STATE Vs. FAZAL HUSSAIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal Acquittal Appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of judgment dated 22.02.2005 by which the respondents have been acquitted in respect of offences under Sections 302/498-A/34 of RPC. It is pertinent to mention at the outset that during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No. 1, namely Fazal Hussain, father-in-law and respondent No. 3, namely Mst. Shaheen Akhter, sister-in-law of the deceased have expired. Thus, the appeal survives only against respondent No. 2, namely Mst. Safail Bano, mother-in-law of the deceased.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that deceased Gulseem Akhter made a statement before the police authorities on 26.02.2000 that she was married to one Barkat Hussain two years ago and out of the wedlock, one child was born, who was about 10 months old. It was further stated that her mother-in-law told her that she has done black magic on her daughter which was denied by her. On the next day, when she got up in the morning and when her husband had gone to answer the call of nature, her mother-in-law started fighting with her and thereafter, her mother-in-law caught hold of her and poured kerosene oil on her and her sister-in-law also caught hold of her and her mother-in-law set her ablaze. The husband extinguished the fire and advised her not to take his mother's name and he will provide the medical treatment to her. The aforesaid incident took place on 06.02.2000 and the victim Gulseem Akhter expired in the hospital on 02.03.2000. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the police carried out the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the respondents. The trial Court vide impugned judgment has acquitted the respondents of the offences alleged against them.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Mohd Gani PW-1, Javid Iqbal PW 2, Haji Mohd Farooq PW-3, Dr. Mehmood Hussain, PW4 and Dr. Seema Abrol PW-5. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the instant case two, dying declarations were recorded by the Investigating Officer. The 1st dying declaration was recorded on 06.02.2000, whereas the 2nd dying declaration was recoded by the Investigating Officer on 26.02.2000. In the 1st dying declaration, the deceased had not implicated the respondents, whereas in the 2nd dying declaration, she named the respondents.