Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/34 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 24 April, 2024
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/34
GAHC010168202019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./298/2019
MD. SABIR AHMED AND ANR
S/O- MD. AMIR ALI, R/O- DAKHIN NOWABIL, P.S. MURAJHAR, DIST.-
HOJAI, ASSAM.
2: MD. AMIR ALI
S/O- SUNA HAZI
R/O- DAKHIN NOWABIL
P.S. MURAJHAR
DIST.- HOJAI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM.
2:HARISH ALI
S/O- LATE SAMSUDDIN
R/O- DAKHIN LASKAR PATHAR
P.S. LANKA
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782446
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG Date of hearing : 20.03.2024 Page No.# 2/34 & Date of Judgment : 24.04.2024 JUDGMENT & O R D E R (CAV) Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants along with Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2] This is an appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in S.C. No.32(N)/2016, wherein the appellants were convicted under Sections 304 B/34 of I.P.C and vide order dated 26.06.2019, were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
3] Aggrieved the appellants have filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. for setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 and the subsequent sentence order dated 26.06.2019.
4] The facts of the case in a nutshell is that an FIR was filed on 11.07.2014 by the informant to the effect that, his daughter Hamida Begum, married to the accused/appellant No.1 about one and half months back. After marriage, the appellant No.1 and other members of the family starting assaulting her by demanding money as dowry. On 09.07.2014 his daughter came to his house and informed him that the accused persons demanded 1 (one) lakh rupees as dowry and that the money was required to be given to them. On his persuasion, she went back to his son-in-law's house the previous day of the incident. Today (i.e on 11.07 2014), around 10:00 A.M, a person Page No.# 3/34 named Abdul Rahim informed him that his daughter was unwell and he should go to see her in the hospital. When he went to the Doboka Village Hospital, appellant no.1 had escaped and he found that his daughter was dead with marks on injuries and various parts of the body. The accused person have murdered his daughter in a pre-planned manner and he asked for the investigation of the case. Four accused persons were named in the FIR namely;
1) Sabir Ahmed, S/o Amir Ali
2) Amir Ali, S/o Sonajaji
3) Sayarun Begum, W/o Amir Ali
4) Abdul Rahim (Mulla) S/o Sonahaji and others
All are R/o South Nowabil,
P.S - Murajhar
The FIR was registered as Murajhar P.S case No.283/2014 under Section 304(B) IPC and investigated into. The Investigation Officer/Rajib Buruah, visited the place of occurrence and drew rough sketch map of place of the occurrence. The I.O. examined the witnesses namely - Harej Ali (informant), Nizam Uddin, Moinuddin, Abdul Ahed and Foizur Rahman. The inquest was done by the Circle Officer and the Post Mortem Report was done at Nagoan Civil Hospital, Thereafter, he got transferred.
5] The second investigating officer/ASI, Jiten Borah, collected the PME report and had gone to the CHC, thereafter, he got transferred and handed over the MCD to the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh P.S. along with the extra copy of GD entry 232 dated 11.07.2014.
6] Bipin Ch. Nath is the third investigating officer on the transferred of the Page No.# 4/34 previous I/O, who was handed over the C.D. of Murajhar P.S. 283/14 for further investigation. He forwarded the witness Bedena Begum for recording her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. The accused Md. Sabir Adhmed and Amir Uddin surrendered before P.S. and he arrested them and recorded their statements. Later on, he collected the supplementary CD from Doboka P.S and finding enough material against the accused CD, he filed the charge-sheet under Section 304 B/34 IPC for the accused to face trial.
7] On 02.07.2016 the learned Trial Court framed charged against both the accused persons/appellants under Section 304B/34 IPC, wherein both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. During trial as many as 10 prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused persons/appellants were then examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and 5 (five) defence witnesses were also examined, wherein the appellant No.1 deposed as DW-4 and Amir Uddin/appellant No.2 deposed as DW-5, the stand of the appellants was that the deceased Hamida Begum had committed suicide by hanging herself.
8] The learned Trial Court on considering the evidence record and on hearing both the parties found both the accused persons guilty of the offence under section 304(B)/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed the instant Criminal Appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS 9] Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the FIR was ante-timed since there was a delay in sending the FIR dated Page No.# 5/34 11.07.2014 to the Magistrate, he submits that a perusal of the FIR shows that it was sent to the JMFC, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar Court only on 14.07.2014 and there is no explanation for the said delay of 3 days. And therefore the FIR cannot be relied upon. He has relied the decision of the Apex Court in Meharaj Singh (L/Nl.) Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1994) 5 SCC 188 paras 12 & 13 and Mohd Muslim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Now Uttarakhand)2023 Livelaw SC 489 10] The learned counsel further submitted that there are no ingredients of section 304(B) IPC in the instant case. He submits that PW-2 simply stated that the mother -in-law and father-in-law of the deceased victim had asked for Rupees One lakh, there is no evidence to show that she was subjected to cruelty. Further in the cross-examination of PW-2, it is seen that he had visited his daughter 4 (four) times after her marriage however, he had not mentioned any demand of money during those visits which is quite often. The prosecution witnesses No1. 1, 2 & 3 have not mentioned anything about harassment or cruelty and the only allegation made is that the mother-in-laws and father-in- law had demanded money, however, the mother-in-law of the deceased victim have not been charge sheeted.
11] The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that PW-7 has not made any allegation of the deceased victim being subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. PW-3 mentioned about the in-laws of the deceased driving her out of the house which was not mentioned by PW-5. PW-5 has not mentioned anything about cruelty to the deceased victim but had only mentioned about the demand for money.
Page No.# 6/34 12] The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witness does not establish that the deceased victim was subjected to any harassment or cruelty and therefore, the ingredients of 304 B IPC is not found in the instant cases and the appellants have been wrongly convicted under section 304 B IPC. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex court in Durga Prasad and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 9 SCC 73 para 6, in Baijnath and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 101 paras 29-32, in Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 341 paras 21-24 13] The learned counsel further submitted that the statement of PW-6 was taken after a delay of 132 days and her statement was not recorded after the incident even though she was present when the police had recorded the statement of the other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel submitted that even though the case I/O was not crossed in regard to the delay in the recording of the statement of PW 6 by the defence counsel, but the delay is clear from the documents that her statement was recorded after keeping silent for 132 days after the incident took place. He submits that doubt is created as she was silent all of this time and she did not say anything to PW-2 who is the father of the deceased victim. Though in her statement she had stated that she saw the accused person beat the deceased victim, she had kept silent about the information and therefore her statement cannot be accepted since it appears that it is an after-thought. In support of his submission, he has cited in the case of Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2016) 4 SCC 96 para 20.
Page No.# 7/34 14] The Learned counsel also submitted that from the evidence of Saidul Alom (DW-2), it is seen that the deceased had purchased a saree from Lanka Bazar and subsequently, he came to know that the deceased had committed suicide by the said saree. The learned counsel submitted that the depositions of other defence witnesses also showed that the deceased Hamida Begum died by hanging herself with a saree.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 15] Mrs. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that it is clear from the medical evidence that the deceased victim died due to throttling since the medical evidence indicates strangulation. She submitted that mark of the ligature on the neck was not found to suggest that she died by hanging and therefore it is established that the deceased victim died due to throating or strangulation, there were other small injuries found around her neck region. Thus, her death was not in normal circumstances.
16] She further submitted that the incident occurred within 7 (seven) years of their marriage. The evidence of Pw 3 shows that they got married in 2013 however, the evidence of PW 2 and PW-5 shows that they were married in 2014 while the incident occurred on 11.07.2014 thus from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it is cleared that the incident occurred within 7 years of their marriage.
17] The learned addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that cruelty and harassment of the deceased victim was also proved wherein the prosecution witnesses PWs 2, 3 & 5, have stated that the in-laws of the deceased had Page No.# 8/34 demanded Rs.1 (one) lakh for dowry. PW-1 has stated that they have been torturing his daughter though what kind of torture harassment has not been stated by the prosecution witnesses. However, it was not disputed that the accused and his parents were demanding Rs. 1 (one) lakh as dowry.
