MOHD. AZEEM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the state.

(2.) This appeal challenges the judgment and order dtd. 5/3/2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti-corruption), Bareilly in Session Trial No. 301 of 2001 (State v. Mohd. Azeem and others). All the appellants were charged for offences as defined under Sec. 304-B IPC and in addition and alternatively, the appellant Nos.3 and 4 were charged for commission of offence as defined in Sec. 302 IPC also. By the judgment and order dtd. 5/3/2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti-corruption), Bareilly, the appellants have been convicted under Ss. 304-B read with Sec. 34 IPC. The appellant nos.3 and 4 have also been convicted under Sec. 302 IPC but the punishment at the end except mentioning Sec. 302 IPC, the punishment of all appellants were convicted under Sec. 304B read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The appellant nos. 3 and 4 have been sentenced to life imprisonment whereas appellant nos. 2 and 3 have been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 18/7/2000 at about 8:00 p.m. sister of the informant was burnt to death after pouring kerosene oil and by being set ablaze by the accused. The accused persons fled away with injured Shakira (deceased) from Bareilly and, lastly, when he came to the hospital, where his sister was lying in a burnt up condition, none of family members from the side of her in-laws were present. The informant finally raised the inference about the commission of the act perpetrated by accused persons in furtherance of their common object of doing away the deceased. The victim also told the informant that the appellants had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil.