NABEESA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second accused, a 51 year old woman, who stands convicted in S.C. No. 292/2010 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)II, Kalpetta along with the first accused, her son, for offences punishable under Sections 304(B),306 read with Section 34 IPC, is the appellant herein.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the first accused had married one Sameena on 25/4/2010 according to the religious rites and thereafter have been living together along with the second accused in their house. It was alleged that at the time of marriage, she was offered a dowry of Rupees one and half lakhs and ten sovereigns. Alleging that only one lakh rupees was paid and that there was a further payment of Rs. 50,000/ - to be made by the in -laws, both the accused physically and mentally harassed her at the matrimonial house. It was alleged that when the torture became unbearable, she left the matrimonial home on 6/9/2010. In the evening, the first accused took her back to the matrimonial home and thereafter on the next day, while both the accused were sitting in the house of a neighbour, they found Sameena on flames rushing outside from the house. By the time, flames were doused, she had suffered extensive burn injuries. She was rushed to a nearby hospital, from where she was referred to the Medical College Hospital for expert management. Having sustained 99% burn injuries, she succumbed on 8/9/2010. FI statement was lodged on 8/9/2010 by PW1 which was registered by PW20. After the investigation, final report was laid for offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the accused denied the charges, pleaded innocence and faced the trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to PW21 were examined and Ext. P1 to P15 were marked. Mos 1 to 5 were identified. No defence evidence was adduced. Accused relied exclusively on the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and Exts.D1 contradiction marked in the course of cross examination.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the above conviction and sentence, the second accused alone has preferred this appeal from jail. Since she is not represented by a counsel of her own, Adv. Santhosh Kumar G. was appointed as the counsel on State brief. Learned counsel marshaled all available points in favour of the accused and effectively defended the appellant. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor Smt. M.G. Lisha also. Examined the records.