ABDUL MAJID ALIAS RAJU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30. 01. 1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur convicting the appellant Abdul Majid for offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted for offence under Section 498a I. P. C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default of payment to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated that prosecution case is that on 18. 6. 1995, P. W. 12 Chandan Singh, Incharge, Police Station, Soorsagar, Jodhpur at about 6:45 P. M. received a telephonic message from Mahatma Gandhi Hospital to the effect that Mst. Jarina has been admitted in the Hospital with 90% burn. He reached to the Hospital and found Smt. Jarina wife of Abdul Majid alias Raju admitted on Bed No. 5 of the Burn Unit. He submitted an application Ex. P. 13 addressed to the duty doctor to certify if Mst. Jarina was in a fit condition to give statement. P. W. 13 Dr. Pankaj made an endorsement on the application that `patient was fit for statement. ' He also certified that the patient was conscious. The said endorsement was made at 7:15 P. M. P. W. 12 Chandan Singh proceeded to record her statement at 7:53 P. M. Mst. Jarina stated that she was married to the appellant 8 years back. Since then she continuously stayed in her in-laws house. From the wed lock, she bore three children. Her husband used to harass her. He also suspected her fidelity. On 18. 6. 95 in the after noon at about 3:00 P. M. , her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-laws Mst. Chhoti and Shamim were taking food in the room. At that time, the appellant asked her to leave him and go to her parents house. While she entered into room near the gate, the appellant poured kerosene oil on her and lit match stick with a view to kill her and ran away. Hearing her cries, sister-in-law Shamim got water in a bucket and tried to extinguish fire. Number of people from the neighbourhood had also collected. Her clothes were burnt. Her mother-in-law, sister-in-laws took her to hospital in a loading taxi. She also stated that the kerosene oil was in a plastic jerrycane. On the basis of said statement of Smt. Jarina Ex. P10 the police registered F. I. R. Ex. P. 15. Mst. Jarina died on 19. 6. 95 at 12:15 A. M. On her death, police added the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. The police prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the appellant for offence under Section 302, 498a I. P. C.

(3.) P. W. 1 Abdul Salam son of Abdul Hakim, P. W. 2 Abdul Salam son of Maula Bux are the formal witnesses of police memos. P. W. 3 Noor Bano is the mother of the deceased Jarina. She stated that her daughter Jarina was married to the appellant about 8 years back. As per their capacity utensils and other things were given. How- ever, the appellant used to harass her. He used to suspect her fidelity. Out of said wedlock three children were born. He used to make false allegations against her daughter. He even went to the extent of saying that children were of some body else. Many times after thrashing, she was turned out from the house. She used to narrate misbehaviour of the appellant. However, she used to sent her back considering that everything will be settled up with passage of time. About 7-8 days prior to the incident, she complained that she has a danger to her life. She did not take it seriously as they were living together for the last eight years. On receiving the information about the incident, she went to the Mahatama Gandhi Hospital and found her daughter in burn condition. Her daughter Jarina also told her that appellant Abdul Majid gave her beating and then poured kerosene oil on her and lit fire. She also stated that fire was extingui- shed by the neighbours and some of the family members. Inspite of lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. P. W. 4 Mst. Chhoti, P. W. 5 Jamna Devi, P. W. 6 Shukriya, P. W. 7 Saidi and P. W. 8 Shamim have not supported the prosecution case and as such they have been declared hostile.