Srinagar: A Srinagar court on Thursday sentenced three members of a family to life imprisonment for the murder of Tasleema Begum, daughter-in-law of the family living in Bemina in 2022.
The court held that the prosecution had established their guilt through medical, oral and circumstantial evidence.
Additional Sessions Judge Farooq Ahmad Bhat awarded life imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000 each to Hafeeza Begum, Tasleema’s mother-in-law; Parveez Ahmad Dar alias Bilal, her brother-in-law; and Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar, her husband, for offences under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code.
Each convict will undergo an additional six months’ imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.
The court had convicted the three on October 13, while Sumiya and Saika, other accused, were acquitted after being given the benefit of doubt.
The case arose from FIR No. 109/2022 registered at Police Station Batamaloo following Tasleema’s death on June 27, 2022, in Nund Reshi Colony, Bemina.
She had married Shahnawaz in 2013. The prosecution alleged that she faced persistent matrimonial discord and harassment over her inability to bear a child.
A post-mortem examination conducted by doctors at Government Medical College, Srinagar, attributed her death to asphyxia due to smothering.
The doctors also testified that the injuries found on her body were not self-inflicted.
In its judgment, the court held that the circumstances established by the prosecution pointed towards the guilt of the three accused.
“The prosecution has succeeded in establishing the circumstances of guilt fully, and all the facts so established are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused No. 1, 4 & 5,” (the trio) the judge observed.
The court noted that Tasleema died in the room she shared with her husband and that the evidence indicated hostility towards her over her inability to bear a child.
However, it found the prosecution’s reliance on call detail records deficient, holding that the certificate accompanying the electronic records did not meet the requirements of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
The court acquitted other two accused, Sumiya and Saika, observing that the evidence did not sufficiently establish their active involvement in the hostility or circumstances leading to the death.
It also held that the charge under Section 201 IPC, relating to causing the disappearance of evidence, had not been proved.
During sentencing, the prosecution sought the death penalty, arguing that the circumstances warranted capital punishment.
The court, however, referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in certain cases and concluded that the case did not fall within the “rarest of rare” category.
“The court is required to strike a balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances,” the judge observed, awarding life imprisonment instead.
The court directed that the period already spent in detention during investigation and trial be set off against the sentences under Section 428 CrPC.
It also informed the convicts of their right to challenge the judgment and sentence before the High Court in accordance with law.
