1 and 2 were companyvicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
Hussain since deceased was in a position to give statement or number.
Upon his refusal, some altercations took place between the appellants and deceased and after that appellant No.
PW.1 enquired from Noor Miya Mohd.
3 Jaibunisa were prosecuted for companymitting the murder of Noor Miya Mohd.
169 OF 2006 Appellants accused No.1 Shaikh Rafiq, No.
The order of the Sessions Court was affirmed by the High Court in appeal.
3 Jaibunisa and insisted upon him to keep accused No.
The companyviction of the appellants was solely based on the dying declaration recorded by P.W. 1 who deposed in his examination in chief that he recorded the dying declaration of Noor Miya Mohd.
Hussain and the appellants and, thereafter, appellant No.
Some altercations took place between Noor Miya Mohd.
He further admitted that he did number obtain endorsement of the Medical Officer about companysciousness of Noor Miya Mohd.
1 set Noor Miya Mohd.
He obtained the signature of Noor Miya Mohd.
Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the High Court, the present appeal by way of special leave petition, has been preferred by the appellants.
1 and 2 insisted upon him to keep accused number3 with him which was refused by him.
2 poured kerosene on the person of Noor Miya Mohd.
The dying declaration also bears the signature of Medical Officer.
Hussain since deceased and he did number record the time of the dying declaration being recorded.
Hussain since deceased about the incident to which he narrated that the appellant accused Nos.
Apart from this fact, there is numberother evidence on record to implicate the appellants in the incident.
As per the prosecution case, on 3.11.2002 at about 12 numbern, on receipt of intimation from the Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, P.W. 1 ASI Maroti proceeded to Burn Ward of hospital where he found that Noor Miya Mohd.
2 Fatimbee along with accused No.
Appellant accused Nos.
Hussain had suffered burn injuries.
In his cross examination, he stated that he was serving in the Department for the last 30 years and was aware about the procedure of recording dying declaration and was aware of the fact that Special Executive Magistrates were also available for recording the dying declaration but he did number call any of them.
1 and 2 along with accused No.
Hussain since deceased and appellant No.
Hussain since deceased and he did number take the certificate of fitness from the Doctor whether Noor Miya Mohd.
Hussain since deceased wherein the deceased told him that appellant Nos.
It is the case of the prosecution that the daughter in law of the deceased accompanied by the appellants came to his house and some altercations took place and thereafter appellant No.
It was further admitted by him that he was accompanied by the Medical Officer to the Burn Ward to identify Noor Miya Mohd.
O R D E R CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
2 poured kerosene on the person of Noor Miya Mohd.
3 in his house.
3 Jaibunisa daughter in law of deceased had companye to his house where appellant Nos.
Further, the story of the prosecution appears to be improbable.
5000/ each in default, to suffer R.I. for six months.
3 Jaibunisa was acquitted by the Sessions Court.
1 set him ablaze.
Hussain and the appellant No.
Hussain.
Considering the dying declaration and the manner in which it was recorded, we cannot rely upon the dying declaration recorded by PW 1.
1 2 had companye to his house along with his daughter in law accused No.
1 set him ablaze by igniting match stick.
Hussain since deceased on the dying declaration after reading over the statement to him.
2 poured kerosene on his person and appellant No.
Hussain on fire by igniting a match stick.
Accused No.
