SHAIK MASTAN BEE Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the accused in Sessions Case No. 761 of 1997 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ananthapur. The accused has been convicted of the offence a/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

(2.) The accused was charged with an offence under Section 302 IPC on the basis of the allegations that on the intervening night of 3/4-3-1997 at about 3.30 a.m. in her house at Kalavagadda street, Tadpatri she committed the murder of her daughter-in- law Shaik Vaheeda Bee by pouring kerosene over her and set fire to her. The accused leaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents.

(3.) P.W. 1 is the mother of the deceased. The stated that the deceased was married to one Shailk Baba Vali and the accused is his onother. Her daughter died three years before. At the time of marriage she had given six rulas of gold to her daughter and a cash of Rs. 5,000 /-, gold ring and watch to her son- in-law. The deceased did not have a child, The relationship between the deceased and he accused who is her mother-in-law was cordial and amicable. The house of the witness and the house of the accused are situated in the same locality. On the night of occurrence around 3.00 a.m. some one came find informed the witness that her daughter /aheeda Bee sustained burn injuries. She ilong with her husband Khader Ali and her ister Sarabee went to the house of the accused where they were informed that her daughter was unable to bear the stomach pain and therefore she committed suicide by pouring cerosene over herself and setting herself on wire. She was examined by the police. Her on-in-law Shaik Baba Vali was present in the house of the accused and he had also eceived burn injuries on his fore head while extinguishing the flames. This witness was leclared hostile. She denied having made a tatement to police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.P-1. She also denied that she had become hostile and resiled from her earlier tatement because she had compromised the matter with the accused. In her cross- examination by defence she stated that by the time of occurrence her daughter and her son-in-law were living in a separate house and the accused and her husband were living in another house. In the early hours her daughter had sustained burn injuries. She also stated that while going to hospital along with the deceased, her husband had asked her daughter to say that her mother-in-law had poured kerosene over her and had set fire to her. She and her younger sister had tutored the deceased on the same lines on which she was tutored by her father. On recross-examination by the Public Prosecutor she stated, "It is not true to suggest that we have not tutored our deceased daughter to tell against her mother-in-law as now deposed by me, but for the purpose of accommodating the accused I am now intentionally obliging the defence by saying as we tutored the deceased to give false statement against her mother-in-law (accused)".