STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HARUBEG GULAMRASUL BEG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents were acquitted by the Second Additional sessions Judge, Wardha of the offences punishable under Sections 302,201 of the Indian penal Code. The State of Maharashtra, therefore, has preferred this appeal. The respondents shall hereinafter be referred to as the accused.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under -Khairunissa - the deceased - was married to accused No. 1 - Harunbeg. She has two children. She was living with accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 at village Ashti. One Tarannum Parveen -the daughter of sister of the deceased - was also living with the deceased on the date of the incident. On the date of the incident, accused no. 1 had gone to Talegaon to buy eggs. Since he did not get eggs, he came back home. After taking meals he went to the field. The complainant Tarannum Parveen, who was then aged 7 years also had her lunch with accused no. 1. After accused no. 1 went to the field, the accused no. 2 asked the deceased as to why she had prepared an omelet. She abused her in filthy language and said that she would burn her. Complainant Tarannum and the children of the deceased were playing in the house. When the deceased came near the water tank in the court yard the accused no. 2 fell her down and said that she would set her on fire. Accused no. 3 Raisabi caught hold of the legs of the deceased and juvenile offender Mussa caught hold of her hands. Accused no. 2 brought kerosene from the house and poured it on the person of the deceased and set her on fire. The deceased started shouting. The persons around came to spot. They put a quilt around the deceased and extinguished the fire. Thereafter, accused no. 2 went away to the field. Accused no. 1 came home and he told complainant Tarunnum that if police come she should tell that the deceased caught fire while preparing tea on the stove. Later tarunnum Parveen went along with her grandmother to Nagpur. In the meanwhile, one Abdul khalil (PW-1) had informed the police that khairunissa had died due to burns. On this, a case of accidental death was registered. But after recording the statement of Tarannum Parveen, offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code was registered by the police. The police recorded the statements of other witnesses. They had sent the body for post-mortem examination and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.

(3.) After committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge. The accused pleaded not guilty. Upon consideration of the evidence tendered before him, the learned sessions Judge found that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt to the accused. He, therefore, acquitted all the accused. It is against this order of acquittal that this appeal has been preferred.