Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

After the charge sheet was submitted by the IO PW-29 on 21.6.2008, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges on 22.8.2008 against the accused persons under sections 302 and 302/34 I.PC to the effect that in the night of 14/15.4.2008 at about 2.15 A.M, in prosecution of their common intention after administering biopose tablets in their tea to the deceased persons namely Shaukat Ali , Smt. Hashmi, Anees Ahmad, Smt. Anjum, Rasid Ali and Km. Rabia other than deceased Arsh by, they were murdered by causing injuries on their necks with an axe and baby Arsh was done to death by throttling.

Submissions on behalf of the State Learned Government Advocate on the other hand argued that there was a clear motive for the appellants for committing this crime as the appellant-Shabnam was in love with Saleem, who belonged to another caste group and was comparatively poor, and the deceased Master Shaukat used to object to the liaison. Shabnam had a six weeks pregnancy at the time of incident and she admitted in her 313 Cr.P.C. statement that the said child (Taj Mohammad), who was born later had been fathered by Saleem. The appellant-Saleem purchased the tranquilizer and gave it to Shabnam, who administered it to six of the deceased other than Arsh, the ten months old child and in pursuance of that conspiracy the six grown up deceased persons other than Arsh were given axe blows on their necks and done to death and Arsh was murdered by throttling. At the time of incident, the residential house of Shabnam, who used to live with the other deceased was closed from inside and there was no other way to reach the first floor where the incident occurred. According to PW 1 and PW 2, Shabnam herself had opened the door. At the time of spot inspection by the forensic team, Shabnam stated that the main door of the house was closed from inside when the entire family went to sleep. No other sign of ingress in the house by any other means was found, as per the evidence of P.W. 13 Manveer Singh, the Forensic Expert. Under section 106 of the Evidence Act, a heavy burden lay on Shabnam to explain as to how the deceased persons had died in her house and she has failed to discharge this burden. Furthermore, in her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., she admits her presence by taking the stance that the co-accused Saleem had committed the murder and she herself has seen Saleem having a Chhoori in his hand at the place of occurrence.

The viscera report of the Forensic Laboratory, Agra dated 16.4.2008 regarding the six deceased persons (Ext. Ka 105 to 110) showing the presence of diazepam tranquilizer and absence of any poison in the viscera of the ten month old deceased Arsh who may still only have been drinking milk, also supports the prosecution suggestion that the grown up deceased persons were given tranquilizer probably in some food substance such as tea, so that when the murder was committed, they could offer no resistance, and this indeed appears to have been the case as the six deceased persons appear to have been murdered when they were still lying on their beds as established by the fact that the beddings, pillows etc. of all the deceased persons had bloodstains and except the injuries on their necks and chest portion of the deceased, they appears to have received no injury on any other part of the body. Only the little child Arsh was not given any tranquilizer as it was not needed for throttling the little child. None, but a family member who has normal access in the house could have administered the tranquilizer to the deceased persons in order to accomplish the job of murdering the deceased. The finger of guilt would point for this reason also on Shabnam the only other surviving inmate of the house.

(i) Appellant Shabnam under great mental stress The mitigating circumstances could be that the appellant Shabnam was under great emotional and mental stress (Mitigating circumstance (a) in paragraph 204 of Bachan Singh), as the appellant's father was not agreeable to the alliance of Shabnam with Saleem and even her mobile phone had earlier been snatched away and she may have once been beaten by him. Indeed learned counsel has likened their situation to a situation where an honour killing was in the offing because of Shabnam's was not agreeable to her family's objection to the alliance. But we find no basis for such a supposition. There was no evidence of any previous attack on the lives of the appellants, even if their liaison was frowned upon because of the economic and caste disparity between Shabnam and Saleem. In any case the elimination of all 7 members of her family, including the 10 month old child Arsh was a grossly disproportionate and uncalled for response for any apprehensions that the appellants may have nurtured regarding their proposed alliance from the deceased. Moreover there could be no threat of honour killing from the baby Arsh, who was also throttled.