The Bombay high court has upheld conviction of a man who stabbed his wife of 17 years as she failed to get Rs 50,000 from her parents for constructionof a new house. Apart from independent witnesses, their son had testified against the father. Justices KU Chandiwal and VM Deshpande of the Aurangabad bench of HC upheld the conviction of Sayyed Razzak who stabbed his wife six times at her maternal home. They were married for 17 years and had two sons.
The HC was hearing an appeal filed by Sayyed against theverdict of sessions court at Hingoli. The sessions court convicted him formurder and sentenced him to life imprisonment Complaint was lodged by Rizwanbee's father, Shaikh Ibrahim,alleging that Sayyed and his family harassed his daughter for getting Rs 50,000from her parents for construction of new house. Rizwanbee had gone to visit her parents' in August 2010.
According to prosecution, on August 9, 2010, Sayyed, his father Sayyed Razzakand his nephew Sayyed Mujib went on motorcycle to her matrimonial 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, arguedadditional public prosecutor PN Mule.
She was rushed to nearby civil hospital where she wasdeclared dead. Defence counsel Joydeep Chatterji argued that the incident wasmagnified by the witnesses and it was spur of moment that Sayyed inflictedblows. Therefore, at the most, Sayyed can be tried for offence punishable undersection 304 part I or II of the Indian Penal Code which is culpable homicide. Maximumpunishment under the section 304 is 10 years.
Mule countered saying that evidence of all eye witnessescannot be brushed aside as events have taken place in the house, where Sayyed bargedwith calculated mind set carrying knife, a deadly weapon, and brutallyassaulted his wife.
Even their son testified that he had seen his father comehome and wash his hands which were blood stained. He didn't inquire with his father,but was horrified when he went in the other room and saw his mother lying inpool of blood. Prosecution examined independent witnesses who had seen Sayyedand his relatives enter Ibrahim's house with a knife. "The survey of evidence does not primarily indicate that ithas been magnified by the witnesses.
It also cannot be said that, the eventswas result of spur of moment. Mindset of the appellant in inflicting therepeated knife blows, is quite clear," observed HC.
The judges even disagreed with the defence argument that thewitnesses were relatives and neighbours of Rizwanbee and hence were bound to bebiased. "It is settled legal position that even if witnesses were close relativesof the deceased, their evidence should not be brushed aside.
The Court is expected to scrutinize such evidence with caution. One cannot skip factualscenario in present case," observed the judges. As the incident occurred in the house there cannot be outsiderwitnesses. The HC added: "The events of assault in such normal situation cannotbe expected to be witnessed by outsiders, however, two outsiders haveincidentally seen the appellant - accused entering, exit with knife in hishands. Consequently, evidence of eye witnesses cannot be simply brushed asideowing 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}