“Last Seen Together: Husband Convicted for Wife’s Murder Despite Absence of FSL Report”

⚖️Case Study: Arif Noormohammed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2018 | Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:38887-DB

📅Decided on:23.09.2026

📜Facts of the Case

The appellant-husband, Arif Noormohammed Shaikh, and his wife Shabana Arif Shaikh were residing together in a rented room at Junnar. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was addicted to alcohol, frequently quarreled with his wife, suspected her character, and subjected her to physical abuse. On the night of 19/20 June 2011, a neighbour heard a quarrel between the couple. The next morning, the deceased was found dead in a pool of blood inside her house with serious head injuries and a scarf around her neck. The appellant was missing from the spot.

🧩Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving the appellant’s guilt.
2. Whether the “last seen together” circumstance was proved.
3. Whether the absence of an FSL/Chemical Analyser report was fatal to the prosecution case.
4. Whether the appellant’s plea of alibi was believable and supported by evidence.

📃Contentions of the Appellant

• The case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence and there was no eyewitness.
• The “last seen together” theory was not established.
• The prosecution relied upon interested witnesses.
• The seizure of blood-stained clothes and articles was not properly proved.
• FSL reports were not produced before the Court.
• He had gone to Deolali to visit his ailing mother and was falsely implicated.

📃Contentions of the State

• The prosecution had established an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the appellant.
• Testimony of relatives and neighbours could not be discarded merely because they knew the deceased.
• The appellant and deceased were residing together and were heard quarreling shortly before the incident.
• The appellant failed to explain the homicidal death of his wife inside their dwelling house.
• The plea of alibi remained unproved.

📚Case Laws Relied Upon

1. Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220.
2. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681.
   Held that where a wife dies unnaturally in the matrimonial home and the husband fails to explain the circumstances, such failure becomes a strong incriminating circumstance.
3. Deepak Revachand Talreja v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1686.
4. Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2006 (SC).
   The husband must explain the unnatural death of his wife when the incident occurs inside the matrimonial home and access of outsiders is not shown.
5. Deepak Madhu Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 239.
   Absence of an FSL report is not fatal when other circumstances conclusively establish guilt.
6. R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2013) 14 SCC 266.
   Failure to determine blood origin or blood group does not necessarily destroy the prosecution case where other incriminating evidence exists.
7. Basant Pande v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRA No. 414 of 2011.
   Mere non-production of FSL report cannot be fatal where other evidence proves the prosecution case.
8. Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 8 SCC 315.
   Minor inconsistencies do not break the chain of circumstantial evidence if the overall prosecution case remains reliable.

🔎Observations of the High Court

• The prosecution successfully established the motive through evidence showing the appellant frequently consumed liquor, suspected the deceased’s character and assaulted her.
• Medical evidence conclusively proved a homicidal death caused by severe head injuries inflicted by a heavy object.
• Evidence of witnesses and the appellant’s own statement under Section 313 CrPC established that he was residing with the deceased at the relevant time.
• The neighbour’s testimony regarding hearing quarrels around 2:00 a.m. coupled with the appellant’s absence from the house the next morning established the “last seen together” circumstance.
• The appellant failed to explain how his wife sustained fatal injuries inside their shared residence.
• The plea of alibi was rejected as no evidence was produced to substantiate it.
• Although the FSL report was not produced, the Court held that it was only corroborative evidence and its absence did not break the chain of circumstances.

📝Conclusion

The Bombay High Court held that the prosecution had established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances consisting of motive, homicidal death, cohabitation, last-seen evidence, and recovery of blood-stained articles. The appellant’s failure to explain the death of his wife in the matrimonial home and his inability to prove the plea of alibi further strengthened the prosecution case. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

💡Key Takeaway

In a case of murder inside the matrimonial home, where the husband and wife were last seen together and the husband fails to offer a credible explanation for the wife’s homicidal death, a conviction can be sustained purely on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of an FSL report.

🔖 Hashtags

#BombayHighCourt #Section302IPC #CircumstantialEvidence #LastSeenTheory #MurderCase #CriminalLaw #EvidenceAct #CriminalAppeal #CaseStudy #IndianPenalCode

📌 Official Copy of judgement 👇