Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 310 (JHR)

Liyakat Miyan v. State of Jharkhand

2010-03-10

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT (1) THE appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22/12/2000 and order of sentence dated 23/12/2000 passed by Shri Vishundeo Narayan, Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 315 of 1996, by which judgment he found the appellants guilty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the evidence on record and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo S. 1. for 9 months to each of the appellants. All the appellants were charged under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code also, but they were acquitted from the charges under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. (2) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no evidence that the victim lady was tortured by the appellants after her marriage and as such their convictions under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and fit to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the victim lady was married in the Aghan of 1996 with the appellant, Liyakat Miyan and she used to be tortured by all the appellants since last one and half months and on 18-9-96 she informed the informant that the victim girl is being tortured by the appellants and they have even denied food to her and as such there are sufficient evidence and hence their convictions under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is well founded and requires no interference by this Court. (3) AFTER hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the instant case was started on the basis of a Fardbeyan given by Abid Mian-P. W. 5 on 20-9-96 at about 1.30 hrs. before the S. I.,Sonaraithari Police Station stating therein that his sister, Mobina Bibi was married with appellant No. 1, Liyakat Mian in the month of Aghan and after her marriage she was living in her sasural since last one and half months. She used to complain that her husband, Liyakat Mian, her mother-in-law, Alijan Bibi, father- in-law, Khalil Mian and brother-in-law, Gopal Mian are torturing her. She used to complain that her husband, Liyakat Mian, her mother-in-law, Alijan Bibi, father- in-law, Khalil Mian and brother-in-law, Gopal Mian are torturing her. At this the informant along with his cousin brother, Baksu Mian had gone to village, Kharbaria and had asked the appellants not to torture and rebuke his sister. On 18-9-96 wife of Sohid Mian called him and stated that in-laws of his sister again started fighting with his sister. Then, he again went to the sasural of his sister along with Shiva Mian on 19-9-96 and he inquired about the torture and fight from his sister, Mobina Bibi. Then, she stated that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and Bhaisur are torturing her and they have denied her food. Then, he asked them not to torture her and he returned to his house on the same day. Only after half an hour of the arrival of the informant to his house two persons of village Kharbaria came there and they told that his sister, Mobina Bibi is dead. Then on getting this information, he along with other villagers went to the house of the appellants and he found his sister dead. He stated that the accused-persons-appellants have committed the murder of his his sister by throttling her neck. (4) ON the basis of the said Fardbeyan the police registered a case under Sections 302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the case was exclusively triable by a Court of sessions and hence the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the cases committed the same to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge himself tried the appellants and found them guilty as aforesaid. (5) IT appears that the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. P. W. 1, Shiba Mian, P. W. 2, Sultan Mian, P. W. 3, Nazir Ansari, P. W. 4, Jamshed Ansari, P. W. 5, Abid Mian is the informant, P. W. 6, Gulab Ansari, P. W. 7, Dr. N. C. Gandhi, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, P. W. 8. Dr. J. K. Cboudhary, P. W. 9, Md. Sarif Mian and P. W. 10, Amrendra Kumar Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case. (6) IT appears, that P. W. 2, Sultan Mian was tendered. P. W. 9, Md. N. C. Gandhi, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, P. W. 8. Dr. J. K. Cboudhary, P. W. 9, Md. Sarif Mian and P. W. 10, Amrendra Kumar Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case. (6) IT appears, that P. W. 2, Sultan Mian was tendered. P. W. 9, Md. Sarif Mian has turned hostile and rest all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. P. W. 5, Abid Mian-informant stated in Court that his sister was married in the month of Aghan with appellant No. 1, Liyakat Mian in the village Kharbaria about 6-7 months before the occurrence in 1996. He further stated that his sister, Mobina Bibi was married with appellant No. 1, Liyakat Mian and after her marriage she started living in her sasural, but after sometime of the marriage he received information that since last more than one month her husband, Liyakat Mian, her mother-in-law, Alijan