SHAIK MAQBUL AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners before this Court are the father -in -law, brother -in -law and sister -in -law of the deceased named Yasmin @ Fathima w/o. Sheik Mathin.

(2.) Complaint is registered based on the dying declaration/last statement of the deceased on 30.8.2015. The respondent/police have made it the basis for registration of Crime No. 322/2015 dated 30.8.2015 (FIR No. 415/2015) whereby the complaint was registered against one Karima Kaleema Begum, the first accused and mother -in -law of the deceased, Shek Maqbul who is the first petitioner herein, Kheejar, the second petitioner herein and Malan Bee, who is the third petitioner herein.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a reading of the complaint, even if it is to be taken as a dying declaration, as the deceased passed away shortly thereafter, does not reveal any criminal act on the part of the petitioners herein, more specifically with regard to petitioners 1 and 2. He would in fact state that apart from a generalised statement that these accused were quarrelsome, it is nowhere stated nor is it the case of the police that these petitioners ever even attempted to assault the deceased on any occasion. He would submit that the incident is more an accident and there was no intention on the part of any one to do away with the life of the deceased. He would further submit that, assuming that the statement is true in all aspects, even then it reveals that it is the first accused who had proactively held the can and poured kerosene on the deceased and as she was standing opposite the stove, it resulted in her getting ignited and suffered burns which ultimately proved to be fatal. He would further submit that the very conduct of the petitioners in not only attempting to put off the flames but thereafter taking her from one hospital to another to secure the best treatment would show the absence of any mens rea to take away or do away with the life of the deceased. He would also submit that the deceased more especially the third petitioner is married and living away from the family and that she never interfered with the affairs of the family of her brother and as a matter of right as it is in the case of every daughter, she would visit her parental home if and when there was any necessity. He would submit that the second petitioner, who is the brother -in -law has actively taken part to save her life. There are no allegations alleging any specific overt act to either of the petitioners. He would also state that the first petitioner is aged nearly 60 years and even at that advanced age he has made all attempts to save the life of his daughter -in -law. He would further submit that the third petitioner is already married to one Sheik Maqbul and is a resident of Choudri, Aurad Taluk of Latur Dist. which is about 80 kms from her parental home and hence it has to be presumed that the complaint to the police is only out of spite for no fault of hers. He would also submit that the second petitioner is an youngster aged 22 years eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work. He would state that the first and the second petitioner are absolutely innocent of the offences alleged against them and he would pray that they be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent/police.