Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 749 (JHR)

Sayeeda Khatoon v. State of Jharkhand

2009-05-12

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT By court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2001 passed by Shri Sharang Dhar Singh, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 355 of 1999, by which judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found both the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the Appellant No.1, Sayeeda Khatoon, the aged lady, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also sentenced the Appellant No.2, Md. Ajimuddin Ansari to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 2. The Prosecution case was started on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by one Kutubuddin Ansari stating therein that his daughter Ruksana Khatoon was married with Md. Ajimuddin Ansari on 23.04.1998 and he gave the dowry of Rs. 35,000/-along with other articles such as one cycle and other materials, but, after the marriage, the appellants started demanding Rs. 30,000/-from her father and when the informant (father of the victim lady) gave Rs. 5,000/-to them, the Appellant No.1, mother-in-law, Sayeeda Khatoon threw the money and said them that if Rs. 20,000/-was not given, she will not accept the girl and thereon she started torturing the victim girl. It is alleged that she was pregnant for the last three months. One day, they tied her hands and legs and threw her in a cow dung ditch, but she was rescued by the villagers. With much trouble, the victim girl had given birth to a child and a daughter was born to her. Thereafter, she came to her father’s house and stated that she has been tortured for not giving 30,000/-rupees and when she went back then he (father of the victim lady) received information on 26.05.1999 at about 2.00 P.M. that the victim lady, Ruksana Khatoon was burn to death and thereafter, her body was thrown in a well. 3. On the basis of the said F.I.R., the police registered a case under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation police submitted charge sheet under Sections referred to above. 4. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial and subsequently, the case was tried by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and the appellants were found guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. 4. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial and subsequently, the case was tried by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and the appellants were found guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that since the judgment of conviction in the case is bad in law and hence it is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that it is a case of dowry death where the victim girl had died within one year of her marriage under constant torture for non-fulfillment of dowry and burnt to death in unnatural way and thrown in a well, from where the dead body was recovered. It is a clear case for the offence under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. 7. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution has examined nine witnesses in order to prove the charges leveled against the appellants. 8. No doubt, P.W.1, Shakina Bibi, P.W.2, Anwar Hussain, P.W.3, Mohammad Imtiyaz Ansari have turned hostile, but the other prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.4, Jaibun Bibi, P.W.5, Kutubuddin Ansari, P.W.6, Harun Rashid Ansari and P.W.7, Motu Mian have fully supported the prosecution case. P.W.8, Md. Janifuddin, the Investigating Officer and P.W.9, the doctor have also supported the prosecution case. 9. It appears from the evidences of P.W.4, Jaibun Bibi and P.W.5, Kutubuddin Ansari that just after the marriage of the victim girl on 23.04.1998, the demand of dowry started and it is alleged by P.W.4 and P.W.5 that the appellant Sayeeda Khatoon demanded Rs. 30,000/-more than that of the dowry and when Rs. 5,000/-was offered, she threw it and refused to accept the daughter-in-law unless Rs. 20,000/-is paid. Both the witnesses have supported that the victim girl was tortured for dowry. 10. The torture was also supported by the mother of victim girl P.W.4. In her evidence, she has fully supported the prosecution case. 30,000/-more than that of the dowry and when Rs. 5,000/-was offered, she threw it and refused to accept the daughter-in-law unless Rs. 20,000/-is paid. Both the witnesses have supported that the victim girl was tortured for dowry. 10. The torture was also supported by the mother of victim girl P.W.4. In her evidence, she has fully supported the prosecution case. From her evidence, it appears that the victim girl, Ruksana Khatoon gave birth to a female child whereupon the appellants became furious and assaulted her and subsequently, burnt her to death and thereafter her body was thrown in a well. 11. Independent witnesses P.W.6 and P.W.7 have also supported the prosecution case and stated that the appellants used to torture the victim lady for not bringing the proper dowry and lastly they burnt her to death and threw her dead body in a well, in their presence, the dead body was recovered. Then, panchanama of the dead body was prepared by police, which is marked as ‘X’ for identification. He also proved the signature of the fardbeyan marked as Ext. 1/1. P.W.7 stated that he has seen the injuries on the body of the victim girl. There were injuries of assault also apart from burn injury. The dead body of the girl was taken to Topchanchi Hospital. He also stated that the victim girl was burn to death for not bring proper dowry. 12. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer of the case and he has fully supported the prosecution case. He stated that during investigation, he inspected the place of occurrence and after examining witnesses he submitted the charge sheet in the case. P.W.9 is Dr. Shailendra Kumar, who examined the dead body of the victim girl and found 70% burnt injury, which was sufficient to cause death of the victim girl. He proved the post mortem as Ext.5. 13. Thus, all the prosecution witnesses have proved the fact beyond doubt that the victim lady, Ruksana Khatoon died within one year of the marriage under abnormal circumstances where she was firstly burnt to death, then her body was thrown in a well and there is constant evidence of the witnesses that the victim lady used to be tortured for not bringing proper dowry. 14. 14. In that view of the matter, I find nothing wrong with the finding of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and both the appellants are rightly been convicted under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. 15. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant No.2, Md. Ajimuddin Ansari was not granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court and as such He has remained in jail for about ten years, the trial court will verify the record and then only issue warrant of arrest. 16. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed.