SHAIKH RASHID SHAIKH KHUDABUX Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/original accused No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) and one Mariyam Begum Shaikh Safi (original accused No. 2) were tried by the learned 1st ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Sessions Trial No. 151/1998 on the charge of having committed the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge, vide his judgment and order dated 26-9-2001, acquitted Mariyam Begum Shaikh Safi (original accused No. 2) of both the aforesaid offences. However, he convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer R. I. for three months, and for the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer R. I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer R. I. for one year. Both the substantive sentences, however, have been directed to run concurrently. This order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows: the deceased Halima was the daughter of P. W. Hajrabi. After expiry of her first husband, the deceased Halima married to the appellant-Shaikh Rashid s/o Shaikh Khudabux, resident of Hinganghat, District Wardha, on 24-8-1997. The deceased Halima was blessed with a son namely Shaharukh from her first husband. The appellant promised that he would maintain Shaharukh and therefore, the marriage (Nikah) of the deceased Halima took place with the appellant on 24-8-1997. Mariyam Begum (original accused No. 2) is the sister of the appellant. She also resides at Hinganghat. About two months after the marriage, the deceased Halimas father, Shaikh Ramjan had been to her matrimonial home to fetch her back to his house, but the appellant refused to send her with him. Thereafter P. W. Hajrabi, the mother of the deceased Halima had been to the house of the appellant to fetch the deceased Halima back to her house on two occasions, but on both the occasions, the appellant and his father refused to send the deceased Halima to her parental home. At the second time, when P. W. Hajrabi had been to the matrimonial home of deceased Halima, the deceased Halima told her that her husband used to ask her to bring Rs. 500/- from her parents, and on non-fulfilment of the said demand, he used to ill-threat and harass her. At the fourth time, i. e. in the month of March 1998, P. W. Hajrabi again went to the house of deceased Halima to fetch her back to her parental home along with her sister-in-law Sugrabi Shaikh Hanif and one Hafiz Saheb Abdul Sattar Abdul Raheman. At that time, the appellant, his sister Mariyam Begum (original accused No. 2), his father Khudabux, his mother and brother were present there. P. W. Hajrabi and her relatives, who were accompanying her at that time, requested the appellant to send the deceased Halima with them, but the appellant and his father refused to send her back with them and threatened P. W. Hajrabi saying that Mari Chhodenge, Jinda Nahi Chhodenge, meaning thereby that they would not leave her alive but kill her and by saying so, they beat the deceased Halima and, therefore, P. W. Hajrabi returned to her house along with deceased Halimas son Shaharukh as the appellant was reluctant to maintain him.

(3.) ON 12-5-1998, P. W. Hajrabi learnt from her nephew Mahebub Shaikh Hanif that Halima died. P. W. Hajrabi, therefore, went to Hinganghat along with her relatives. On reaching there, she learnt that the dead body of deceased Halima was found on the railway track and it was buried after the last rites were performed. This happened before she reached there. On 12-5-1998, some persons, who saw the dead body of Halima on railway track, informed the railway gateman about the same. The railway gateman then informed his superior i. e. , Station Superintendent, Hinganghat about it who, in turn, informed the P. S. O. , Hinganghat about the same on wireless, on the basis of which an accidental death (Marg No. 0/98) came to be registered at Police Station, Hinganghat. During an enquiry, the police had prepared the spot panchanama (Exhibit 32) as well as inquest panchanama (Exhibit 33) and sent the dead body of the deceased Halima to Cottage Hospital, Hinganghat, where post-mortem examination of her dead body was conducted by the Medical Officer, whose post-mortem report is at Exhibit 46.