MOHD. SADIQ MOHD. RAFIQ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellantaccused no.1 seeks to challenge his conviction for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498 A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (referred to as "the Penal Code" for short) vide judgment dated 21.9.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 2, Akola.

(2.) The facts, as can be gathered from the material on record, are that one Nazia Firdos was married to the appellant on 6.5.2007. After her marriage they were residing at village Pinjar in Akola District. The appellant was running an electronic shop in the said village. On 24.4.2008, the appellant and his wife had been to Amravati for attending the marriage of Nazia's cousin sister. Nazia stayed at Amravati after attending said marriage. On 12.5.2008, the parents had been to Amravati to bring his wife back. On the next day, Nazia had told her brother and mother that the appellant was demanding Rs.50,000/ for his electronic shop. Nazia's mother collected an amount of Rs.20,000/ and paid the same to the appellant. Both of them returned to Pinjar on 13.5.2008. On 14.5.2008, the sister of Nazia received a message from the appellant's brother that Nazia had sustained burn injuries and she was serious. The relatives of Nazia rushed to Pinjar, where they found dead body of Nazia. On the same day, the appellant had lodged report to the police that his wife had suffered accidental burn injuries. Report in this regard was thereafter lodged on 15.5.2008 by the brother of Nazia. After conducting postmortem examination, it transpired that Nazia had been strangulated before her death and with a view to destroy the evidence, her dead body had been burnt by the accused. After making necessary investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant, his parents and his sister. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions, as it was alleged that offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code had been committed. Charges were duly framed but all the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge of the Sessions Court convicted the appellant - accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498 A and 201 of the Penal Code. However, accused nos.2 to 4 were acquitted by the Sessions Court. Hence, this appeal by the accused no.1.

(3.) Ms U.K. Kalsi, the learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Sessions Court. It is submitted that there was no eyewitness to the said incident and the appellant had been convicted merely on the basis of surmises. The learned Counsel has further submitted that if the evidence of P.W.4 Dr. Ravikant Ghoderao is appreciated in a proper manner, it would be clear that Nazia had died on account of burn injuries and she had not been strangulated. There was further corroborative evidence in that regard but the same had been overlooked by the learned Judge of the Sessions Court. It was further submitted that there was no material on record to convict the appellant either under Section 302 of the Penal Code or under Section 498 A of the Penal Code. The statements of the independent witnesses, though recorded, had not been placed on record as said statements were favouring the appellant. The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the conviction and allowing the appeal.