STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JABBAR SK SATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeal has been preferred by State challenging the judgment and order dated 20th January,2011 delivered by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldana in Sessions Case No.51/2010 acquitting the respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") of the offences punishable under sections 498A, 302, in the alternative, Section 306 r/ws. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) The prosecution case can be summarized as under : Shahista Parveen (deceased) was the daughter of Mubarak Khan (PW1). She was married with accused no.1-Sheikh Jabbar on 23.2009. After marriage, she started residing with accused no.1 along with her in-laws at Mera Khurd, Tq.Chikhali. Accused no.2-Sk.Sattar is the father-in-law; accused no.3-Najirabi is the mother-in-law and accused no 4-Sk. Irfan and accused no.5-Sk.Imran are the brothers-in-law of the deceased. After marriage, Shahista was treated properly for some time by the accused persons. Thereafter, they started ill-treating her on trifle issues inasmuch as started demanding an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for establishing a grocery shop. Since the father of Shahista did not pay the amount, the accused started abusing and beating Shahista. It is alleged that whenever Shahista used to visit her parents' place, she used to inform them about ill-treatment meted out at the hands of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons had also demanded one gas cylinder and Rs. 2000/- as well as Rs. 5000/- from PW1-Mubarak Khan, father of the deceased. Accordingly, Mubarak Khan paid the amount of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 5000/- respectively to the accused persons so also provided a gas cylinder to them, in the fond hope that the accused persons would not ill-treat his daughter. About two months prior to the incident in question, the maternal uncle of the deceased namely, Latif Khan (PW2) visited the house of the accused and requested them not to ill-treat Shahista. As Shahista showed her desire to visit her fathers' place, her father brought Shahista to his house at Valati, Tq. Chikhali where she stayed for about two months. About three days prior to the incident, PW1 brought Shahista to her matrimonial home. The incident in question took place on 21.2010. At about 7.00 pm, while Shahista was preparing meals on hearth, her brothers-in-law A4-Sk.Ifran and A5-Sk.Imran and A1-Sk.Jabbar Sk.Sattar, caught hold of her and her mother-inlaw A3-Najirabi poured kerosene on her person and her father-in-law A2-Sk.Sattar set her afire, by igniting matchstick. On hearing shouts of Shahista people from the neighbourhood rushed to that place and extinguished the fire. Shahnaz Parveen (DW1), Sk. Muqtar and husband of Shakilabi took her to Government Hospital, Chikhali. She was, thereafter, shifted to Government Hospital at Buldana.

(3.) At the relevant time, Dr.Amul Vanjari (PW7) was attached to Civil Hospital, Buldana. At about 10.00 pm Shahista was admitted in the hospital in a burnt condition. PW7 Dr. Vanjari informed the police about the said fact. At about 1.50 hours, Naib Tahsildar-Ramra Padole (PW8) visited the said hospital. On making enquiry about the fitness of the patient with PW7, PW8-Padole recorded the statement (Exh.58) of Shahista. On 21.2010, PSI Subhash Bawaskar (PW6) received a message through wireless that one Shahista had suffered burn injuries and her dying declaration has been recorded. He was asked to collect the dying declaration of Shahista. Accordingly, PSI Bawaskar, sent a police personnel to collect the dying declaration. The dying declaration was thereafter received by PW6, on the basis of which offence was registered. The spot panchnama was recorded and the accused came to be arrested. PW6-Bawaskar then recorded the statement of Shahista on 31.1.2010 (Exh.48). PSI Dnyaneshwar Thaware (PW9) recorded the statement of witnesses and on completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On analysis of the evidence on record and hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. The said judgment and order is impugned in the present Appeal.