MUNSAEED Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the private respondents have been served intimating about the listing of the matter today, but none has responded. Affidavit of service, filed by learned Counsel of the revisionist, is taken on record. So, this Court has rendered hearing to learned Counsel of the revisionist as well as the State Counsel.

(2.) THE impregnability of the order dated 30.5.2014 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar rejecting the application 13 -Kha of the prosecution is in question. The Sessions Trial No. 53/2014 was on going, wherein PW1 Munsaeed (father of the deceased) as well as PW2 Km. Shahista, a girl of around 15 -16 years, had been examined and cross -examined. The incident occurred in the intervening night of 25/26.11.2012 in the matrimonial house where deceased Murshida lost her life. Her dead body was buried in the graveyard without conveying any information to her parents, much less waiting for their arrival before the last rituals.

(3.) WHEN the FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased, the body was excavated and the autopsy was conducted. Her viscera was preserved, which disclosed the presence of poison in the entire digestive system of the deceased. So, the Investigation Officer submitted the chargesheet, but only against the husband Aarif. The FIR was lodged not only against Aarif (husband), but also against Mubarak (father -in -law), Aamna (mother -in -law), Aasma (sister -in -law) and Sharif (brother -in -law). The Investigation Officer had absolved all the rest of the four and submitted the chargesheet only against Aarif. Charge was levelled for the offence of Section 302 IPC in the Court below and the trial proceeded.