SABERABANU MEHMOODMIYA MALEK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants ­ accused were inter alia sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and were ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under section 302 r/w section 114 of Indian Penal Code by impugned judgement and order dated 18.07.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sixth Fast Track Court, Modasa.

(2.) THE short facts of the prosecution case are that Bilkhisbanu (hereinafter referred to as 'the victim/the deceased') was married to one Javed Hussain Malek for nine years and had two children from the wed-lock. She had lodged an FIR which is treated as her dying declaration as per which on 31.12.2005, the incident in question took place at around 02.00 pm when the accused persons were present at home. It is the prosecution case that accused no. 1 had asked the deceased as to why she had not prepared vegetables to which Bilkhisbanu replied that she had brought pulses (dal) and that as she had come from the field she was tired and so shall prepare dal in a short time. Due to this a quarrel took place between the accused and deceased and she was told by the accused to leave the house else she would be burnt alive. It is further the case of the prosecution that after the husband of the deceased left the house for consuming tobacco, the accused no. 1 sprinkled kerosene over her and accused no. 2 set her on fire by igniting match-stick due to which Bilkhisbanu started burning. She raised shouts for helps and therefore the neighbours rushed to the scene of offence to find the doors bolted from inside. The doors were forcibly opened that the neighbours poured water over the deceased and thereafter she was taken to hospital.

(3.) MS . CM Shah, learned APP has strongly supported the impugned judgement passed by the trial court and submitted that the same having been passed after consideration of the facts of the case and oral as well as documentary evidence on record does not call for any interference by this court. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the dying declaration given by the patient herself where she has stated that her that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.