MAYADEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.B.No.1296/2014 (suspension of sentence)

(2.) Learned counsel for Mayadeen submits that the so called dying declarations are not reliable. The son of Mayadeen and Manju, PW-14 Parveen is not an eye-witness. Mayadeen also suffered burn injuries which were inconsistent to his alleged conduct of murdering his wife. The dying declarations have not been recorded by the SDM in question answer form.

(3.) Process of law was set into motion on November 29, 2012 at about 8.05 PM on receipt of DD No.27A at PS Maurya Enclave that one lady was burnt by her husband. SI Kuldeep Kumar PW-28 along with Ct.Parveen went to the spot and found that injured Manju had already been taken to BSA Hospital by PCR officials. SI Kuldeep Kumar reached the hospital and collected the MLC of Manju who was declared fit for statement. Thus SI Kuldeep Kumar recorded the statement of Manju, wherein she stated that she was staying with her husband and four children. She had two sons and two daughters. She was working as a labourer and her parental home was at Chhattarpur. On that day she was present at home. Her husband Mayadeen works as a mason and was not going for work for the last one month. He would drink liquor. He fought with her at around 7.00-8.00 PM and thereafter poured kerosene oil and burnt her by lighting a matchstick. First he burnt from near her feet and thereafter lit her Saree. The first three matchsticks did not lit but third lit resulting in fire and thereafter he ran away. He had burn her inside the jhuggi. The children had been sent to the other jhuggi hence, there was none to help her. Her husband used to abuse her and on that day stated that he would finish her. She shouted and asked for help but nobody helped her. She did not know who doused the fire. On the basis of this statement FIR No.339/2012 was registered under Section 307 IPC.