Cri. Acq. Appeal No. 02 of 2010. Case: State of J. and K. and Ors. Vs Abdul Hameed Malik and Anr. Jammu and Kashmir High Court
|Case Number:||Cri. Acq. Appeal No. 02 of 2010|
|Party Name:||State of J. and K. and Ors. Vs Abdul Hameed Malik and Anr|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Nisar H. Shah, AAG.|
|Judges:||Mohammad Yaqoob Mir and Bansi Lal Bhat, JJ.|
|Issue:||indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Section 300; Evidence Act (1 of 1872) - Section 32|
|Citation:||2016 CriLJ 587|
|Judgement Date:||September 11, 2015|
|Court:||Jammu and Kashmir High Court|
Bansi Lal Bhat, J.
Aggrieved of the judgment of acquittal formulated by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar, on 4-11-2009 in Sessions case titled State v. Abdul Hameed Malik and another in FIR No. 73/2005 of Police Station, Sadder, for the offences under sections 302, 498-A and 120-B, Ranbir Penal Code, the State has preferred the instant acquittal appeal assailing the impugned judgment on the ground that finding of innocence recorded by the trial Court is erroneous as the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial has not been correctly appreciated and no credit has been attached to the dying declaration of the deceased which was reliable and trustworthy.
The factual matrix unfolding prosecution version is that on 16-4-2005, appellant-Abdul Hameed Malik allegedly poured kerosene oil on Mst. Shaheena and set her ablaze. The deceased happened to be his sister-in-law. The deceased was making tea for respondent No. 1 in her kitchen at that time. She was removed to hospital with serious burn injuries by her husband Hilal Ahmad Katju. She was admitted in SMHS Hospital, Srinagar, with sixty per cent burn injuries covering her arms, chest, abdomen and other parts of the body. Her vain battle for survival proved abortive and she succumbed to her burn injuries on 17-7-2005. According to prosecution her dying declaration was recorded on 17-4-2005 after she was declared medically fit to make a statement. Based upon her dying declaration, charge under section 307, RPC was converted into charge under sections 302, 498-A and 120-B, RPC. Respondents, Abdul Hameed Malik and Mst. Khatji were put on trial after they pleaded not guilty to aforesaid charges. Prosecution appears to have exhausted whole list of witnesses at the trial to bring home the guilt to the accused. No evidence was adduced in defence. On consideration of evidence adduced by prosecution at the trial, the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment.
We have been taken through the record of the trial Court and we have also heard Mr. N. H. Shah, learned Additional Advocate General at length.
PWs Zahoor Ahmad, Abdul Karim, Mohammad Yousuf and Mymoona Khalid are the star witnesses of prosecution, who are cited as eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence. We have minutely gone through their depositions before the trial Court. None of them has deposed that the deceased had nominated the respondents or either of them in setting her ablaze. These witnesses are...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL