Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1395 (PAT)

Md. Kamarudin v. State of Bihar

2013-12-06

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants have been convicted under Section 304(B), IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Sitamarhi in S.Tr. No. 24/1993/ 97/2002 by judgment and order dated 14.3.2002. 2. The case of the informant is that his daughter, Nazma Khatoon was burnt by her in-laws. On this information he with his cousin brother, Abdul Latif, Nayeem and Jamshaid proceeded to the village and found his daughter injured. She stated that her husband was demanding Rs. 3,000/- for a cycle and a radio at the time of marriage. On her refusal he threatened her and then her in-laws poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. Some villagers arrived who put off fire but the accused did not give any medical aid on account of which she was in much pain. While he was making a report of this his daughter allegedly died. 3. The defence of the appellants was that the deceased had died on account of an accidental fire and they had been falsely implicated. 4. During trial the prosecution examined eleven witnesses out of whom PW 2. Md. Jamshed, PW 3, Amirul Haque, PW 4, Roze Mohammad, PW 8, Abdul Latif, PW 9, Md. Daud and P.W, 10. Md. Nayeem have not supported the prosecution case and hence declared hostile. 5. PW 1, Md. Habibullah has stated that on the date of occurrence when he was at his house Amirul Haque informed that the daughter of Zahir, informant had been burnt so he accompanied the informant to the village of the deceased where he found her in a burnt condition and groaning. She narrated that she had been set on fire by the accused persons for ends of dowry. In cross-examination he stated that when he reached the place of occurrence saw the deceased was unconscious and there was no talk with anybody. He also stated that at that time the mother-in-law, Ayesha and sister-in-law, Rukhsana had gone to Laheriasarai for treatment along with Nasiruddin, the brother-in-law. He also stated that the in-laws of the deceased never demanded any dowry. 6. PW 5, Nek Mohammad has been tendered. 7. PW 6 is the informant, the father of the deceased who stated that his daughter had been married with appellant. Md. He also stated that the in-laws of the deceased never demanded any dowry. 6. PW 5, Nek Mohammad has been tendered. 7. PW 6 is the informant, the father of the deceased who stated that his daughter had been married with appellant. Md. Kamruddin in May, 1989 while he was at his house on 20.4.1992 his sister's son Md. Amirul Haque (PW 3) informed him that his daughter had been burnt by her in-laws. When he went there he saw his daughter in a burnt condition. She narrated that her in-laws had burnt her. In cross-examination he stated that the deceased was groaning and restless and used to become unconscious. In paragraph 10 a suggestion was given to him that Dr. Mahendra Kumar Sahu had treated accused Rukhsana she was not present in the village on the date of occurrence. The medical reports of the said doctor was brought on record by the prosecution. 8. PW 7, Md. Nasirul Haque stated that on hearing alarm he went to the house of appellant, Kamaruddin where he saw his wife burnt and unconscious. The appellant, Kamruddin was not at his house since he had gone to the fields to work the deceased died in the process of being taken to the hospital for treatment so she was brought back. The parents were informed by his nephew. 9. On a fair analysis of the evidence, I find that there are three types of evidence brought on record by the prosecution. First is the informant who• stated that his daughter gave an oral dying declaration as to how the appellants had caused her death. Second is by way of the evidence of PW 1 who has stated in the cross-examination that the deceased was unconscious when he reached and she did not talk to anybody. The third evidence is that of PW 9 who is a co-villager and an independent witness. He categorically stated that there was no oral dying declaration. PW 7, PW 9 and PW 10 have given a different version of an accidental fire. In such circumstances, it would be highly unsafe to rely on the prosecution case. 10. Hence giving benefit of doubt to the appellants, the Appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 14.3.2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Sitamarhi in S.Tr. No. 24/1993/97/2002 is set aside. In such circumstances, it would be highly unsafe to rely on the prosecution case. 10. Hence giving benefit of doubt to the appellants, the Appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 14.3.2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Sitamarhi in S.Tr. No. 24/1993/97/2002 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.