18] The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submitted that the demand of Rs.1 (one) lakh is a continuous form of harassment and the deposition of PW No.5 shows that besides the parent-in-laws, the husband of the deceased victim was also involved in the demand for the dowry. PW No.3 has also deposed that the deceased victim was driven out from the house and thus harassment was clearly proved which is in connection with the demand for dowry which took place before her death on 10 th July, 2014. She mentioned the demand for dowry was on10th evening when the deceased victim she returned to her in-laws and the next day, on11.7.2014 she was dead.
The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor thus submitted that all the ingredient to constitute an offence under section 304 B IPC has been proved and she has relied on Steel Authority of India Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 12 SCC 667 paras 9 & 11, in Satvir Singh And Ors vs State of Punjab And Anr reported in (2001) 8 SCC 633 para 20, 21.
19] The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submitted that the FIR being sent late to the JMFC is not always fatal to the case. She submitted that there was a delay of three days in sending the FIR to the JMFC, but this was not questioned by the defence counsel before the Trial Court and therefore there was no occasion for the case I/o to explain the delay. Likewise the delayed recording of the evidence of PW6 was not questioned by the defence counsel Page No.# 9/34 before the court during trial and a delay in recording the statement does not necessarily mean that it cannot be relied upon. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of the Apex court in Chotkau v. State of U.P reported in (2023) 6 SCC 742 paras, 59 to 63 and Harbeer Singh vs. Seeshphal & Ors. reported in (2016)16 SCC 418.
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES 20] We have head and considered the submissions made by the rival parties and have also perused the documents on records. In order to fully appreciate the submissions made by both the learned counsels, the evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court by the rival parties is briefly highlighted herein:
21] PW-1 is Dr. Lalit Chandra Nath, is the medical doctor who did the post mortem examination of the deceased victim.
His deposition is to the effect that he conducted the Post Mortem on the dead body of Hamida Begum, aged about 23 years on the basis of police requisition in connection with Doboka P.S. G.D. Entry No. 232 dated 11.07.2014. During examination, he had found- (1) Rigor mortis is present. Froths coming from both nostrils. One small injury with blood stained on the upper part of right side of neck below right ear lobule. (2) Bruise of 2 cm size on right side of neck, below right angle of mandible on upper part below jaw lateral to Thyroid Cartilage. (3) Bruises of different size of 3 cm long above down ward and 2 cm broad on lateral side left of thyroid cartilage. (4) One dissecting external Bruising areas, there is Subcutaneous Bruising that hams ester patch and over thyroid cartilage. Bruises of Laryngeal swelling and fracture of Laryngeal Page No.# 10/34 cartilage. Fracture of superior haring thyroid cartilage. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to Asphyxia as a result of throttling. He exhibited the Post Mortem report as Exhibit-1. In his cross examination, he stated that he had not mentioned the size of Injury No. 1, Injury No. 2 and 3, which were in the right side of the neck. Injury Nos. 2 & 3 are the external injury found on the upper part of the neck. Injury Nos. 2 & 3 occurred due to compression on the neck due to fracture of thyroid. The time of death was more than 6 hours. He denied the suggestion that the case was not of throttling.
22] PW-2 Md. Harish Ali, is the informant, he deposed to the effect that appellant No. 1, Sabir Ahmed is his son-in-law and the appellant No. 2 is Sabir's father. Since their marriage, the appellant No. 1 had been torturing his daughter. On 09.07.2014, his daughter Hamida Begum came to his house accompanied by one brother-in-law of Hamida Begum. She informed him that her parents -in-law had demanded Rupees One lakh from her. He told her daughter that it would require sometime and he persuaded his daughter to go back to her son-in-law's house. At the time of departure, he sent the daughter of Hamida's maternal uncle namely Bedena Begum along with her. Then on 11.07.2014 at around 9:30 to 10 AM a person named Abdul Rahim informed him over phone that his daughter was admitted to Doboka hospital in a serious condition and around 11 to 12 o'clock, he went to Doboka hospital. When he entered the hospital room, he found that his daughter was dead and no one was present in the room. Later on, the police and Circle Officer came and examined the dead body. The dead body was sent for Post Mortem and he saw injury on the neck of his daughter. Blood was oozing out from the ear. There was also injury near the stomach. He then went to the Murajhar P.S. and filed the ejahar. Exhibit-2 is the ejahar/FIR Page No.# 11/34 lodged by him. Bedena Begum had stated that the accused assaulted his daughter.
