Jharkhand High Court
Tahrul Islam, Moinul Haque And ... vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 9 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007 CRI LJ (NOC) 43, 2006 (3) AIR JHAR R 473, (2006) 4 EASTCRIC 425, (2007) 2 RECCRIR 442(2), (2006) 3 JLJR 559
Author: Amareshwar Sahay
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. By Court The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 29/08/1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 90/1992, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted all the three appellants for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them to undergo R. I. for a period of two and half years each. They were further convicted for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of four months each on each count and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-each in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of two months.
2. In short the prosecution case is that the informant's sister Samima Begum was married to Kalimuddin Seikh (appellant No. 3) three years prior to the alleged occurrence. After the marriage, Samima Begum went to her in-laws place and then her husband started demanding writ watch by way of dowry and for that he also started torturing his wife Samima Begum. On 14/05/1986 the informant's sister Samima Begum was severely assaulted by her in-laws due to none fulfillment of the demand of the wrist watch and they also tried to kill her by pouring Kerosene Oil but any how she could save her life. Further case of the prosecution is that on 18/03/1987 due to the intervention of the villagers, settlement was arrived at between the husband and the wife and then the husband Kalimuddin Seikh took his wife with him. But after 5-6 days the husband again started demanding watch by way of dowry and the in-laws again started torturing the victim in various ways. In that course on 25/03/1987 all the accused persons by hatching up a conspiracy, in order to kill Samima Begum started assaulting her and then sprinkled Kerosene Oil on her person and tried to set her on fire but when she raised hulla then some of the villagers, i.e. Saifuddin Sk., Habibur Rahman, Tajamul Hussain etc. came and then the life of Samima Begum was saved. Thereafter, the victim was sent back to the house of the informant, where the victim lady narrated about the occurrence to the informant and, thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged on 30th March 1987.
3. The defence case is of total denial of the allegation and of false implication.
4. In order to substantiate the charges, altogether 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of the defence also one witness was examined.
5. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated in preceding paragraphs. The learned trial court however, acquitted the appellants from the charges under Sections 307/34 IPC.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellants has taken me to the entire oral evidence of the PWs. and by drawing my attention to some of the paragraphs of deposition of the victim lady (PW-4) and also the statement of the informant (PW-3) and has submitted that there is vital contradiction in the evidence of both the PWs. and, therefore, the convictions against the appellant for the offence under Section 498A IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sustained.
The learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that so far as factum of demand of dowry is concerned, the same was not established by the prosecution. He, by pointing out the particular statement of the informant, submitted that admittedly, there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage of the victim lady with the accused Kalimuddin.
7. I have carefully gone through the evidence of the victim lady (PW-4) as well as the evidence of the informant, i.e. the brother of the victim carefully and find that there is no vital contradiction in the evidence of these two witnesses so as to make their statements unreliable. The victim lady has in clear terms stated that the in-laws as well as her husband used to torture and assault her because of the none fulfillment of the demand of wrist watch, which was made by the appellants by way of dowry,
8. It is a fact that the informant has admitted that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage but the evidences of PW-3 and PW-4 clearly shows that subsequently, after the marriage the husband as well as the other appellants started demanding wrist watch by way of dowry and due to non-fulfillment of such demands, Samima Begum was ill treated, tortured and was also assaulted. Therefore, in my view, there is sufficient evidence on the record to hold these appellants guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
9. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants by the trial court is hereby affirmed. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it appears that the appellants have been awarded two and half years R.I. each for the offence under Section 498A IPC and four months R.I. each for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on each count. The occurrence is said to have taken place in March 1987 and the trial of the case was concluded in the year 1998. Therefore, it appears that in the trial court the case continued for about 11 years thereafter, the appeal has remained pending before this Court since September, 1998, i.e. for about 8 years and, therefore, in my view, the appellants have undergone the ordeal of protracted trial for a long period and, as such, after such a long lapse of time it would not be just and proper to send these appellants to jail again. 1O. Accordingly, the sentences awarded by the trial court are reduced to the period already undergone by them. But so far as the sentences of fine, imposed upon them by the trial court, is concerned, the same is being hereby upheld. If the fine is realized, the same shall be paid to the victim lady.
11. With this modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed.