RAHIM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal calls in question the impugned Judgment and order dated 05-12-2013 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge-3, Latur, in Sessions Case No. 77 of 2012. The appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence, the appellant-accused, taking recourse of remedy under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C."), preferred the present appeal to redress his grievance.

(2.) The factual matrix of the matter in nutshell is that, the ill-fated victim Rubina was the wife of appellant-accused. Their marriage was solemnized prior to ten years of the incident. The spouses were residing in their own house located in Hatte nagar area, Latur. The parents, brother also residing in the same locality of residential house of victim - Rubina. Unfortunately, there were no issues to the spouse. The deceased-Rubina could not conceived during wedlock from the husband. It has been alleged that the appellant- accused developed habit of drinking liquor. He was also addicted to gambling. He had frittered away cash, gold ornaments etc. in the gambling. Eventually, he was bent upon to sell the residential house, which was recorded jointly in the name of deceased-wife-Rubina and appellant-accused in the record of civic authority. He was insisting the deceased-wife for sale of residential house. There were frequent quarrels in between the spouse. The appellant-husband used to give threats of life to wifeRubina. The parents as well as brother of the victim-Rubina made endeavour to give understanding to the appellant-husband, but there was no improvement in his behaviour. It has been contended that on 16-04-2012 at about 2.00 p.m, the appellate-accused picked up quarrels with Rubina on account of sale of house property. In the quarrel, he gave threats of life to wife-Rubina. The deceased-Rubina divulged about apprehension to parents, brother etc. But, it had something different in-store for victim-Rubina. On 18-04-2012, first informant, brother Mohd. Mehraj was on duty at the place of his employment. At about 3.30 p.m., brother of the appellant-accused came to him and informed that his brother - appellant-accused was fighting with wife-Rubina and he was not in mood to listen. Therefore, first informant - Mohd. Mehraj rushed to the house of Rubina on motorbike. He barged into the house of victim Rubina and saw that in the bed-room, brother-in-law i.e. appellant-accused fallen his wife-Rubina on the floor and attempted to strangulate her by putting Dupatta around her neck. But, after seeing the first informant, brother-in-law, the accused-appellant woke up and fled away from the spot. The brother - Mohd. Mehraj saw sister- Rubina laying on the ground in withered condition. He came out of the house and yelled for help. The neighbourers and parents thronged at the spot. The victim - Rubina was escorted to the Government Hospital at Latur, but on examination, doctor declared her dead.

(3.) The MLC was passed to the concerned Police Station and accordingly, AD No. 30 of 2012 came to be registered. The dead body of victim-deceased-Rubina was referred for autopsy. The Medical Expert performed the autopsy and opined that death of deceasedRubina was caused due to 'asphyxia by compression of neck with ligature'. The first informant - brother Mohd. Mehraj filed the report to Police and blamed the appellant-accused for death of sister Rubina.