RASUL MOHAMAD HANIF Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30-11-1995 passed by the Vth additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1995, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo one month imprisonment for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code, has come up in appeal before us.

(2.) SHORTLY stated, the prosecution case runs as under :- The deceased Rashida was the daughter of Jan Mohammed abdul Mulla PW 7. She was married to the appellant on 12-4-1993. For three months, the appellant treated her properly but, thereafter he and his family members started ill-treating and asking her to bring a gold chain of 1? tolas and cash of Rs. 2000/ -. When Rashida used to visit the house of her father, she used to complain to him about the demand and ill-treatment and when he used to visit her house, she also made same complaint to him. According to the prosecution, at the time of her death, rashida was having a son aged six months. Her delivery took place at the house of her father. Thereafter, she went and started living with the appellant. When Jan Mohammad Mulla PW 7 visited Rashida, after the delivery, she complained of ill-treatment at the hands of the appellant on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of a gold chain and cash of Rs. 2000/ -. He told her that he would arrange the said amount. On 16-9-1994, Rashida and the appellant came to the house of Jan Mohammed Mulla PW 7 and stayed for four days. The appellant repeated the demands to him and told him that in case they were not met, he would leave Rashida. On 28-9-1994, Jan Mohammad Mulla PW 7 along with rashida, went to the appellant s house in Mahagaon. The appellant asked him whether he had brought the cash and the gold chain. He replied that since his economic condition was not good, he had not brought them. On that the appellant told him that he would not allow Rashida to enter inside the house and started quarrelling. Thereupon, he gave understanding to the appellant that he would make the arrangements within four days and he should permit Rashida to stay with him. The next morning, after leaving Rashida at the house of the appellant, Jan Mohammad came back.

(3.) THE evidence of API Dilip Patil PW 12 shows that on 30-9-1994 at about 7 a. m. Mahadeo Patil PW 1 came along with the appellant; lodged his FIR; and on its basis he registered C. R. No. 102 of 1994 under section 302, Indian penal Code. He thereafter, took the investigation in his hand and seized the clothes on the person of the appellant namely pant, shirt and bandi under a panchnama, in the presence of the public panch Rajaram Jadhav PW 6. He thereafter, conducted the investigation in the usual manner and on 30-10-1994, handed over the same to API Dilip Kadam pw 13, who after completing the same, submitted the charge sheet on 29-12-1994.