WASHID Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 22-12-2004 passed by 6th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 281/2003 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months. The appellant was original accused No. 1 and was tried along with his mother Smt. Ramija Begum Hamid for having committed murder of his wife Sabina Begum by setting her ablaze. By the impugned judgment accused No. 2 has been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Briefly, the prosecution case is as under :-

(3.) Mr. Dharmadhikari, leaned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not been able to establish conclusively circumstances against the accused to prove the offence of murder of his wife Sabina beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that learned trial Judge relied upon the spot panchanama which was not proved either by Atik Mohd. Uzaman (PW5), Mohd. Kadir (PW 6) or Yusuf Ali Mansab Ali (PW 7). He further submitted that the observations made by learned Judge that absence of burnt quilt on the spot is contrary to the record, since record discloses that at the time of filing of charge-sheet partly burnt quilt was forwarded to the Court. He further submitted that delay in lodging report by Shanaj Begum (PW 1) mother of deceased raises suspicion about the entire prosecution case and the delay clearly establishes that the appellant was falsely implicated in the murder of his wife Sabina. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the accused himself suffered 17% burns, as is evident from the discharge card (Ex.40) issued by Indira Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. He, therefore, submitted that the defence of the accused that deceased Sabina suffered burn injuries accidentally while boiling milk is probabalised and there is absolutely no other evidence on record to establish that the appellant poured kerosene on Sabina and set her ablaze. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the evidence of Shanaj Begum (PW 1), Imtiyas Begum (PW 2 ) and Sheikh Shahajad (PW 4) is full of contradictions and omissions on material aspects and, therefore, their evidence does not inspire confidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the presence of 17% burn injuries on the person of the appellant probabalised his defence that deceased Sabina suffered accidental burns and that he tried to extinguish the fire. He further submitted that Shanaj Begum (PW 1) herself admitted that on 1-3-2003 she had been to the house of accused No. 1 along with her relatives and this fact clearly suggests that the appellant was not the perpetrator of the crime and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dharmadhikari relied upon the following rulings :-