Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1056 (JHR)

Shaukat Ali v. State of Jharkhand

2021-12-16

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : Navneet Kumar, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2003 by which the sole appellant Shaukat Ali (Husband) has been found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under section 323, 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Prosecution Story 2. The prosecution case has arisen in the wake of the Keredari P.S. Case No.48/2001 dated 20.09.2001 based on the Complaint Case No. 750 of 2001 filed by the complainant/informant/respondent no. 2 Shaibunnisa alleging there in that the complainant/informant Shaibunnisa was married to the accused-appellant Shaukat Ali on 21.06.1999 according to Muslim rites and customs. The father of the complainant had given dowry of Rs. 18001/- in cash according to his capacity and other articles were also given as gift in the marriage. It is further stated that Dain mehar was also settled to the tune of Rs. 12,551/- at the time of Nikah and Nikah was also reduced into writing but the co-accused Basarat Mian @ Bital Mian did not sign the Nikahnama because he was pressing the father of the complainant to pay Rs. 10,000/-. It is further stated that after marriage, the complainant lived peacefully in her Sasural about 25 days and after that she was asked to bring Rs. 10,000/- in cash and further asked to bring Hero Honda Bike and a colour T.V. by the Sasural people. The complainant was also tortured by the accused persons for not bringing the above cash and articles. It is further stated that on 20.07.2000, the accused persons of Joko came at Lai Sukuwar and they inquired from the husband of the complainant as to whether the father of the complainant had fulfilled the demand of dowry or not. Due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the husband and Dewar of the complainant started torturing the complainant. It is further stated that the father of the complainant also paid Rs. 4000/- towards the treatment of his daughter. It is further stated that while the complainant was carrying pregnancy of about three months, the accused-husband of the complainant brutally assaulted her with a view to abort the pregnancy. The abortion of pregnancy of the complainant due to assault by the accused-husband, took place in the month of February, 2001. 4000/- towards the treatment of his daughter. It is further stated that while the complainant was carrying pregnancy of about three months, the accused-husband of the complainant brutally assaulted her with a view to abort the pregnancy. The abortion of pregnancy of the complainant due to assault by the accused-husband, took place in the month of February, 2001. The accused persons even then did not facilitate medical treatment to the complainant and thereafter, the complainant became seriously ill. The husband of the complainant took out all the ornaments and thereafter, the complainant is residing with her parents in the Naihar since the year 2001. It is further stated that the complainant approached the Anjuman to settle the dispute. The husband of the complainant came to Jamira Village but did not became ready to settle the dispute rather he threatened the Anjuman as well as the father and brother of the complainant. The Anjuman Committee convened a Panchayaat on 19.08.2001 at Zamira School in which both the parties signed on the Panchaiti paper but the accused persons created nuisance. It is further stated that both parties went to police and narrated whole story. The police called accused Basarat Mian to pacify the dispute and also assured for inquiry but when no inquiry was done by the police, the complainant then filed complaint petition before the court of C.J.M. Hazaribagh, who sent the case to the police U/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. for institution and submission of final form. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint the case was instituted vide Keredari P.S. case No. 48 of 2001 u/s 323, 313 & 498-A of I.P.C. and also u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. After investigation the case was committed to the court of Session where charges were framed and after conclusion of the trial impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed which is under challenge. 4. In support of the case, the prosecution has been able to examine altogether nine witnesses including the informant wife P.W. 1 Shaibunnisha, P.W. 2 Abdul Manan, P.W. 3 Md. Feroz, P.W. 4 Kallu Mian P.W. 5 Md. Parvez, P.W. 6 Ramjan Mian, P.W. 7 Ram Bahadur Ram, P.W. 8 Ram Raj Singh and P.W. 9 Md. Ashique Miyan. Arguments on behalf of the appellant: 5. Feroz, P.W. 4 Kallu Mian P.W. 5 Md. Parvez, P.W. 6 Ramjan Mian, P.W. 7 Ram Bahadur Ram, P.W. 8 Ram Raj Singh and P.W. 9 Md. Ashique Miyan. Arguments on behalf of the appellant: 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that during the course of pendency of the appeal a significant development has taken place between the husband and wife and the matter has been resolved forever. 6. The appellant husband and the informant wife i.e. respondent no. 2 have entered into a compromise and an interlocutory application has been filed vide I.A. No. 2242 of 2006 jointly through their respective counsels. FINDINGS 7. The sole appellant Shaukat Ali along with his counsel Mr. A.K. Rashidi is present and on the other hand, the informant wife Shaibunnisha is also present along with learned A.P.P., Mr. Saket Kumar Jha. Although, the power has also been field on behalf of the informant-wife Saibunnisha through her learned counsel Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, advocate. 8. It is found that there was a dispute between the husband and wife and the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC and 323 of IPC along with sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It has been jointly submitted by both the parties that the dispute between the husband and wife has been resolved and both are living together harmoniously in a cordial relationship. 9. From the record, it appears that one I.A. No. 2242 of 2006 has been filed which is the joint compromise petition between the appellant-husband Md. Shaukat Ali and the informant-wife Shaibunnisha. It appears that during the pendency of this instant appeal due to intervention of the co-villagers, neighbours, friends and well-wishers the appellant-husband and informant-wife have compromised their grievances and differences and after compromise both the appellant-husband and informant-wife are living together in their house as husband and wife in a very cordial and congenial relationship. At present there is no grievance prevailing between them and they are leading a happy conjugal life with each other. A joint compromise petition through the aforesaid instant I.A. has been filed in which both the appellant-husband and informant-wife have put their signatures along with their respective learned counsels. 10. Today, also both the parties are present in-person before this Court and this Court has had an opportunity to interact with them. A joint compromise petition through the aforesaid instant I.A. has been filed in which both the appellant-husband and informant-wife have put their signatures along with their respective learned counsels. 10. Today, also both the parties are present in-person before this Court and this Court has had an opportunity to interact with them. During the course of interaction both have jointly submitted that now their grievances have been settled once and for all and they have been living happily and leading a very peaceful conjugal life harmoniously. 11. The informant-wife-Shaibunnisha categorically stated that let the husband be acquitted from the charges leveled against him because her husband is very congenial and he is caring and affectionate towards her and her children and now the entire grievances are over. 12. The learned counsels appearing for the parties and also the learned A.P.P. do not raise any objection and jointly submitted that let this appeal be allowed in view of the compromise between the appellant-husband and informant-wife and this is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. 13. Although the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 & 498-A of IPC and u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after taking into consideration the entire circumstances of this case and the charges levelled against the appellant are mitigated and this appeal gets disposed of in terms of the joint compromise petition i.e. I.A. No. 2242 of 2006 where it has been jointly submitted that the appellant and his wife have compromised their grievances and after compromise the wife of the appellant Shabunnisha is residing in the house of her husband Md. Shaukat Ali (Appellant) 14. As a result the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2003 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 323 IPC and u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 15. Since the appellant of this appeal is on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond in this case. 16. In this manner, the instant appeal along with I.A. No. 2242 of 2006 stands disposed of. 17. Let the Lower Court records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.