MAHMAD AHMED SAMOL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried by the Sessions Court, Panchmahals at Godhra, for offences punishable under sections 302, 504 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and was convicted therefor. For the offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C., he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days. For the offences punishable under section 504 of I.P.C., he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, simple imprisonment for eight days, and for the offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C., he has been sentenced for a period of three years with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The above verdict was handed by the Sessions Court, Panchmahals at Godhra on 10.01.2006.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was married to Abeda, and they had children from the wedlock. However, in recent past of the incident, the appellant had allegedly illicit relation with his sister-in-law (brother's wife) Nazma. This resulted into matrimonial disputes between the spouses. On the day of the incident, the appellant asked his wife Abeda as to why she is not permitting him to have relation with Nazma. It appears that the situation flared up, and the appellant set the deceased on fire. The deceased was rescued by the relatives and taken to hospital. Her First Information Report was recorded by Godhra Town Police Station, in which the deceased clearly implicated the present appellant of ill-treatment and of having set her on fire by pouring kerosene. Since the deceased has suffered extensive pains, her dying declaration was recorded with the help of Executive Magistrate by writing a yadi by the investigating officer. The Executive Magistrate recorded dying declaration of the deceased, which is on the same lines as the First Information Report, without any inconsistency.

(3.) The appellant's defence is three fold; first that the dying declarations are not believable or truthful, second that important eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, and third that the investigation is not proper, because the accused appellant had taken the plea of alibi, in which direction no investigation was made by the investigating officer. According to the accused-appellant, on the day of incident, he had gone to Surat.