In his cross examination for appellant No. 2/ Amir Ali, he stated that he got the marriage of his daughter solemnized when she was 22 years old. His daughter did not have love affairs with any boy and she stayed only for one and half month in her husband's house. During this time, he visited his son-in-law's house approximately four times. At that time she talked about harassment she suffered in the hands of her parent-in-laws. He stated that his daughter did not tell him properly as to what kind of torture was meted out to her by her parent- in-laws. He admitted that he did not see how and where his daughter died. His daughter had told him first about the demand of 1 lakh rupees. He denied the suggestion that his daughter did not want to stay with the accused and since they forcefully kept her there, she committed suicide.
23] On cross examination for appellant No. 1/ Sabir Ahmed, he stated that the ejahar/FIR was written in Murajhar police station. He stated that he did not mention in the ejahar/FIR that he persuaded his daughter and sent her with Bedena Begum to her husband's house. He admitted that he did not tell all these before the police as well. He denied the suggestion that on 09.07.2014, he called Sabir and asked him to send his wife Hamida because her mother was ill. At the time of leaving his house, Hamida took the saree from his house. He stated that when the demand for 1 lakh rupees was made, he did not talk with Sabir's parents.
24] PW-3 Md. Moinuddin Laskar, is the elder brother of the informant. He deposed that he heard that after her marriage, Hamida had been tortured by her husband Sabir and his parents. On 09.07.2014, Hamida came to her father's house with her brother-in-law. He then came to know from Hamida that after Page No.# 12/34 demanding one lakh rupees from her, her parents-in-law drove her out of the house. Then Hamida was sent back to her husband's house with an assurance that something would be done later. Bedena Begum was also sent along with Hamida. On 11.07.2014, Haris Ali informed him over phone of the death of Hamida at Doboka hospital. In his cross examination, he denied the suggestions that he did not state before the police about the demand of money and that he did not send Bedena Begum along with Hamida, that Hamida did not tell her parents that her in laws had tortured her and the accused had demanded one lakh rupees.
25] PW-4 Md. Abdul Hakim is the younger brother of the deceased Hamida Begum. On 11.07.2014 around 7 AM, his elder sister Hamida made a phone call and asked him to come to their house immediately. When he went to their house, he did not met Hamida. The accused told him that his sister had been taken to Doboka hospital. At that time, Bedena Begum came out and he asked her about her elder sister. She told him that the accused assaulted Hamida at night by pressing her neck. He also assaulted her on her ear and stomach. He then went to Doboka hospital and found the dead body of her elder sister. Later, her father lodged the FIR. He stated that at time when she left for her elder sister's house, her father was not at home. Before the incident, she was informed that the accused had demanded one lakh rupees and that he had also assaulted her elder sister.
In his cross examination, he denied the suggestions that he did not state before the police what he was saying in the court.
26] PW-5 Md. Mizamuddin, is the elder brother of Haris Ali. His deposition is to the effect that on 22.05.2014, Hamida and Sabir got married. After a few days of the marriage, the accused Sabir had been torturing Hamida by Page No.# 13/34 demanding dowry. On 09.07.2014, Hamida Begum came to the house of her father along with her brother-in-law. At night, Hamida told her father that her parents-in-law and husband had demanded One lakh rupees and therefore, she was required to take the money with her. Around 10 AM the next morning, when he got to know about this and he persuaded her to go back to her husband's house with an assurance that something would be done after Ramadan. Hamida returned to her husband's house with a daughter of her maternal uncle. At around 11 AM on 11.07.2014, Hamida died at Doboka hospital. On receiving the news, he went to Doboka hospital and the police had already sent her body for post mortem examination.
During cross examination, he admitted that he was not present during at the discussion held for the arrangement of the marriage. He denied the suggestions that the statement of Hamida's father regarding the demand made for one lakh rupees was false.
27] PW-6 Bedena Begum, is the cousin of the deceased victim. Her deposition is to the effect that on 09.07.2014, Hamida came to her uncle's house and when Hamida went back, she also went with her. At night, when they all sat together after dinner in the house of the accused, the father-in-law asked Hamida whether she brought the money or not. Hamida said that the money demanded would be given after Ramadan. She was taken to another room to sleep. The following morning, Hamida called her to take meal and her father-in- law called Hamida but she said that she would go after serving meal to her. While she was taking her meal, she heard a scream. It was Hamida's scream. She saw her father-in-law sitting on her chest and pressing her neck. Her mother-in-law pulled Hamida by the hair and her husband was holding and pulling both her legs. At that time, Ramana came and slapped her and kept her Page No.# 14/34 in another room. She did not know what happened later. But later, when the door was opened and some people had gathered, she got to know that her elder sister Hamida was taken to the hospital. After sometime, she went to the hospital where she was informed that Hamida had died in the hospital. The police later recorded her statement. She exhibited Exhibit 3 which was the statement made by her before the Magistrate.
In her cross examination, she stated that she voluntarily went with Hamida to her father-in-law's house. When she went to the hospital, she did not see any other relative. After returning from the hospital, she got to know that the parents of Hamida already got to know the news of her death. She could not tell her uncle (the informant) about the occurrence. After 2/3 months, the police questioned her in connection with the occurrence and the police then took her to the court for recording her statement. During this period of 2/3 months, she was at home. She denied the suggestion that she had stated before the police on 11.07.2014 that the accused had assaulted Hamida. She also stated that she did not state before the police that, on 10.07.2014, Hamida's father-in-law had assaulted Hamida and that the following day as Hamida was found incapable of speaking, her husband and her father-in-law had taken her to Doboka hospital and that she also went along with Haminda.
She denied the suggestion that she did not go to the house of Hamida on 10.07.2014.
28] PW-7 is Md. Badaruddin, who deposed that he had gone to Doboka hospital on 11.07.2014 and he saw Haris Ali there. Haris Ali said that the accused had murdered his daughter. The C.O of Doboka came and examined the dead body and he put his signature in the inquest report as the witness which is exhibited as Exhibit 4.
Page No.# 15/34 29] PW-8, Bipin Ch. Nath is the S.I, who was working as O/C of Murajhar P.S. on 18.07.2014. He deposed that on the transfer of the previous I.O i.e., S.I. Rajib Boruah, he was handed over the C.D of Murajhar P.S. 283/14 for further investigation. He forwarded the witness Bedena Begum for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. The accused Sabir Ahmed and Amir Uddin surrendered before the police station and he arrested them. Thereafter, he recorded their statements and subsequently, he forwarded the accused persons to the court and remanded them to judicial custody. Later on, he collected the supplementary C.D from Doboka P.S., having found material against the accused persons in the C.D, he filed the charge sheet under Section 304 B/34 IPC for the accused person to face the trail. He exhibited the charge sheet as Exhibit 5.
In his cross examination, he admitted that the preliminary investigation was done by a different I/O. He was the prime I/O of the case. He has not recorded when their marriage took place and he cannot say whether the incident took place within 7 years prior to their marriage or not. That the witness Bedena Begum, whom he examined told him that the victim/deceased was subjected to torture prior to the occurrence. He had recorded the statement of only two witnesses and based on the statement of other witnesses and the one he examined, he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. The date of occurrence was on 11.07.2014 at 10 AM. On 18.07.2014, he got the charge of investigation in the case. On 03.12.2014, the 164 Cr.P.C statement of witness Bedena Begum was recorded by the Magistrate, Hojai Sankardev Nagar. He also recorded the 161 Cr.P. statement of Bedena Begum on the same day. He read the statement of witness Bedena Begum recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C where she had stated that when the demand was made, another person was Page No.# 16/34 present along with her. He had asked her the name of the other person who was present along with her but she did not tell him the name. He exhibited Exhibit 1 which is the 161 statement of Bedena Begum. As per the statement given by Bedena Begum, she had gone to the house of Hamida on 10.07.2014 and later, she heard the sound of Hamida crying and saw Hamida's father-in-law and husband were pressing the neck of Hamida and assaulting her. The incident took place in the night of 10.07.2014.
