Jharkhand High Court
Nusrat Parveen vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: 2018 (3) AJR 645, (2019) 2 DMC 197 (2018) 4 JCR 76 (JHA), (2018) 4 JCR 76 (JHA)
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P.(DB) No. 1133 of 2010
Nusrat Parveen, wife of Afjal Hussain and daughter of Abdul Majid Rai,
resident of K.T. Gate Azad Basti, PO & PS- Kuju, District Hazaribagh at
present residing in village- Kesa, PO & PS- Bero, District-Ranchi.
....Petitioner
--Versus--
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Afjal Hussain, son of Sayed Hussain;
3. Md. Rashid Hussain, son of Sayed Hussain;
4. Sayed Hussain, son of not known to the petitioner;
5. Khairun Nisa, wife of Sayed Hussain.
All resident of K.T. Gate Azad Basti, Post Office & Police Station- Kuju,
District- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). .... Opposite Parties
--
PRESENT : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Habib, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P.
For O.P Nos. 2 to 5 : M/s. Nilesh Kr. &
Ashmita Srivastava, Advocates.
--
Reserved on: 19/03/2018 Pronounced on:04/04 /2018
...
Ratnaker Bhengra, J.:
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition for grant of leave to appeal is against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.07.2010 in Complaint Case No.1265/06 (T.R. No. 855 /10), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, whereunder, opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 herein were acquitted from the charges under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. According to the complaint petition of Nusrat Parveen, she was married to opposite party No.2 herein, Afjal Hussain. After marriage she went to her 'sasural' in June, 2004. A male child was born to the complainant Nusrat Parveen. Accused Afjal Hussain in connivance with other three accused persons i.e. Md. Rashid Hussain, brother of opposite party No.2 herein, Sayed Hussain, father of opposite party No.2 herein and 2 Khairun Nisa, mother of opposite party No.2 herein started torturing complainant and demanded Rs.50,000/- cash and a motorcycle from the parents of the complainant. Complainant's father could not fulfill the demands of the accused persons. Meanwhile, complainant became pregnant for second time and gave birth to a female child. In December, 2005, Afjal Hussain came to the parental house of complainant and forcibly took her away along with her son. Father of the complainant, thereafter, went to village Kuju to bring back his daughter. All the accused persons have tortured the complainant by using filthy words and demanding Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle. Afjal Hussain assaulted several times. He had threatened the complainant that if his demand is not fulfilled, he will solemnize another marriage with someone else. Accused persons sprinkled kerosene oil and tried to set aflame the complainant, but, neighbours awoke and saved the complainant's life. Thereafter, the complainant's father went to the 'sasural' of his daughter and brought her back with him. Complainant had sustained physical and mental injuries caused by torture meted out by the accused persons.
4. Complaint petition was registered as Complaint Case No.1265/06. In trial court, during inquiry, solemn affirmation of complainant and the statement of witnesses were recorded. On conclusion of inquiry, court has found prima facie case to proceed against all four accused persons under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Complainant had examined total four witnesses.
CW-3, Nusrat Parveen, complainant, in her examination-in-chief, told that she was married with Afjal Hussain and after marriage, she went to her 'sasural' and for 5-6 months she remained well there. Subsequently, the accused persons told her to demand a Splendor motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- cash from her father. Khairun Nisa had beaten her with 'belna' on her knees and head. Afjal Hussain had administered poison. He had taken her onto the roof and intended to push her from there. When she began crying, Afjal Hussain pushed her from stairs. She sustained injuries on her knees and waist. On the same day, Afjal Hussain and Khairun Nisa administered poison in a glass of juice and advanced it to her. The 3 complainant remained unconscious for 3-4 hours, after which, she had vomited. Saiyad Hussain had sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set her aflame. Her feet were burnt. She came to her parental home and remained there. After one month of the birth of her son, Rashid Hussain, Afjal Hussain and Khairun Nisa came in a Maruti van and forcibly took her and her child away. They threatened to leave her in jungle. Subsequently, after fifteen days, her father went to her in-laws house and requested the accused persons to keep his daughter well. However, accused persons started torturing her and again demanded Rs.50,000/- cash and a Splendor motorcycle. Her husband removed her 'dupatta' and beat her with his belt. In her cross-examination, at the stage after charge, complainant had told that she could not tell the day and date when the demands for cash and motorcycle were made. She had no memory regarding the dates of assault made by 'belan' by her mother-in-law. She had further told that at the time of administering poison all the family members were present, but, she could not tell the day and date of that occurrence. At 7.00 p.m. her husband had taken her onto the roof and tried to push her down. She sustained injuries on her feet, but, she was not taken for any treatment by any of the persons from her in-laws house. She was not able to tell the day and date when the poison was administered to her nor the day and date when she was sought to be burnt. She had further told that kerosene oil was sprinkled on her feet and that she extinguished the fire with her 'chappal'. She had said that mark of burn is still on her feet and she received no treatment for the burns.
