Crl.A. No. 711 of 2008 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 711 of 2008

MD. MASOOD ALAM @ MD. MASOOD ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

 STATE OF BIHAR    .....   RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1.  This is a rather unfortunate case.  The first  

informant P.W. 10 is the father of the appellant.  As  

per the prosecution story, P.W. 10  had contracted a  

second  marriage  with  the  deceased  Nazeema  Khatoon  

sometime before the incident and she was pregnant as on  

that date.  It appears that the appellant was upset  

with the second marriage of his father as he felt that  

his property would now be divided into two parts.  As  

per the prosecution story, on the 2nd of March, 1995,  

at about 7:45p.m.,  PW 10 went to the village Mosque  

for namaz and while he was offering prayers he received  

information that his wife had been killed.  He rushed  

back home and found that the appellant, his wife and  

his mother in law who had been present in the house

Crl.A. No. 711 of 2008 2

when he had gone to the mosque, were missing.  He,  

accordingly,  lodged  a  report  against  these  three  

persons as well as Mohd. Masi and Mohd. Shaukat who had  

been encouraging the appellant to sort out his step  

mother.  The trial court relied on the evidence of P.W.  

9  Tarsem  who  claimed  to  be  an  eye  witness  of  the  

occurrence  and  after  noticing  some  of  the  

contradictions and differences vis-à-vis his evidence  

and that of P.W. 10, gave the benefit of doubt to  four  

of  the  accused,  but  convicted  the  appellant  for  

offences punishable under Section 302 and 120B of the  

IPC.   The matter was thereafter taken in appeal by the  

accused.  The High Court has given a finding that the  

presence of P.W. 9 had to be ruled out as he lived in a  

village  some  distance  away,  but  relying  on  the  

circumstances of the case has arrived at the conclusion  

that it was the appellant who had been involved in the  

murder.  The matter is before us after the grant of  

special leave.  

2. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that in the  

light of the fact that the High Court itself had given  

a positive finding that PW 9 was a witness who could  

not be relied upon  there was no other evidence against  

the appellant and he was entitled to be treated in the  

same manner as the other accused who had been acquitted

Crl.A. No. 711 of 2008 3

by the trial court.  He has further submitted that  

there was no motive for the murder as there was no  

evidence to show that the property would be divided  

between appellant and the child who was yet to be born  

to his father and step mother.  Mr. Rudreshwar Singh  

appearing for the State of Bihar has, however, pointed  

out  that  the  High  Court  had  itself  identified  five  

circumstances  which  went  against  the  appellant  

notwithstanding the fact that the presence of P.W. 9  

had been ruled out.  We reproduce paragraph 12 of the  

judgment of the High Court in  which this matter has  

been dealt with:-

“From  the  aforesaid  discussions  it is clear that the factum of unnatural  death  of  the  deceased  as  well  as  the  place  of  occurrence  have  been  proved  beyond all reasonable doubts.  The case  against  the  appellant  rests  only  upon  five main circumstances  proved by the  prosecution  particularly  through  the  informant (PW 10) who is none else but  father of the appellant and found to be  fully reliable.  The circumstances are  following - (I) The deceased was last  seen in the court yard of informant's  house along with the appellant, his wife  and mother-in-law; (ii) information of  the  occurrence  taking  place  in  the  courtyard of the house was not given to  the informant by the appellant, his son  or  by  wife  or  mother-in-law  of  the  appellant;  (iii)  as  soon  as  the  informant  got  information  of  the  occurrence he rushed to his house but  found that appellant, his wife and his  mother-in-law were not present and had  left the house; (iv) the dead body was  found in the court-yard of the house of

Crl.A. No. 711 of 2008 4

the informant where appellant also lived  and (v) there was annoyance and anger on  the part of the appellant ever since the  informant had contracted second marriage  with the deceased more so because she  was in the family way which seemingly  posed  a  threat  to  his  property  interests.”

3. A bare reading of the aforesaid extract would  

reveal that the circumstance culled out are germane to  

the matter and do reflect that the appellant was guilty  

of the offence.  It cannot be forgotten that PW 10 was  

none other than the father of the appellant.  We are,  

therefore, of the opinion that no case for interference  

is made out.  The appeal is dismissed.

4. Fee of the learned Amicus is fixed at ` 7,000/-   

    .........................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ........................J      [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI APRIL 19, 2011.