MAHMOOD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHMOOD (A -1) and Sayed Ahmed (A -2) impugn their conviction under Sections 498A/34 IPC by a judgment dated 22.04.2000 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 29/95 arising out of FIR No. 199/94 PS Sadar Bazar. By an order dated 01.05.2000, they were sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine Rs. 5,000/ - each.

(2.) THE appellants were charge -sheeted for committing offences under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC. On 11.08.1994, Daily Diary (DD) No.12A was recorded regarding the incident and the investigation was assigned to ASI Doodh Nath. He went to RML Hospital and obtained MLC of the victim Saira who was unfit to make statement. The Investigating Officer informed SDM, Kotwali, who recorded her statement on 12.08.1994. Subsequently, she succumbed to the injuries. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove the case. In 313 statements, the appellants pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction under Sections 498A/34 IPC. They were acquitted of the charge under Section 304B IPC. It is pertinent to mention that State did not challenge their acquittal for the said offence.

(3.) THE appellants were acquitted of the main charge under Section 304B IPC and were convicted under Sections 498A/34 IPC only. The marriage of the deceased took place in 1989. Three children namely Farahnaaz (23 years), Mehjaminaz (21 years) and Mehfooj (20 years) were born out of this wedlock. The incident in which Saira died an unfortunate death took place in 1994. The appellants have suffered agony / ordeal of trial for about 20 years. They also remained in custody for seven days. A -2 is aged about 87 years and is suffering from various ailments. It has come on record that the children were brought up by the appellants in the matrimonial home. They have also no grievance against the appellants and prayed to dispose of the appeal modifying the sentence order. Parents of the deceased have also stated that the settlement has been arrived to maintain harmonious relations with the appellants. Considering all these mitigating circumstances, no useful purpose will be served to put the appellants to jail.