Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 143 (PAT)

Shahzad Imam v. State of Bihar

2014-01-29

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2014
JUDGMENT : ANJANA PRAKASH, J.:–On the last occasion the appeal was directed to be listed even without the Lower Court Records since it was of the year 2000, to be disposed of with the assistance of the records to be produced by the Counsel for the Appellants. 2. The Appellant No.1 has been convicted under Section 498A I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year and the Appellant No.2 has also been convicted under Section 498A I.P.C. but no separate sentence was passed in his regard. They have further been convicted under Section 304B I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for seven years by a judgment dated 28.4.2000 and 29.4.2000 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffaprur in Sessions Trial No.276 of 1996. 3. The case of the prosecution according to Syed Manir Hassan is that he had married his daughter Ifat Fatma alias Hena to Shahzad Imam (Appellant No.1) and had given gifts according to his capacity as dowry, whereafter she went to her matrimonial home. Two months later when his daughter returned to her house, she reported that her inlaws were demanding Rs.40,000/- for starting a business. On account of non-fulfilment of dowry she was also assaulted and threatened to be killed. On 2.7.1995 he learnt that his daughter was getting treatment in S.K. Medical College, at which he went there and found his daughter in badly burnt condition and was restless for water. However, when her mother poured water with spoon she died. It was thereafter that the present case was instituted. 4. During trial the prosecution examined five witnesses and also produced some documentary evidence. 5. On the other hand, the defence examined three witnesses to prove the factum of U.D. case having been instituted earlier to the present case. 6. P.W.1 Syed Manir Hassan is the Informant, who has supported the case given out in the First Information Report and repeated the allegations of demand of dowry and subsequent murder. 7. P.W.2 Syed Amural Hassan is the uncle of the deceased and stated that a quarrel had taken place on account of demand of dowry at the time of marriage and subsequent demands were being made. 8. P.W.3 Mehar Babi is the mother of the deceased, who stated likewise and that she had gone to the Medical College when she had seen her daughter badly burnt and demanding for water. 9. P.W.4 Dr. 8. P.W.3 Mehar Babi is the mother of the deceased, who stated likewise and that she had gone to the Medical College when she had seen her daughter badly burnt and demanding for water. 9. P.W.4 Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad is the person, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased and found death having been caused on account of burn injuries. 10. P.W.5 Md. Yasin is the Investigating Officer of the case, who stated that on 7.8.1995 at 10 P.M. he went to the house of the Informant and recorded his statement, upon which the formal First Information Report was instituted. He also stated that he had not found any indication of burn in the room and identified the fard beyan Exhibit A and the formal First Information Report drawn on the statement of her father. He stated that no one had told him regarding giving or taking Rs.40,000/- during marriage. 11. D.W.1 Syed Shahzad Imam, the Appellant No.1, stated that his wife had accidentally sustained burn injuries and she was immediately taken to the Hospital for treatment, where U.D. case was instituted on 2.7.1995 i.e. more than one month earlier to the present First Information Report. 12. D.W.2 Syed Haider Imam and D.W.3 Akbar Mian have also given a vivid picture as to how the deceased had sustained burn injuries. 13. The Counsel for the Appellants submits that in the background fact of the admitted position of U.D. case having been instituted soon after the unfortunate death of the deceased and this First Information Report being unduly delayed, a reasonable suspicion had been cast on the veracity of the prosecution case. Moreover P.W.2, the uncle of the deceased, is also a signatory to the U.D. case which further falsifies the prosecution story. The further submission is that it is not believable that if the intention of the Appellants was to cause the death of the deceased, she would be removed to the Hospital, which once again is an admitted position. 14. Accepting the aforesaid submissions, giving benefit of doubt to the appellants, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 28.4.2000 and 29.4.2000 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No.276 of 1996 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.