KHURSHIDABEGUM SK MAHEMOOD Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant - original accused No.1 was charged with offence punishable under Section 498 -A read with Section 114, alternatively Section 498 -A read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief). She was also charged with offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114, Section 106, Section 109 of I.P.C. Alternatively charge was framed for offence under Section 304 -B read with 34 and Section 304 -B read with 114 of I.P.C. There was yet another alternative charge under Section 498 -A read with 114 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Along with her, the accused No.2 arrayed was her son Shaikh Jumman. After the trial before 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, the son got acquitted of all the Sections, while the Appellant came to be convicted on 21st October 2003 for offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.100/ -, and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. She was acquitted of the other offences with which she had been charged. Thus, this Appeal.

(2.) The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows: -

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the Appellant -accused. It is stated that the evidence of PW's 1 and 2 shows that the accused No.1 and accused No.2 were residing separate. The dying declaration Exhibit 33 showed that the victim had burnt herself in a fit of anger on spur of moment. According to the counsel, there was no evidence of persistent torture to tantamount to abetment. The counsel referred to the evidence recorded and submitted that the trial Court wrongly relied on the evidence and the accused should have been acquitted. It was alternatively argued that if the conviction is maintained, the sentence may be reduced, as the Appellant -accused is now around 70 years of age.