SHAIK NURJAHAN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment rendered in the Sessions Case No. 142 of 1995 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, convicting and sentencing A-l to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years of the offence under Section 304, Part II, IPC.

(2.) The factual matrix that arise for consideration can be briefly stated as follows : The deceased Khader Bee is the daughter of A-4 and Shaik Syed Miya, A-1 is the eldest daughter and A-2 is their son. A-3 is the wife of A-2, A-l deserted her husband long back and living with her parents i.e., A-4 and Shaik Syed Miya. The deceased Shaik Khader Bee also deserted her husband about an year prior to the date of incident and living separately with her two children at Dwarkanagar, Khamam, near the house of her parents. She was running a pan shop near R.T.O. office, located by the side of her parents house cum hotel. It is further alleged that about one month prior to the date of offence, the marriage of Shaikjani Begum, daughter of A-2 and A-3 was performed with one Madar Saheb of Relakayalapalli. But she could not adjust and lead marital life with her husband and returned to her grand parents house on 20- 11-1994. On coming to know about the same, A-2 and A-3 who were residing at Palvancha, came to Khammam, on 22-11- 1994 to ask their daughter, Jani Begum regarding the reasons for her return from her husband's house and to sent her back to Relakayalapalli to her in laws house. Thereafter, Shaik Jani Begum, went away from the house and did not return. When questioned, the deceased Shaik Khader Bee did not disclose as to where their daughter had been to. Thereupon, A-1 to A-4 picked up quarrel, suspecting that she might have sent away. They insisted her to tell about the whereabouts of their daughter. At about 8.00 p.m. when she was asked to disclose the whereabouts of Jani Begum, the deceased replied that Shaik Jani Begum went away with her boy friend as she did not like her husband Madarsaheb. On this A-1 to A-4 became wild, abused the deceased alleging that she was responsible for Jani Begum's leading immoral life and she did not give proper advice to her by sending her to her husband's house at Relakayalapalli, and in a sudden provocation, on the instigation of A-2 to A-4, A-1 picked up a kerosene lamp and threw on the deceased,, and as a result of which, the saree of the deceased caught fire. She sustained 70% of burn injuries and immediately the father of the deceased put off the flames took her to Khammam Police Station, where P.W. 11 the Sub-Inspector of Police, recorded her oral statement. Thereupon, he registered it as a case in Cr. No. 179/94 for the offence u/s. 307 IPC and took up investigation. The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Khammam, where she was admitted. P.W. 9, the Special Judicial Magistrate, of I Class, Khammam, recorded her dying declaration on the very same night, under Ex.P-10. On 24-11-1994 death intimation under Ex.P-5 was given by P.W. 5 to the II Town Police Station, Khammam. Basing on Ex.P-5 information , Ex.P-12 FIR has been altered from Section 307, IPC to 304II, IPC under Ex.P 15 alteration memo. Thereafter inquest was held over the body of the deceased in presence of P. W. 6 inquest panchayatdar under Ex.P-6 inquest report. P.W 8 Dr. K. Satyanarayana Reddy, the then Medical Officer, conducted post mortem examiantion over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death was due to extensive burns on the body and issued Ex.P-8 post mortem certificate. P.W. 11 took up invetigation, after registering Ex.P-12 FIR by P.W. 10 the Head Constable who recorded the statements of witnesses, and on receipt of death intimation from P.W. 5, he altered the FIR Ex.P- 12 from Section 307, to 304- Part II under Ex.P-15 alteration memo. Later, the Circle Inspector of Police .charge sheeted the accused for the offence under Section 302, IPC against A-l and under Section 302 r/w 34, IPC against A2 to A4.

(3.) The plea of the accused is one of total denial for the respective charges.