Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1101 (JHR)

Allauddin Mian v. State of Jharkhand

2006-08-22

N.N.TIWARI

body2006
Judgment By Court.-The appellants alongwith one Rahim Mian were tried for the charges under Sections 302/34 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Rahim Mian died during the pendency of the said case. Learned Court below, giving benefit of doubt, acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted them under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the daughter of the informant Usman was married three years ago with Sahur Mian-appellant No. 3 on 29.10.1986. At the time of marriage of his daughter, he had given dowry to the appellants according to his capacity, but after marriage, the appellant No. 3 and other relatives had been demanding bicycle and wrist watch in dowry. The same was conveyed by the informants daughter. However, the informant sent his daughter to Sasural (in-law's house) and was in the hope that by passage of time the problem will die down. But, the accused persons continued with the demand of the said articles and to press their demand, started torturing the informant's daughter in various ways. The informant ultimately had arranged the money and had given to his son-in-law for purchasing the demanded articles. Even, thereafter, they continued with their demand of watch and for that purpose tortured her daughter. On 29.9.1986, the accused persons went to the house of the informant and informed that his daughter is missing. On getting that information, the informant alongwith Kurban Mian, Budhan Mian, Ali Bux Mian and Chhotu Mian started searching in the adjoining wells and other places and ultimately they found the dead body of Shakila Khatoon near the boundary wall of Tilak Mian and Rahim Mian with ligature mark on the neck and some other injuries on her back. The informant suspected that his daughter was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons for demand of dowry and thereafter, she was killed by them. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The accused appellants in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution examined six witnesses and also proved the first information report (Exhibit 1), the charge-sheet (Exhibit 4). 3. The accused appellants in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution examined six witnesses and also proved the first information report (Exhibit 1), the charge-sheet (Exhibit 4). P.w. 1 happens to be the sister of Usman Mian, informant (P.w. 5). She stated in her evidence that Shakila was killed after marriage due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand. However, she is not an eye witness. In paragraph 5 of her deposition, she has stated that cycle was given in dowry, but the demand of watch was not fulfilled. P.w. 2 Bhikhan Mian has not said anything about the demand of dowry or any cruelty to the informant's daughter. P.w. 3 stated about the recovery of the dead body and has proved the inquest report (Exhibit 1), but he has also not said anything about the demand of dowry or torture on Shakila. P.w. 4 Birendra Prasad is a formal witness and has proved the formal first information report (Exhibit 2), the signature of the Sub-Inspector thereon (Exhibit 3) and the charge-sheet Exhibit 4. P.w. 5 Usman Mian is the informant. He has stated that his daughter was married about three years ago. After about one year of the marriage, her daughter was being tortured to bring watch and bicycle. He raised the loan of Rs.100/- from Bikhan Mian and himself contributed some amount and handed over to his son-in-law Sahur Mian, appellant No. 3 to. purchase cycle, but even thereafter he used to torture his daughter. In paragraph 2 he has stated that the demand was made by the accused persons including appellants No.1 and 2. In paragraph 9, he has stated that his daughter used to complain the act of cruelty against her. P.w. 6 Budhan Mian has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version. 5. Mr. G.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that though there is some evidence to support the allegation of demand of dowry by the appellants NO.1 and 2, there is no evidence on record to support the version of torture and cruelty by appellant No.1, who is brother-in-law (Bhainsur) and appellant No.2, mother-in-law, Zafuran Bibi and there is no material to prove their complicity in the crime. Learned counsel submitted that even against the appellant No.3, there is no cogent evidence to prove the alleged torture, cruelty or demand of dowry. There is no eye witness nor there is any independent witness of the occurrence. Learned counsel submitted that in view of that doubtful situation the benefit should have been given to the accused appellants and they should have been acquitted also of the charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that learned Court below has rightly given benefit of doubt and has acquitted the appellants of charges under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand submitted that the charge under Section 498A against the appellants has been established by the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, P.W. 1 and P.w. 5 have clearly stated that the informant's daughter was tortured for dowry and the demand of dowry was made repeatedly and the matter was taken up even by the 'Sadar' which is the community Panchayat and there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment/order of the Trial Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel and considered the material and evidences on record, I find that P.w. 1 who is the sister of P.W. 5 in her evidence, paragraph 5, clearly stated that though the demand of cycle was fulfilled, the accused persons killed Shakila for not fulfilling the demand of watch. However, P.w. 1 has not stated specifically that the demand was made also by appellants No.1 and 2. Learned Court below; heavily, relied on the said evidence and also the evidence of the informant-P.w. 5. P.w. 2, p.w. 3 and P.w. 4 have not testified the allegation of the demand if dowry and act of cruelty by the appellants. P.W. 6 turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 5, the informant, in paragraph 1, has stated that the money was demanded by son-in-law and he used to torture his daughter. Demand of watch and the bicycle was made by son-in-law and in spite of giving money for purchasing cycle, his son-in-law used to assault his daughter. The informant has also not made any categorical statement about any torture by the other appellants, i.e., appellants No.1 and 2. 8. Demand of watch and the bicycle was made by son-in-law and in spite of giving money for purchasing cycle, his son-in-law used to assault his daughter. The informant has also not made any categorical statement about any torture by the other appellants, i.e., appellants No.1 and 2. 8. In view of the evidences, which has come on record, I hardly find any evidence establishing the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants No.1 and 2. There is no legal basis for upholding the conviction and sentence against appellants No.1 and 2. The conviction and sentence of the appellants No.1 and 2 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. 9. So far as the appellant No. 3 is concerned, learned Court below has rightly found and held that there are materials to substantiate the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against him. The evidences of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 read with other witnesses go to prove the said charge against the appellant who is the husband of the deceased. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Court below so far as the appellant No. 3 is concerned and conviction and sentence against the said appellant No.3, Sahur Mian call for no interference and is hereby upheld. The appeal by the appellant No.3 is dismissed. The appellants No.1 and 2 are on bail. They are discharged from the liability of the bail bond. The bail bond of appellant No. 3 is hereby cancelled and he is committed to prison for serving the sentence.