- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 1990 whereby the High Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated 07.12.1990 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge at Kolhapur against the appellant herein.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under: (a) On 26.01.1989, Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh (A1) - the appellant-accused married one Hasina Mustafa Shaikh (since deceased) at Tembalalwadi, Dist. Kolhapur, Maharashtra. After marriage, Hasina was staying with the appellant in her matrimonial home at Ujalawadi Taluka Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur, Maharashtra. On 23.08.1989, when she was at her matrimonial home, she committed suicide by consuming poison. She was taken to CPR Hospital at Kolhapur where the doctor declared that she was brought dead. The appellant and his parents informed about her death to her family members. (b) On the same day, Abdul Rahim Shaikh (PW-4) the grand-father of the deceased lodged an F. I. R. at Karveer Police Station, Kohlapur alleging torture and harassment faced by the deceased on account of demand for dowry. On the basis of the said report, C. P. No. 186/89 (Exh. 20) was registered against the appellant and his family members for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). (c) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions Case No. 7 of 1990 and A-1 Husband, A-2 Father, A-3 Mother, A-4 sister-in-law were arrayed as accused nos. 1 to 4. During the trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked several documents. By order dated 07.12.1990, the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, while acquitting the sister (A-4) of the appellant herein, convicted the appellant and his parents for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer RI for 1 year along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to further under RI for 6 months and RI for 7 years respectively. (d) Being aggrieved, the appellant and his parents preferred Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 1990 before the High Court of Bombay. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the parents (A-2 and A-3) of the appellant expired and the appeal against them stood abated. By the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2007, the High Court dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant. (e) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
(3.) Heard Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel for the appellant- accused and Mr. Sachin J. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent-State. Discussion: ;