Bibi, father-in-law, Khalil Mian and brother-in-law, Gopal Mian are torturing her. Whereupon, he along with his cousin brother, Baksu Mian had gone to village, Kharbaria and had asked the appellants not to torture and fight with his sister. After sometime, wife of Sohid Mian called him and told that in-laws of his sister again started fighting with his sister and they are also demanding Rs. 15,000/-. Then, he again went to the sasural of his sister along with Shiva Mian on 19-9-96 and asked them that he cannot give Rs. 15,000/- as he is a poor man and asked them not to torture his sister and he returned to his house on the same day. On 19-9-96 at about 5.30 in the evening after half an hour of the arrival of the informant to his house two persons of village Kharbaria came there and they told that his sister, Mobina Bibi was done to death. Then on getting this information, he along with other villagers went to the house of the appellants and he found his sister dead and blood is coming out from the nose and her neck is also swollen. He proved his signature on the fardbeyan. Then on getting this information, he along with other villagers went to the house of the appellants and he found his sister dead and blood is coming out from the nose and her neck is also swollen. He proved his signature on the fardbeyan. (7) THE other witness P. W. 1, Shiba Mian also stated that the deceased, Mobina Bibi was married with appellant No. 1, Liyakat Mian and after her marriage she was living in her sasural, but her husband, Liyakat Mian, her mother-in-law, Alijan Bibi, father-in-law, Khalil Mian and brother-in-law, Gopal Mian used to torture her and used to demand Rs. 15,000.00, failing which she will be assaulted. She has no father, hence her brother-informant along with his cousin brother went to the house of her sister's sasural and asked the appellants not to torture his sister and subsequently she was done to death. In his cross-examination, he stated that he along with informant had gone to the house of the deceased since wife of Sohid Mian asked them that his sister is being tortured for not bringing Rs. 15,000.00. (8) P. W. 3, Nazir Ansari also stated that he had also gone to the house of Mobina Bibi as she was being tortured. He also stated that they used to fight and torture with her for dowry. In his cross-examination, he stated that her father was dead 10 years before, hence her brother used to look after her. P. W. 6, Gulab Ansari also stated that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 20-9-96 two persons of village Kharbaria came there and they told that his sister was done to death. Then, he went to the police station. He has proved his signature on the inquest report. (9) P. W. 7, Dr. N. C. Gandhi, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, found that the victim died due to asphyxia as a result of suffocation, though the cause of suffocation could not be ascertained. (10) P. W. 8, Dr. J. K. Choudhary also proved his signature on the inquest report. P. W. 10, Amrendra Kumar Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case, who submitted charge-sheet in the case and found a prima facie case as per the investigation. (10) P. W. 8, Dr. J. K. Choudhary also proved his signature on the inquest report. P. W. 10, Amrendra Kumar Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case, who submitted charge-sheet in the case and found a prima facie case as per the investigation. (11) THUS, from the evidences as disclosed above, I find that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case that after marriage the deceased used to be tortured and assaulted by the appellants and they were demanding dowry of Rs. 15,000.00. There is also evidence that they had even stopped giving food to her in sasural. The post-mortem report also shows that on the same day the informant and the witnesses had come to sasural of the victim lady and asked the appellants not to torture her. Then, on the same day they suffocated the lady to death. (12) IN that view of the matter that I find that there is sufficient evidence to come to a finding that all the appellants have committed the offence under Section 498A of the INdian Penal Code. Since they have already been acquitted from the charges under Section 304B of the INdian Penal Code. It has been argued on behalf of defence that none of the witnesses have stated the manner of assault and as such the finding of torture has not been proved and relied in a decision reported in AIR 2005 SC 917 (sic). (13) AS discussed above, I find that the manner of torture has been disclosed by the witnesses that the appellants had tortured the victim lady firstly by stopping food to her. They also used to fight her for bringing Rs. 15,000.00 and lastly as it appears from the postmortem report she was suffocated to death, in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the manner of assault and torture has not been disclosed. (14) I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The above-named appellants are on bail. Their bail bond is cancelled and the learned trial Court is directed to issue warrant of arrest against them for serving out the sentences. Appeal dismissed.