CW-1, Abdul Mazid Rai, is the father of the complainant. In his examination-in-chief, he has also supported the allegations of the demand of Rs.50,000/- cash and a motorcycle and that when the demands were not fulfilled, accused persons started beating Nusrat Parveen and threatened her with dire consequences. He has also supported the allegations that mother-in-law, Khairun Nisa had assaulted the complainant with 'belna' on her knee and head and that Afjal Hussain used to beat Nusrat Parveen by belt. He has also said that Sayed Hussain sprinkled kerosene oil on the body of Nusrat Parveen in order to burn her and that Rashid Hussain and Afjal Hussain had pushed Nusrat Parveen from the roof as a result of which she fell down and sustained injuries. He has also supported the allegations 4 regarding the administration of poison and that his daughter had become unconscious for 3-4 hours and thereafter vomited. Accused had assaulted and driven out Nusrat Parveen from their house. Thereafter, his daughter had given a birth to a female child, but, the accused persons never came to see Nusrat Parveen and all the expenses incurred during delivery of female child was borne by him. One day, in his absence, accused persons came and forcibly took Nusrat Parveen away. After four months, when he went again to bring his daughter, her father-in-law refused to send her. They called him one day, assaulted Nusrat Parveen and sent her with him. Nusrat Parveen is living with her two children in her parental home. In his cross examination, at the stage before charge, he has said that he could not tell when the kerosene oil was sprinkled over the body of Nusrat Parveen.
CW-2, Kulsum Khatoon, who is the mother of the complainant, has in her examination-in-chief also supported the allegations regarding the demand of Rs.50,000/- cash and a motorcycle as well as the assaults made on Nusrat Parveen. However, she too, in her cross-examination, at the stage before charge, has said that she could not tell the date and day of alleged sprinkling of kerosene oil. In her cross-examination, at the stage after charge, she has also said that she had not complained regarding all these to the police.
CW-4, Md. Sajeeb was examined at the stage before charge, but, this witness was not examined at the stage after charge. Therefore, his evidence was not considered for determining the case.
6. Accused had also examined witnesses on their behalf.
DW-1, Md. Kuddus, in his examination-in-chief, has told that accused persons have never demanded any dowry and they have never assaulted the complainant. Father of Nusrat Parveen, Md. Majid Hussain wanted Afjal Hussain to live in his house as 'Gharjamai', but, Afjal Hussain was not willing to do so, thereby, leading to the dispute.
DW-2, Sahjadi Khatoon, wife of Md. Rasid Hussain, in her examination-in-chief, has told that Nusrat Parveen was never tortured for demand of any dowry. Alleged statement of Nusrat Parveen that accused 5 persons have sprinkled kerosene oil over her is false. Nusrat Parveen wanted that Afjal Hussain should remain with her in her parental home and this complaint case has been filed to create pressure on him.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his arguments, has read over and highlighted the evidences of the complainant's witnesses and submitted that serious allegations have been made and sought to establish that the accused persons or opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 herein are fully guilty for the offences under the aforesaid Acts and that the acquittal of opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi is totally unjustified.
8. Learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 5, on the other hand, has relied on the defence witnesses and pointed out the allegations that have been made regarding demands for cash as well as motorcycle and the allegation of being pushed down either from the stairs or from the rooftop of the house, which is itself inconsistent and that she had sustained injuries on the knees and waist and that she had also been administered poison in a drink and that she had remained unconscious for few hours and further that the kerosene oil was sprinkled on her body and set ablaze. Learned counsel has further submitted that all these allegations are very serious, but, none of them has been supported by any medical report regarding the injuries due to fall or burn injuries or the poison administered. Complainant has not been able to give the day and date of such allegations. Moreover, there is no date and time even attached to the demands for Rs.50,000/- cash and a Splendor motorcycle.
9. Having heard both the counsels and having gone through the records of the case, it appears that no medical report is there to prove any of the serious allegations made about being thrown from the rooftop or down the stairs, administering of poison by the accused and also regarding burns. All these are serious allegations. If she was at all thrown from the rooftop or down the stairs then people would have definitely come to know about it and no chance would be left to register a proper case against the accused, indicating the date, day and time of such allegations. Similarly, no dates and days too, for the allegations, regarding attempt to burn the 6 complainant as well as regarding the administration of poison on her, and also for the assault made on her by the mother-in-law with 'belna', which is also said to have taken place and caused some injuries on the complainant, similarly no date, day and time is indicated. So, by these aforesaid very doubtful allegations, case of the complainant does not seem to be convincing at all. In fact, even the complainant in her examination-in- chief said she was pushed from the stairs but in cross-examination she only says her husband tried to push her down from the roof. There is also allegation about the demands made for Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle, for which also, no date for such demand is indicated.
10. We have heard the arguments of both counsels, for the petitioner as well as opposite parties, and perused the judgment of acquittal of the learned trial court. The learned trial court has held that presents given by the complainant's parents at the time of marriage cannot be treated as dowry and the demand of money and motorbike was not related to consideration for marriage. It also held that not every type of harassment or cruelty attracts Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. We have also observed that three serious allegations of pushing from the roof top or down the stairs, administering of poison as well as attempted burning have been made, but, no medical evidence in any way to substantiate even any one of these allegations is there, thus raising serious doubts about any of the accusations. Further, no date and time are indicated for any of these attempted physical assaults, or even for the alleged demands of dowry. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant- petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of leave to appeal.
11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.
I agree.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) S.B.-NAFR