30] In her statement recorded under Section 164, Bedena had stated that she was taken to another room by Rumana's sister-in-law of Hamida. Bedena had slept in the room and did not know what happened during the night. On the next day, she woke up at around 6:30 AM and after some time, Hamida called her to have rice and she went into the kitchen.
31] PW 8 stated that the investigation was initiated on the strength of G.D. Entry No. 232 dated 11.07.2014 at about 10:30 AM. The inquest report was prepared on the basis of G.D Entry. When the post mortem was conducted on the basis of G.D Entry regarding the preparation of inquest report, the sketch map was prepared at the place of occurrence and the sending of the dead body to the morgue was done by the previous I/O, A.S.I. Rajib Bora and S.I. Jiten Bora. FIR of this case was sent to Eleka Magistrate from P.S on 14.07.2014.
32] PW-9, Rajib Boruah, his deposition is to the effect that when he was the O/C of Murajhar P.S, he received an FIR 11.07.2014 from Harej Ali at around 4:45 PM and registered the case into Murajhar P.S. Case No. 283/14 under Section 304(B) IPC and he investigated the case. He visited the place of occurrence on the same day and drew a rough sketch map of the place of occurrence. He examined the witnesses namely, Harej Ali (informant), Nizam Uddin, Moinuddin, Abdul Ahed and Foizur Rahman. Thereafter, he got Page No.# 17/34 transferred. The inquest was done by CO and post mortem was done at Nagaon Civil Hospital. He exhibited Exhibit 6 as a rough sketch map. He also seized a piece of red saree. He exhibited Exhibit 7 as the seizure list.
In his cross examination, he stated that he did not know on what strength Doboka P.S investigated the case. He did not collect the G.D. Entry report during his investigation. He recorded the 161 statement of witness Nizam Uddin and Harez Ali at 5:45 PM. He also recorded the statement of Abdul Ahed and Foizur on the same day at about 7:30 PM. He exhibited Ext.6 as the sketch map of the place of occurrence. He stated that he cannot say anything about the inquest and the sending of the dead body of the deceased to the morgue. This can be said by the Daboka P.S. He admitted that he did has not recorded the statement of witness Abdul Hekim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. These were recorded by another I.O. The rest of the cross examination were suggestions which are denied by PW9.
