Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 619 (JHR)

Nausad Sk. v. State Of Bihar

2006-05-12

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2006
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. By Court This appeal arises against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.11.1998 and 12.11.1998 respectively passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1992/26 of 1997 whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. By the same Judgment, the learned Trial Court acquitted the other two accused namely Ezna Khatoon and Nawera @ Maveera Bibi from the charges holding that the prosecution failed to .establish the charges against them. 2. In short the prosecution case is that the F.I.R. was lodged on 12.07.1991 by Aklesh Seikh, the father of the deceased Amna Khatoon alleging therein that his daughter Amna Khatoon (since deceased) was married to Naushad Sk. (the appellant) about 10-11 months ago. After the marriage, his daughter lived at her in-laws place with her husband for about one month. In the mean time, his daughter Amna Khatoon informed him that her mother-in-law, the first wife of her husband and the appellant as well as the father-in-law of his daughter were ill treating her in various ways and therefore, she did not want to live there and requested him to take her back. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that when the informant went to in-laws place of her daughter, she narrated the story to him and ten finding no way, he brought her daughter to his house. After about a month thereafter, the informant requested the appellant and his father to take his daughter back to her matrimonial place but, it is said that the appellant stated that unless wrist watch, ring and bicycle was given to him in dowry, he would not take his wife with him. The informant showed his inability to meet the said demand because of his poverty but the appellant did not accede to the requests of the informant. The informant showed his inability to meet the said demand because of his poverty but the appellant did not accede to the requests of the informant. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that when the informant returned to his house at about 12:00 noon then he was informed by his wife that in the morning, his son-in-law Nausad Sk. (appellant) had come near his house and at that time, his daughter Amna Khatoon requested him to take her to the matrimonial house but the appellant Naushak Sk. refused to take her back and thereafter, his daughter committed suicide by hanging herself. 3. The Police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant as well as other accused persons and thereafter, the charges were framed against them and they were put on trial. 4. In order to establish the charges, altogether eight prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.-1 is Saukat Seikh. In his examination in chief, has stated that on the date of occurrence, at about 7:00 A.M., while he was in his Bail, he heard that Mazer Bibi was shouting as to why her house was closed from inside and then, this witness who was next door neighbour, entered into the house of Mazer Bibi by scaling boundary wall and then opened the door. Thereafter, Mazer Bibi started searching for her daughter Amna Khatoon and then in that course, they found that Amna Khatoon had hang herself. This witness helped Mazer Bibi in bringing down the deceased from the rope but they found that after sometime, Amna Khatoon died. 5. P.W.-2 Akhir Sk. , in his evidence, has stated that on the date of occurrence, in the morning at about 7:00 A.M., while he was passing through the road, he saw that under the Peepal Tree, the appellant and his wife Amna Khatoon (since deceased) were having some conversations. He heard Amna Khatoon telling and requesting her husband to take her to her matrimonial home but her husband Nausad Sk. (Appellant) had replied that since her father was not giving him wrist watch, ring and bicycle and therefore, he would not take her back. Thereafter, the appellant left that place. This witness has further stated that after half an hour, he heard that Amna Khatoon has . committed suicide by hanging herself. (Appellant) had replied that since her father was not giving him wrist watch, ring and bicycle and therefore, he would not take her back. Thereafter, the appellant left that place. This witness has further stated that after half an hour, he heard that Amna Khatoon has . committed suicide by hanging herself. From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that since before the death of the deceased, he heard the demand of dowry being made by the appellant and he had specifically stated that unless the demand of dowry was met, he would not take his wife back to her matrimonial house. 6. P.W.-Kabil Sheikh is the another witness who has stated in the same line to that of P.W-2. He also heard the conversation between the deceased and the appellant in the morning of the alleged date of occurrence. He also heard the demand of dowry being made by . the appellant from his wife and also stated that unless the demand of dowry was fulfilled, he would not take his wife back to her matrimonial home. This witness further stated that after few hours, he heard that Amna Khatoon committed suicide by hanging herself. 7. P.W.-4 Turful Bibi is the sister of the informant and according to her evidence, she used to live after two-three house of the informant. She also went to the place of occurrence after hearing hulla and thereafter, she saw the dead body of the deceased. She has corroborated to the statements of the informant that the appellant used to ill treat his wife because of non fulfilment of demand of dowry and therefore, the deceased committed suicide. P.W.-5 Mazer Bibi is the mother of the decease. She has also stated that her son-in-law i.e. the appellant used to ill treat her daughter because of non fulfilment of demand of dowry and therefoe, her daughter committed suicide. 8. P.W.-6 is the informant himself and he has fully corroborated the statements made in the F.I.R. and also the statements of the other witnesses discussed above. P.W.-8 is the formal witness who has proved the Ext.-3, the post-mortem report. 9. There is no dispute to the fact that the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by hanging. 8. P.W.-6 is the informant himself and he has fully corroborated the statements made in the F.I.R. and also the statements of the other witnesses discussed above. P.W.-8 is the formal witness who has proved the Ext.-3, the post-mortem report. 9. There is no dispute to the fact that the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by hanging. From the evidence discussed above, it appears that the prosecution established the fact that the deceased Amna Khatoon died not only under abnormal circumstances within seven years of her marriage with the appellant but it has also been established by the prosecution by the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that the appellants used to ill treat her and he also deserted her in her parents house due to non fulfilment of demand of dowry. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have very specifically stated that on the date of occurrence, he saw the appellant refusing the request of the deceased to take her to her matrimonial home by saying that unless his demand of dowary is fulfilled by his father-in-law, he would not take her / back. Therefore, it is apparent that soon before the death of the deceased, the appellant had demanded dowry and had also tortured the deceased. As it appears from the evidence led by the prosecution that seeing the aforesaid conduct of the accused, out of frustration, the deceased committed suicide just after few hours by hanging herself. All the above facts clearly raises presumption envisaged under Section 113B of the Evidence Act against the appellant that he committed dowry death of the deceased. 10. In view of the above discussions and findings, I hold that the learned Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellant is hereby affirmed. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled and the Trial Court is directed to take steps to commit appellant in prison for serving out the sentence.