Bemina Murder Case: Srinagar Court Sentences Husband, Mother-In-Law & Brother-In-Law To Life Imprisonment
A Srinagar court has sentenced a man, his mother and his brother to life imprisonment for conspiring to murder his wife, Tasleema, by smothering her at their matrimonial home in Bemina in June 2022.
Additional Sessions Judge Farooq Ahmad Bhat awarded life imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000 each to Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar, his mother Mst. Hafeeza Begum and his brother Parveez Ahmad Dar alias Bilal for offences under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
The sentence was pronounced today, two days after the court convicted the trio on October 13. The court had acquitted the other two accused, Sumiya and Saika, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Background
The case arose from the death of Tasleema, who was found dead at her matrimonial home in Nund-Reshi Colony-B, Bemina, on June 27, 2022. The prosecution alleged that she had been subjected to sustained harassment by her in-laws because she had not given birth to a child despite nearly nine years of marriage.
The prosecution also placed before the court evidence concerning strained matrimonial relations, earlier disputes and alleged threats against the deceased. According to the prosecution, the circumstances surrounding her death pointed towards a pre-planned conspiracy involving her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law.
The post-mortem examination attributed her death to asphyxia caused by smothering. The doctors who conducted the post-mortem supported the medical findings during the trial.
The case was registered at Police Station Batmaloo under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B and 201 IPC. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses during the trial.
In its judgment dated October 13, the court held that the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence against Hafeeza Begum, Parveez Ahmad Dar and Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar.
The court considered the medical evidence, the circumstances in which Tasleema died inside the matrimonial home, the history of hostility attributed to the three accused and their failure to offer a plausible explanation for the circumstances surrounding her death.
It observed that the evidence established that the fatal act of smothering occurred in the room where Tasleema had been residing with her husband. The court also found that the other accused could not establish that access to the room was restricted.
Applying Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the court held that the accused were required to explain facts particularly within their knowledge once the prosecution had established the foundational circumstances.
The court observed,
“The prosecution has successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances which unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused No's 1, 4 & 5 and is wholly inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence.”
It further held that the medical evidence, the circumstances surrounding the death, the pleas raised by the accused in their statements under Section 313 CrPC and their failure to furnish a plausible explanation cumulatively left no reasonable ground for doubt.
The court, however, found that the evidence against Sumiya and Saika did not establish their active involvement in the alleged conspiracy. Extending the benefit of doubt to them, it acquitted both women.
The court also held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge under Section 201 IPC, as the evidence did not sufficiently prove the alleged destruction of evidence.
Court Rejects Death Penalty
During the hearing on the quantum of sentence, the prosecution sought capital punishment, arguing that Tasleema had been killed in a gruesome manner by smothering and that the circumstances warranted the extreme penalty.
The prosecution submitted that the victim had endured hardships during her marriage and that the manner in which she was killed shocked the conscience of society. It argued that the aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating considerations.
The defence counsel did not appear to advance arguments on the quantum of sentence. Considering the prosecution's submissions, the court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, which govern the imposition of the death penalty.
The court noted that the sentencing exercise required a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. After undertaking that assessment, it declined to impose capital punishment.
The court held,
“In the instant case, when the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are weighed and balanced, I do not think that this case falls within the definition of 'rarest of rare cases' warranting the imposition of the death penalty.”
It added that life imprisonment was sufficient for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B RPC.
Accordingly, the court sentenced Hafeeza Begum, Parveez Ahmad Dar alias Bilal and Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar to life imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹50,000 each.
In default of payment of the fine, each convict will undergo an additional six months' imprisonment. The court also directed that the period of detention already undergone during investigation and trial be set off against the sentence in terms of Section 428 CrPC.