Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1706 (GAU)

Md. Noor Ahmed @ Md. Nur Ahmed v. State of Assam

2018-12-06

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant/accused. Also heard Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State/respondent. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimganj, in Sessions Case No.20/2009, under Sections 498(A) IPC, whereby the accused Noor Ahmed @ Nur Ahmed has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 (three) years with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for another 3 (three) months. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 22.12.2003, one Md. Abdul Rouf lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Ratabari P.S. that this daughter Hasna Begum (the deceased) was married to one Noor Ahmed @ Nur Ahmed (present accused/appellant) about 2½ years ago and they also have a child. But the accused and his family members used to torture the deceased by demanding money and on 21.12.2003, they came to know that the accused assaulted Hasna Begum severely and also poured poisonous substance on her mouth. Although the father of the victim rushed to the house of Hasna but after few minutes of his arrival she died, disclosing to her father that the accused and her family members assaulted her. Based on the FIR, the Ratabari P.S. Case No.184/2003, under Sections 498(A)/304(B) IPC was registered and after due investigation of the matter, charge sheet was submitted against the accused namely, Noor Ahmed, Hawarun Bibi and Md. Hussain Ahmed, under Sections 498(A)/304(B) IPC. One of the accused namely Md. Hussain Ahmed being juvenile, forwarded to Juvenile Court. 4. The case being Session triable, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The accused persons Noor Ahmed and Hawarun Bibi stood the trial and denied the charges framed against them under Section 304(B) IPC. The prosecution examined eight witnesses including the I.O. and the M.O. and one Court Witness and the defence examined none. The plea of defence is of total denial. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court in absence of finding as to the cause of death, found and hold the accused Noor Ahmed guilty under Section 498(A) IPC and sentence him as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal. 5. Dr. The plea of defence is of total denial. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court in absence of finding as to the cause of death, found and hold the accused Noor Ahmed guilty under Section 498(A) IPC and sentence him as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal. 5. Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as the cause of death could not be established by the prosecution and there being no any other witness to show that because of the torture meted upon the victim she died, although the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused from the Section 304(B) IPC but has erroneously held the accused guilt under Section 498(A) IPC. Referring to the evidence on record, it has been stated that the evidence of the prosecution is not at all adequate and proper to arrive at the conclusion about the cruelty within the purview of Section 498(A) IPC. It is further been contended that as the basic allegation raised in the FIR that the accused died of pouring poisonous substance or consumed poison is not proved. So the whole prosecution cannot claim any credit over the evidence so far adduced by them. 6. On the other hand, the learned, Mr. B.J. Dutta, the learned counsel for the State respondent has urged before this Court that there is ample evidence on the part of the informant supported by the other witnesses that accused inflicted physical and mental torture upon the victim either by claiming dowry or by demanding demarcation of land etc., for which she was under stress after the marriage. In this context, the evidence of all the witnesses has been read out. It has been strenuously contended that although the petitioner has been exonerated from the charge under Section 304(B) IPC but he cannot be excused from the other allegation of cruelty that was meted out upon the victim. 7. I have considered the contentions that have been raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and scanned the evidence on record. 8. The father of the victim/informant (PW.1) in his evidence has categorically stated that about 6 months of their marriage, the accused Noor Ahmed started quarrel with the deceased on demand of dowry and also assaulted her and subsequently he also asked him to demarcate the land in his name which was reported by the victim to him. 8. The father of the victim/informant (PW.1) in his evidence has categorically stated that about 6 months of their marriage, the accused Noor Ahmed started quarrel with the deceased on demand of dowry and also assaulted her and subsequently he also asked him to demarcate the land in his name which was reported by the victim to him. On the day of occurrence, while he arrived in the house of the accused, he found Hasna in the baranda of the house and on being asked, she reported that the accused Noor Ahmed assaulted her and administered poison. 9. The factum of administering poison is however not proved. In view of the evidence of PW.6, the Medical Officer who has stated that the exact cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) not received. However there is a finding on the part of the Medical Officer that he found some injuries in front of the neck, right leg and left thigh of the victim at the time of conducting the post mortem examination. This aspect of matter lend support to the case of the informant that the victim sustained injury prior to her death on her person. 10. On the other hand, the PW.2 also supported the contention that the deceased was subjected to assault on the demand of dowry and cash money by the accused Noor Ahmed, for which village mel was also held. PW.2 was also reported by the deceased Hasna that accused tortured her for the demand of money. On the day of occurrence also he arrived in the house of the accused hearing the incident and then also the victim reported him that accused Noor Ahmed assaulted her. 11. The evidence of PW.3 also supported the contention of the informant that the accused Noor Ahmed told him to ask the informant to hand over their land by proper demarcation and accordingly the land was given to the accused. He also heard about the strain relationship between the accused and his wife regarding the land. 12. 11. The evidence of PW.3 also supported the contention of the informant that the accused Noor Ahmed told him to ask the informant to hand over their land by proper demarcation and accordingly the land was given to the accused. He also heard about the strain relationship between the accused and his wife regarding the land. 12. The evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 also highlighted that there was a strain relationship between the accused and the deceased prior to death of the deceased and the PW.4 was also present in the house of the accused after the incident while she stated about the assault made by the accused person upon her and after 5/7 minutes, she died. PW.5 also equally known about the strain relationship between the parties regarding the plot of a land. 13. So all these witnesses has categorically stated about the conduct of the accused towards his wife Hasna regarding his conduct and it was a regular feature on his part to assault his wife on the demand of dowry and land and if both these aspects counted together, would amount to mental and physical torture within the meaning of Section 498(A) IPC. In that context, the learned Trial Court has rightly come to a finding about the guilt of the accused under Section 498(A) IPC, however there being no any proof as regard administering of poison to the victim, there is lack of evidence to bring the accused under Section 304(B) IPC. 14. The evidence if the I.O. being formal in nature, needs no further discussion. However it appears that no any contradiction and omission etc., proved through the I.O. to discredit the evidence of the prosecution side. 15. Taking note of above on record, this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing in the impugned judgment and order regarding the finding of guilt of the accused person under Section 498(A) IPC, which is accordingly upheld. 16. However, in view of submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the matter pertains to long back of 2003 and the accused appellant suffered a lot for such long litigation and also the accused/appellant has to maintain a child borne to them, the sentence imposed is reduced to the period already undergone by the accused during the course of investigation and trial, while the amount of fine will be same. 17. 17. With the above modification of sentence, the appeal stands disposed of. 18. Return the LCR to the Court below along with a copy of judgment.