Visiting ex-wife with weapon, a premeditated act: HC

NAGPUR: In an interesting verdict, the Bombay High Court's bench here has ruled that visiting one's ex wife with a sharp-edged weapon can be held as a premeditated act.
The division bench comprising justices Ambadas Joshi and Sadhana Jadhav gave the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by an Amravati resident. The Amravati District and Sessions Court had convicted Abdul Arif Abdul Karim under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of IPC while sentencing him to life imprisonment for injuring his ex-wife Farzana Parveen, her mother Sadika Begum, and killing her father Mohammed Abdul Mohammed Latif on February 22, 2007.
After being married to the accused for nine years, Farzana had filed for divorce in 2004. Around eight months after that, on February 25, 2004, she filed a maintenance petition against Karim. At midnight the same day, the accused went to Farzana's maternal home where she was staying with her parents.
Following an argument over the custody of their two sons, Karim stabbed his ex-wife, her mother and her father with a sharp-edged weapon and fled the spot. The injured approached the police station and were rushed to the hospital where Latif succumbed to his injuries. Karim was arrested the next day. After the completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed on April 16, 2004 and nine witnesses were examined.
After the trial court held the Karim guilty, he challenged the judgment in the Nagpur bench. Karim contended that he had been wrongly convicted for murder and his act should be booked under Section 304 of IPC as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, the judges upheld the trial court's judgment, stating that "the intentions of the accused were clear and premeditated, and it cannot be said that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment or was the result of grave provocation".
The judges further ruled that the accused's wife, who was injured is a natural witness, and her "evidence not only inspires the confidence but also it is a sterling testimony which is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the accused-appellant is the perpetrator of the crime".
"Although, she had withdrawn herself from the society of her husband, no inference can be drawn that she would save the real culprit and falsely implicate him," the court said.
(With inputs from Devika Girish)