The Bombay high court has upheld the conviction of a man who stabbed his wife of 17 years as she failed to get Rs50,000 from her parents for construction of a new house. Apart from independent witnesses, the couple's son had testified against the father. They have two sons.
Justice KU Chandiwal and Justice VM Deshpande of the Aurangabad bench of the high court upheld the conviction of Sayyed Sultan who stabbed his wife, Rizwanbee, six times at her maternal home.
The high court was hearing an appeal filed by Sayyed against the verdict of the sessions court at Hingoli. The sessions court convicted him for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
A complaint was lodged by Rizwanbee's father, Shaikh Ibrahim, alleging that Sultan and his family harassed his daughter for Rs50,000. Rizwanbee had gone to visit her parents' in August 2010.
According to prosecution, on August 9, 2010, Sultan, his father Sayyed Razzak and his nephew Sayyed Mujib went on a motorcycle to her maternal house. Rizwanbee, who was cooking inside, came out and served water to the trio. At the time, Sayyed stabbed her. When Ibrahim and his wife, Jubedabee, tried to intervene, Razzak and Mujib held them back, argued additional public prosecutor PN Mule.
Rizwanbee was rushed to the nearby civil hospital where she was declared dead.
Defence counsel Joydeep Chatterji argued that the incident was magnified by the witnesses and it was in the spur of the moment that Sultan inflicted the blows. Therefore, at the most, Sultan can be tried for offence punishable under section 304 part I or II of the Indian Penal Code, which is culpable homicide. Maximum punishment under the section 304 is 10 years in prison. Mule countered by saying that evidence of all eye witnesses cannot be brushed aside as events have taken place in the house, where Sultan went with a calculated mindset carrying a knife, a deadly weapon, and brutally assaulted his wife.
Even their son testified that he had seen his father wash his blood-stained hands. He didn't inquire with his father, but was horrified when he went into the other room and saw his mother lying in pool of blood.
Prosecution examined independent witnesses who had seen Sultan and his relatives enter Ibrahim's house with a knife.
"The survey of evidence does not primarily indicate that it has been magnified by the witnesses. It also cannot be said that the events were a result of spur of the moment. Mindset of the appellant in inflicting repeated knife blows is quite clear," observed the high court.
The judges even disagreed with the defence argument that the witnesses were relatives and neighbours of Rizwanbee and hence were bound to be biased. "It is a settled legal position that even if witnesses were close relatives of the deceased, their evidence should not be brushed aside. The Court is expected to scrutinize such evidence with caution. One cannot skip factual scenario in the present case," observed the judges..
As the incident occurred in the house, there cannot be outside witnesses. The court added: "The events of assault in such normal situation cannot be expected to be witnessed by outsiders; however, two outsiders have incidentally seen the appellant-accused entering, exit with a knife in his hand. Consequently, evidence of eye witnesses cannot be simply brushed aside owing to their relations."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}