MOHAMMED NASIRUDDIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No.795/2016 is preferred by Accused No.1 and Criminal Appeal No.796/2016 is preferred by Accused Nos. 2 to 4 challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 07.04.2016 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in SC No.126/2011.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge after trial of the accused persons 1 to 4, has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and sentenced Accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence. However, Accused No.1 was separately sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- with default sentence to undergo imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC.

(3.) The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, a lady by name Amrin Banu, the daughter of PW.2-Aslam Ali Khan and PW.3-Balkis Banu, was given in marriage to Accused No.1 and the marriage took place on 29.06.2008 according to the Muslim customs. After the marriage, the said Amrin Banu had been to the marital home and started her marriage obligations with Accused No.1 and his family members. It is alleged that, after some time, they got a child and the accused have started ill-treating and harassing her physically and mentally in demand of further dowry etc. It is the further allegation of the prosecution that, accused and deceased have been separated for some time due to some matrimonial differences between themselves. In this context, the wife filed a petition for maintenance and also a complaint against the husband and his family members alleging offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Subsequently, it appears a compromise took place between the parties and in spite of pendency of the cases before the Court, there was re-union of husband and wife and she started living with her husband. It is the further case of the prosecution that, even after re-union, the accused persons have continued their ill-treatment and harassment in demand of dowry etc. In this background, it is alleged that, on the date of the incident ie., on 14.11.2010, the accused had been to a marriage party and in spite of request by the deceased, he did not take her with him. After the lunch in marriage function, the accused came back to the house with empty hands. The wife in fact has asked him to bring some food to her. In that context, a quarrel took place between the husband and the wife and in a spur of moment, it is alleged that the accused poured kerosene on her and lit fire. Thereafter, the accused himself tried to extinguish the fire and with the help of neighbours, he shifted the deceased to the hospital for treatment. On the next day of the incident i.e., 15.11.2010, PW.8-Geethakrishna, the Executive Magistrate, with the help of the doctor, recorded the statement of the deceased and later that statement was treated as dying declaration and on the basis of which, the respondent-Police have registered a case in Crime No.220/2010 (Ex.P7) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307, 114 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. After thorough investigation, the Police found that Accused No.1 and his family members are responsible for the death of the deceased as they were ill-treated and harassed the deceased and the police laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC.