This was about 1/4 furlong from her own house.
The accused respondent was charged under Section 302 IPC for having companymitted murder of his wife Muneera Begum by pouring Kerosene on her body and setting her on fire in his house at about 4.00 a.m. on July 24, 1986.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that the marriage of the accused with Muneera Begum took place about 10 years back from the date of the incident and thereafter they lived in the house of Madar Shariff, the elder brother of the accused.
She also stated that she tried to raise an alarm but the accused placed a cloth over her mouth.
Thereafter in the presence of the Doctor he recorded her statement which is fairly a detailed one.
He examined the injuries of the deceased and admitted her for treatment and a memo was sent to Victoria Hospital Police Station.
After examining her he made the necessary entries in the Accident Register and the relevant extract of the same have been proved by the witness as Exh.
Shri Jain has further submitted that at any rate this was a case in which two views were possible and the High Court having taken a view in favour of the accused and having acquitted him, it will number be proper for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and to companyvict the accused.
Jaina Bi and her son PW 2 Syed Akbar deceaseds elder brother came rushing and saw that Muneera Begum had sustained burn injuries and the accused was also present there.
The police at Habbagodi helped them in arranging a jeep on which Muneera Begum was taken to Victoria hospital, Bangalore where she was admitted at about 9.30 a.m. and was examined by PW 12 Dr. KM Nagabhushan.
The deceased informed him that her husband had tied her hands and legs, poured kerosene and had set her on fire.
The learned Sessions Judge has held that looking to the age of PW3 Rasheed and some statements made by him in his cross examination, it would be unsafe to companyclusively rely on his testimony that he saw his father standing in the house when the body of his mother was burning.
Another statement of the deceased was recorded on 26th July, 1986.
After the birth of the third child, the accused used to companyplain that the food items in the house were getting exhausted very quickly.
The deceased was making agarbattis in her house to make some extra money.
PW 6 Abdul Razak resides in the premises of the mosque in the same village.
The deceased Muneera Begum gave birth to three children and the elder one PW3 Rasheed was aged about 8 or 9 years.
She alongwith her husband and children slept in the house on July 24, 1986 and at about 4.00 a.m. in the morning her husband picked up a quarrel and asked about some more money.
The accused was working as a labourer and was earning his livelihood by breaking the stones.
The most important evidence in this case is the series of statements given by deceased Muneera Begum to different persons on several occasions.
On the factum of incident the prosecution examined PW 3 Rasheed who is the son of the accused respondent and was aged about 8 9 years at the time of the incident.
He has stated that his father used to beat his mother almost everyday.
PW 7 Baknu is another brother of the deceased and was working in Hosur stone quarry.
The High Court did number examine the testimony of this witness carefully and we find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by it.
CVS RS NAD Answers well to the question and orientation was good.
Similar statement has been given by PW 2 Syed Akbar and PW 7 Baknu who are the elder brothers of the deceased and PW 6 Abdul Razak, a resident of the same village.
He went there and found Muneera Begum in burnt companydition and when he inquired as to how it had happened, she told that her husband had tied her hands and legs, poured kerosene and brunt her.
He was the first doctor to examine her when she reached there at 9.30 a.m. The witness has clearly stated that the deceased gave her own statement with regard to the history and stated that she sustained burn injuries when her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire on the same day at 4.00 a.m. He recorded all these facts in the Accident Register and relevant extract of the same has been brought on record and has been proved by him as Ex.
He used to beat the deceased quite often.
He has stated that when he was returning from the mosque at 6.00 a.m. after finishing the prayers, he saw a crowd near the house of the accused.
He immediately ran to his maternal uncles house to call him.
PW 11 BK Krishnappa, ASI then came to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased on the same day.
The accused started ill treating his wife after the birth of the third child and a Panchayat was held wherein he was asked to behave properly and look after his wife.
Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, who appeared Amicus Curiae for the accused respondent, has submitted that the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution was wholly untrustworthy and in the facts and circumstances of the case the dying declarations of the deceased companyld number be relied upon and, therefore, the High Court was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused respondent.
Her husband was working as a labourer and she was also making some money by making agarbattis.
PW 1 Jaina Bi is the mother of the deceased, Muneera Begum.
The prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses and filed some documents.
P12 and the same reads as under Patient says that she sustained burn injuries when her husband Shariff thrown kerosene oil over her body in her house and put fire to it on 24.7.86 at 4.00 a.m. There was a quarrel between her and her husband for the last two days.
Then he poured kerosene oil over her and set her on fire.
At the same time placing reliance upon the testimony of PW 1 Jaina Bi and PW 2 Syed Akbar that it was PW 3 Rasheed who had gone and informed them about the incident, he has held that it would be reasonable to hold that PW 1 and PW2 went to the spot only after learning from PW3 about this incident.
PW 12 Dr. K.M. Nagabhushan was posted as Assistant Surgeon in the aforesaid hospital and was working as Casualty Medical Officer on July 24, 1986.
On examination patient is companyscious.
The appeal preferred by the accused was allowed by the High Court and his companyviction and sentence was set aside.
She had made a companyplaint at police station and the police warned him to behave properly.
PW 2 Syed Akbar has stated that his nephew PW 3 Rasheed came to his house at about 6.00 a.m. on July 24, 1986 and informed him that his father had burnt his mother.
About two months before the occurrence, the deceased went to her maternal uncles house on account of ill treatment of her husband.
The accused then approached the members of the Panchayat for bringing her back.
In this statement also she stated that for the last two years the accused was abusing and beating her.
He woke up in the early morning and saw that his mother was burning in fire and his father was standing there.
He then immediately rushed to the house of his sister and inquired what had happened and then she said that her husband had tied her hands and legs, companyered her mouth and after pouring kerosene had set her on fire.
He has stated that Muneera Begum was brought to the hospital at about 9.30 a.m. with burn injuries by her brother Syed Akbar.
He sought permission from PW 5 Dr. Rangarajan, who was on duty, to record the statement of Muneera Begum.
Thereafter his grandmother PW 1 Jaina Bi and maternal uncle PW 2 Syed Akbar came to his house.
In order to companysider the companytentions raised by the learned companynsel for the parties, we will briefly refer to the evidence on record.
A Panchayat was held in the village wherein the accused was asked to treat his wife properly.
The other important piece of evidence against the accused is that of dying declarations and the most important one is that which was made by her to PW 12 Dr. KM Nagbhushan, Assistant Surgeon in the Victoria Hospital, Bangalore.
In this regard companyplaints were made at the Police Station and also with the Panchayat of the village who called the accused and asked him to behave properly.
His statement shows that after receiving a memo from PW 12 Dr. Nagabhushan that Muneera Begum was admitted in the hospital with burn injuries, he made the necessary entry in the general diary and went to the hospital.
Thereafter he poured kerosene on her and set her on fire by a matchstick.
PW 11 BK Krishnappa was ASI Victoria Hospital Police Station.
Muneera Begum was then taken to the Mission hospital in Habbagodi but the doctors advised that she should be taken to Victoria Hospital in Bangalore.
At about 4.00 a.m. on July 24, 1986 the accused started quarreling with his wife and demanded money which she had earned sometime back by selling agarbattis.
In the night his brother, sister and parents slept in the house.
She further stated that accused picked up a quarrel on July 24, 1986, tied her hands and legs and thereafter poured kerosene and set her on fire.
These two dying declarations were recorded in the presence of PW 5 Dr. Rangarajan who was Assistant Surgeon in the Victoria Hospital at the relevant time.
On July 21, 1986 she had given Rs.100/ to him.
According to his statement he received information about the incident at about 8 Oclock and thereafter he reached Victoria Hospital the same night.
Pulse 86/minute.
The High Court has companypletely discarded the testimony of PW 3.
The testimony of these witnesses establishes the fact that the accused had numberlove or affection for his wife and had been ill treating her for quite some time.
He went to Victoria Hospital on the same day and after obtaining permission from PW 5 Dr. Rangarajan, recorded the statement of Muneera Begum which is Ex.
She tried to scream but her husband gagged her mouth by a cloth.
Shri M. Veerappa, learned companynsel appearing for the State of Karnataka has assailed the judgment and order of the High Court and has submitted that the prosecution had adduced reliable evidence to establish its case and the High Court has erred in discarding the testimony of the witnesses and also several dying declarations of the deceased which were reliable and trustworthy and the reasons given for acquitting the accused are wholly perverse and companytrary to settled principles of law.
She companyld number raise any alarm as the accused companyered her mouth with a cloth.
He took over investigation of the case on July 26, 1986.
In her statement she gave details about the past companyduct and behaviour of her husband leading to an earlier companyplaint at police station against him.
The deceased was thereafter virtually forced to companye back and to start living with her husband.
This statement Ex.
She however succumbed to her injuries on July 31, 1986.
PW 14 Kumar Swamy was posted as PSI at Anekal Police Station.
Brought by Akbar brother Kerosene smell over the body of the patient.
There is absolutely numberreason to discard the testimony of PW 12, who is a responsible government servant.
She gave her own statement with regard to the incident and stated that she sustained burn injuries when her husband poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire in his house at about 4.00 a.m. He has further stated that on examination he found her to be companyscious and was answering the questions properly and her orientation was good.
The dying declaration has been quoted in extenso in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and it is therefore number necessary to reproduce the same here.
PW 3 Rasheed son of the accused saw the incident and ran to the house of his maternal grandmother PW 1 Jaina Bi, who lived at a short distance away.
She has stated that she had given a small piece of land to the accused where he had companystructed a house and was living with his family.
After companypleting the investigation the Police submitted charge sheet against the accused respondent and in due companyrse the case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions.
Sometime thereafter the parents in law of the accused gave him a site in the same village where he built a house and started living there.
MATHUR,J. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by State against the judgment and order dated March 28,1989 of High Court of Karnataka by which the appeal preferred by the accused respondent Shariff was allowed and the judgment and order dated February 6, 1987 of Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, by which he had been companyvicted under Section 302 IPC and had been sentenced to imprisonment for life was set aside.
Besides above two other dying declarations were recorded by Sub Inspectors of Police Station Victoria Hospital and Anekal Police Station on July 24, 1986 and July 26, 1986 respectively.
