PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A P HYDERABAD Vs. MIRZA AMLAD BAIG
LAWS(APH)-2008-2-65
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 07,2008

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD Appellant
VERSUS
MIRZA AMJAD BAIG Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)IN SC No. 503 of 1998, the Court of the v Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad tried the respondent herein for the offences under sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of the Indian penal Code (IPC ). Through its judgment dated 13. 3. 2001, the trial Court acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 302 ipc, but convicted him of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A ipc. Sentences of seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 304-B IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 498-A IPC were imposed. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. State preferred this appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent herein of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
(2.)THE deceased by name Arun jyothi was married to the respondent herein. It is said to be a love marriage. The parents of the deceased initially had reservations about it, but, thereafter, they reconciled to the marriage. The deceased started complaining that the appellant was harassing her with a demand to bring money for purchasing of an auto rickshaw and her parents expressed their inability to comply with the demand. The appellant and the deceased were residing in the same locality where P. W. 1 was also residing. The couple had a male child out of the wedlock.
(3.)ON 19. 11. 1997 the deceased was said to have come to the house of her mother-P. W. 1 at 11. 30 p. m. , complaining that the respondent beat her severely and that she intends to sleep in the house. At that time, P. W. 2, the sister of the deceased was also there. At about 12 'o' clock in the mid night, the appellant is said to have knocked the door of the house of P. W. 1 and when he was questioned as to why he beat the deceased, he was said to have replied that he did not beat her and promised not to harass her any more. The door was opened and at the request of the respondent, P. Ws. l and 2 moved to a different place in the same premises, to ensure privacy of the respondent and the deceased. Within ten minutes thereafter, the deceased is said to have come out crying, engulfed in flames. P. W. 1 wrapped her in a blanket and put off the flames with the help of the neighbours. When asked about the reason, deceased said to have informed that the respondent brought two persons to the house on that night and insisted that she must sleep with them. He is also said to have informed that they would get Rs. l,000/- from the and unable to bear the pressure, she has come to the house of P. W. 1. She is said to have informed them that the respondent poured kerosene and set her on fire. The respondent is said to have run away from the spot.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.