwezand
TebrezwhowereseenalongwiththeTrolleyBagArticle1atMumbra
RailwayStationatlatenighton14/3/2011. Withprovedfacts,after
committingmurderofRehmat,inordertodisappeartheevidenceof
crimei.e.deadbody,theyhavefoldedthedeadbodyandkeptinthe
saidbag.ThesaidbagwasthenabandonedinalocalTrainatMumbra
RailwayStation,thesamewasfoundbyShri.ThakurPW1.Theaccused
havealsoconcealedtheOdhniArticle2whichwasevidenceofCrime.
Withclearandunambiguousevidence,Ihavenohesitationtoholdthat
prosecution has proved charge under Section 201 of I.P.C. against
accusedPerwezandTebrez.
227

Inviewofconclusiondrawn,Ianswerpointsaccordinglyand

Iholdsaidaccusedguiltyfortheoffencepunishableundersections302
and201ofIndianPenal Code andproceedtoheartheaccusedonthe
pointofsentence.

(Shrikant.L.Anekar)
Addl.SessionsJudge,
Gr.Mumbai

Judgment.96S.C.No.431/11Ex.180
228

Ihaveheardtheaccusedonthepointofsentence.Boththe

accusedParwezandTabrejclaimedthattheyhavenotcommittedany
offenceandtheyareinnocent.Learnedadvocatefortheaccusedprayed
forleniencytoaccused.
229

LearnedAPPsubmittedthatRehmatwascarryingpregnancy

fromaccusedParwezatthetimeofincident.Heclaimedthatevidence
would show that accused after committing heinous crime have
destroyedtheevidencebyputtingdeadbodyintrolleybag.Heclaimed
thatnoleniencyshouldbeshowntotheaccusedastheyhavenoright
tobeinthesociety.
230

Afterconsideringtherivalsubmissions,itisseenfromthe

recordthataccusedNo.1ParwezwasmarriedtoRehmatanditbeing
hismarriage.Itisprovedonrecordthatbysuppressingsaidfactofsaid
marriage,hecontracted2ndmarriagewithArshiyaPW9.Circumstances
have shown that he had no intention to continue his matrimonial
relationswithdeceasedandtherefore,triedtocompelhertogotoher
parentsplaceandonherrefusalhascommittedheinouscrimewiththe
helpofhisbrotherTabrej.
231

Brutalityorinhumantreatmentofthecrimeistotheextent

that Rehmat was carrying pregnancy from accused Parwez, even the
saidfactdidnotprevailedupontheaccusedtobemercifultoRehmat.
Withthisbarbarity,thereareasmanyas15injuriesonthepersonofthe
deceased. Itisalsoprovedthatafterstrangulationandafterinflicting
severe blows, her dead body was kept in trolley bag and then was
abandonedinlocalrailwayatMumbraRailwayStation.Inviewofthis,

Judgment.97S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

brutalityofthecrimeandconductoftheaccusedParwez,theCourtisof
consideredviewthathehasnorighttobepartofsocietyatanytimein
futureanddeservesstringentsentence. Thisisalsobecause, Rehmat
wasatimidwomanwhobelievedhimtobeahumanbeing,butaccused
Perwezhasbetrayedherfaithandtherefore,thisisafitcasewherethe
accusedParwez be sentencedtoimprisonmentfor life with direction
thatheshallnotbereleasedfromcaptivationuntilhislife. Thisisto
preventanyfurthercrimeorcheatingasplayedwithdeceasedaswellas
ArshiyaPW9bynotdisclosingabouthisfirstmarriage.
232

SofarasaccusedTabrejisconcerned,itappearsthathehas

helpedhisbrotherincommittingcrime.However,lookingathistender
age, I do not propose to pass such a strict sentence on him. Above
characterofsentencewouldmeettheendsofjustice. Hence,Ipass
followingorder.
ORDER

Accused No.1 Mord Parwez Mord Anwarul Haq and

accusedNo.2Mohd.TabrejMohd.AnwarulHaqareherebyconvicted
under section 235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence
punishableunderSection302ofIndianPenalCodeandeachoneof
themissentencedtosufferimprisonmentforlifeandtopayafineofRs.
1,000/ (Rupees One Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonmentforsixmonths.
2

Accused No.1 Mohd. Parwez Mohd. Anwarul Haq and

accusedNo.2Mohd.TabrejMohd.AnwarulHaqareherebyconvicted

Judgment.98S.C.No.431/11Ex.180

under section 235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence


punishableunderSection201ofIndianPenalCodeandeachoneof
themissentencedtosufferimprisonmentfor5yearsandtopayafine
ofRs.1,000/(RupeesOneThousand)indefaulttoundergorigorous
imprisonmentforsixmonths.
3

Sentenceforboththeoffenceshallrunconcurrently.

AccusedNo.2begivensetofU/s.428ofCodeofCriminal

Procedure.
5

TheaccusedNo.1Mohd.ParwezMohd.AnwarulHaqshall

notbereleasedfromcaptivation/imprisonmentuntilhislife.
6

Accused No.3 Abdul Hasib Minhajul Haq is hereby

acquittedoftheoffenceU/s.302and201ofIndianPenalCode.
7

Accused No.3 is in jail. He be released forthwith if not

requiredinanycase.
8

AccusedNo.3isdirectedtoexecutebailofRs.15,000/with

onesolventsuretyinlikeamountinviewofSection437AofCodeof
CriminalProcedure.
9

Copy of this judgment be given to Accused No.1 Mohd.

ParwezMohd.AnwarulHaq and accusedNo.2 Mohd.TabrejMohd.


AnwarulHaqfreeofcost.

Judgment.99S.C.No.431/11Ex.180
10

FinalorderastoMuddemalPropertyisreserved.
(PronouncedintheopenCourt.)

Date:7/5/2015.
Dictatedon
Typedon
SignedbyHHJon

(SHRIKANTL.ANEKAR)
ADDL.SESSIONSJUDGE
GR.BOMBAY.
:Differentdates.
:Differentdates.
:9/5/2015