Shaik Maqbul and Others vs The State

G. Narendra, J.—The petitioners before this Court are the father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased named Yasmin @ Fathima w/o. Sheik Mathin.

Complaint is registered based on the dying declaration/last statement of the deceased on 30.8.2015. The respondent/police have made it the basis for registration of Crime No. 322/2015 dated 30.8.2015 (FIR No. 415/2015) whereby the complaint was registered against one Karima Kaleema Begum, the first accused and mother-in-law of the deceased, Shek Maqbul who is the first petitioner herein, Kheejar, the second petitioner herein and Malan Bee, who is the third petitioner herein.

The case of the de facto complainant is that she was married to one Sheik Mathin about eight years ago and out of the said marriage, they have begotten three children. Her husband was working in a hotel and they were living happily and especially her relationship with her husband was very cordial, but the accused being the mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in law have been creating trouble for her, every now and then picking up quarrels for one reason or the other and they used to abuse her using unparliamentary language which was causing her severe mental trauma and physical agony; that they used to tutor her husband not to have a cordial relationship with the deceased and that she has intimated her parents with regard to the developments at the matrimonial home and that her elder brothers viz. Tajuddin, Baba and Ghousoddin have come down to the matrimonial house and advised her in laws from continuing with such illegal activities. Despite their advice the accused persons failed to heed to the same and it is stated in the complaint that the first accused was always complaining that the deceased was not preparing good food and that on 29.8.2015 when the third petitioner herein visited the house, the same quarrel arose wherein the deceased was abused by the first accused for having failed to prepare tasty food for which she is said to have retorted to her mother-in-law. Angered by the said retort of the deceased the first accused took the kerosene can and emptied its contents on to the deceased and as the deceased was standing near the stove, she caught fire and at that moment, her father-in-law and brother-in-law, who were present there, have rushed to her aid and both of them poured water and it is further detailed in the statement that the father-in- law has taken a blanket, wrapped it around her, extinguished the fire and they took her to the hospital in an autorickshaw. The deceased has further stated that whenever the third petitioner visited the parental home, the intensity of the quarrel grew and she was the root cause for this incident. On these allegations the respondent police have registered the FIR for the offences under Sections 498A, 307, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a reading of the complaint, even if it is to be taken as a dying declaration, as the deceased passed away shortly thereafter, does not reveal any criminal act on the part of the petitioners herein, more specifically with regard to petitioners 1 and 2. He would in fact state that apart from a generalised statement that these accused were quarrelsome, it is nowhere stated nor is it the case of the police that these petitioners ever even attempted to assault the deceased on any occasion. He would submit that the incident is more an accident and there was no intention on the part of any one to do away with the life of the deceased. He would further submit that, assuming that the statement is true in all aspects, even then it reveals that it is the first accused who had proactively held the can and poured kerosene on the deceased and as she was standing opposite the stove, it resulted in her getting ignited and suffered burns which ultimately proved to be fatal. He would further submit that the very conduct of the petitioners in not only attempting to put off the flames but thereafter taking her from one hospital to another to secure the best treatment would show the absence of any mens rea to take away or do away with the life of the deceased. He would also submit that the deceased more especially the third petitioner is married and living away from the family and that she never interfered with the affairs of the family of her brother and as a matter of right as it is in the case of every daughter, she would visit her parental home if and when there was any necessity. He would submit that the second petitioner, who is the brother-in-law has actively taken part to save her life. There are no allegations alleging any specific overt act to either of the petitioners. He would also state that the first petitioner is aged nearly 60 years and even at that advanced age he has made all attempts to save the life of his daughter-in-law. He would further submit that the third petitioner is already married to one Sheik Maqbul and is a resident of Choudri, Aurad Taluk of Latur Dist. which is about 80 kms from her parental home and hence it has to be presumed that the complaint to the police is only out of spite for no fault of hers. He would also submit that the second petitioner is an youngster aged 22 years eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work. He would state that the first and the second petitioner are absolutely innocent of the offences alleged against them and he would pray that they be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent/police.

Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that a heinous crime has been committed as a result of which the life of a person, who was in the prime of youth, has been snuffed out. He would also submit that it has resulted in three children loosing their mother, whose love and affection is very necessary for their upbringing. He would submit that the deceased has clearly stated that the petitioners were always quarrelsome and were always taunting the deceased with pin-tricks by criticising the food that was prepared by her.

In view of the above said contentions, what is to be considered is, whether the petitioners herein are entitled for the relief of bail, as prayed for by them?

It is an undisputed fact as a result of the incident that occurred on 29.8.2015, the complainant lost her life and she passed away on 30.8.2015. The complaint is based on the version of the deceased herself and it has been recorded before she passed away. Assuming that the complainant has spoken the wholesome truth, the said complaint does not reveal any criminal act against any of the accused persons/petitioners herein. The only allegation, which could be called or which could be referred to as an ''illegal act'' or an ''illegality'' under the scope of Section 498A of the Cr.P.C. is that of taunting regarding the quality of food prepared by the deceased. That apart, it is seen even as per the statement of the deceased herself, it is accused 2 and 3 i.e. petitioners 1 and 2 herein, who not only doused the fire but also carried her to the various hospitals to ensure immediate treatment. In that view of the matter, prima facie this court is of the opinion that the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled to the relief as prayed for by them herein. It is also clarified from the learned HCGP that there are no criminal antecedents nor are they involved in any criminal activity and as a result, the following order is passed:--

"7. The Criminal petition is allowed with the following conditions:--

i) The petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest by respondent/police subject to the condition that they shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and furnish two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without any prior intimation of the Investigating Officer;

iii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday at 10.00 a.m. for the next five weeks commencing from 16.12.2015 and thereafter they shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon by a written notice."

Ordered accordingly.