33] PW-10 is Jiten Borah, he deposed that on 11.07.2014, he was working as A.S.I Doboka P.S. On that day at around 10:30 AM, he received the information from Doboka C.H.C, that a lady named Hamida Begum, R/o Dakhin Nowabil under Murajhar P.S. was taken to the hospital in a dying condition. Accordingly, Doboka P.S. G.D Entry No. 232 dated 11.07.2014 was prepared by the OC and he was endorsed to investigate the same. He went to Doboka C.H.C and found the dead body of Hamida Begum and thereafter, the inquest was done by the Magistrate and the dead body was sent to B.P.C.H for post mortem on 19.07.2014. He collected the post mortem report and thereafter, he handed over the M.C.D to O/C Doboka P.S. He exhibited Exhibit 8 which is a copy of the G.D. Entry No. 232 dated 11.07.2014. Later on, the informant Hariz Ali lodged Ejahar at Murajhar P.S. and O/C of Murajhar P.S registered the case against the Page No.# 18/34 accused persons and hence he handed over the M.C.D to O/C Doboka P.S. In his cross examination, he stated that the C/O conducted the inquest report in his presence. He did not record the statement of the witness Hariz Ali and Badruddin except for the preparation of the inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem. He did not do any investigation in connection with the case.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENCE WITNESSES 34] DW-1 is Saleha Begum. She has deposed that the marriage between appellant No. 1 and the deceased Hamida Begum took place about four years ago and that Hamida died after 1 and ½ months of their marriage. She stated that her house was situated near the house of Hamida Begum and about four years back at around 8 to 8:30 AM, she had gone to the house of the accused persons/appellant i.e., the house of the accused persons. She called Hamida but she did not get any response. When she entered into their house, she pushed open the door and found that Hamida was in a hanging condition. She was hanging with a saree on a bamboo bar. She raised alarm and at that time, Sabir Ahmed/appellant No. 1 was working nearby and he rushed to the house. She held the foot of Hamida and Sabir Ahmed brought a Dao to cut the saree from which Hamida was hanging. At that time, she could not maintain the balance and Hamida fell down on the "Palong" made of wood. At that time, Hamida was breathing slowly and Hamida's father-in-law Amir Ali/appellant No. 2 and mother-in-law came to the spot and they arranged for a car and took her to Doboka Civil Hospital. She stated that the deceased had gone to the house of her father and remained there for one night before the incident, when she was accompanied by her brother-in-law, Saidul Alom.
Page No.# 19/34 In her cross examination, she stated that Sabir Ahmed is her cousin brother and Amir Ali/appellant No. 2 is her uncle. She stated that she did not visit the house of the appellant at night and she cannot say what happened in the night. After hearing her scream, the appellant/Sabir Ahmed came immediately and thereafter, other persons came to the place of occurrence.
35] DW-2, Saidul Alom stated to the effect that the victim Hamida Begum was his sister-in-law, Hamida's father over phone told the father-in-law of Hamida that her mother was sick so Hamida had gone to her father's house to see her mother. He had accompanied Hamida to her father's house and at night at around 8 PM, Hamida's father returned Hamida to her house. He heard Hamida telling her father that she was not willing to return to her in-law's house. He heard Hamida's father telling Hamida that he got her married after facing so much trouble and there is no reason why she should not return to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, he went to sleep. The next morning, he told Hamida to return with him and Hamida had said that she was not willing to return back to the matrimonial house wherein Hamida's father had rebuked her. At that time, Hamida told her father that this was the last visit to her parental house and she will not visit again and he will not face her again. Thereafter, he along with Hamida came to Lanka where Hamida got down and purchased a saree. When he asked her why she brought the saree, she did not reply. The next day after returning from her father's house, Hamida died. He stated that he did not know that she had committed suicide.
In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion's and he stated that he did not recognize the shop from where Hamida purchased the saree and she purchased a saree at Rs. 100/-.
36] DW-3 is Jamal Uddin. He stated that on that day at about 8 AM, he Page No.# 20/34 heard hue and cry and the sound was coming from the house of the accused/appellant. He immediately rushed to the spot and found that Hamida was hanging with a Saree from the bamboo beam of the house. At that time, Saleha Begum held the legs of the victim while the accused/appellant, Sabir Ahmed cut the saree from which the victim was hanging. At that time, Salaha Begum could not manage the balance of the victim's body and fell on a wooden cot where he sustained injuries. By that time, many other persons had assembled there and they were saying that the victim was still alive. He arranged for a car and the deceased victim was taken to Doboka Hospital.
In his cross examination, he stated that when he reached the P.O, he saw 15/20 persons had already gathered there. He cannot say what exactly happened in the house of the accused. He did not see the body of Hamida Begum in a hanging position. He went to the hospital along with the victim Hamida Begum and after some time the father of the victim also came to the hospital. He did not inform the police nor did they take her to the police station as the victim was still alive at that time. He denied the suggestion that Sabir Ahmed cut the saree and Saleha tried to hold the body and she fell down and due to the injury she lost balance.
37] DW-4, Sabir Ahmed is the appellant No. 1 and he deposed that there was no quarrel between himself and the victim Hamida Begum. He stated that Hamida Begum was married to him against her will and she was in love with another boy before her marriage. As the said boy went to Mumbai, her father forcibly gave Hamida Begum in marirage with him and Hamida herself disclosed about her love affair with the boy before her marriage. He then informed about this fact to Hamida's father over phone. After getting the information, Hamida's father brought Hamida to her parental house and told her that she was now Page No.# 21/34 already married to him i.e., Sabir Ahmed, so she has to maintain family life. After returning from her parental house, Hamida told him that she was not willing to live with him and if forced, she will commit suicide. He immediately informed Hamida's father that Hamida told him that she will commit suicide if she is forced to live with her. Hamida's father told him that it is up to Hamida to do what she wants to do. DW 4 further deposed that he was a mason by profession and he used to go out for work in the morning. After marriage, Hamida continuously behaved like this and one day Hamida's father informed him that Hamida's mother was sick and he should sent her to see her mother. Hamida then went to her parental house along with Sabir Ahmed. After spending one night at her father's house, Hamida expressed that she will not return again to his house but Hamids's father forcibly sent Hamida to his house since Hamida was not willing to return to her matrimonial house. When Hamida returned from her father's house, she purchased a saree from Lanka Bazar, which was a Nylon Saree. When he saw the saree, he asked Hamida what she was going to do with the saree and she replied that she will fix the saree on the roof of the house as "Chanduwa". The next morning, she had committed suicide. On hearing hue and cry, he immediately rushed to the house and saw Hamida hanging in a bamboo beam. Saleha Begum was there and he told her to catch the victim's feet and then he cut the saree from where she was hanging. At that time the body fell on the cot as Saleha could not maintain balance. The other villagers arrived there and they told him that she was still alive so they took her to the hospital. He stated that he never demanded any money from the victim or the victim's father and that he never assaulted or tortured the victim.
In his cross examination, he stated that on the day of the incident, after seeing his wife in a hanging position, he had not informed the police or the Page No.# 22/34 village Gaon Bura or other persons. They brought the victim to the hospital in a Maruti Car belonging to Mushaid Ali. They brought her to Doboka C.H.C. The distance between Doboka Hospital to Doboka P.S is about 150 meters. After taking her to the hospital, he did not go to the police station. He denied the suggestion that they had demanded 1 lakh rupees from her and that they had killed the victim.
38] DW-5, Amir Uddin is the appellant No. 2. He stated that after Hamida and his son Sabir Ahmed/appellant No. 1 got married, Hamida was reluctant to do household works. She used to receive phone calls and when they asked her who used to call her, she said that the phone call was from her father. When her father called her, they told her that her mother was sick, so she went along with Shaidul Alom and stayed overnight at her parents' house. Then Shaidul Alom told us that she was reluctant to return to her in laws house and her father had forcibly sent her to return. Hamida had told her parents that it was her last visit to her parents house and that they would never see her again alive. Hamida purchased the saree from Lanka Bazar. The next morning, she committed suicide by hanging in a bamboo beam with the saree. He was in the paddy field when he heard hue and cry and found that Sabir, Saleha and Jamal had taken Hamida to the Doboka hospital. When he reached Doboka hospital, he was told that she had died. He stated that they never demanded money or tortured Hamida during her stay period in their house. In his cross examination, he stated that after marriage, she had started living in their house for about 45 days. He denied the suggestions that they used to torture her and demand money.
39] Both the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellants denied demanding money or torturing the deceased. Both the Page No.# 23/34 appellants have denied the incriminating evidence against them and their explanation of the incident is not much different from their depositions as Defence witness DW -4 and DW -5 which is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
The Medical Evidence 40] The post-mortem report is exhibited as (Ext.1), in the column for external appearance of the dead body, it is recorded that froth coming from both nostrils.
As per the post-mortem report, the following wounds were found on the dead body of the deceased victim, viz., (1) one small injury with blood stained on the upper part of Rt. Side of neck below Rt. Ear lobule. Injury is superficial;
(2) Bruise of 2 cm. size on Rt. side of neck, below Rt. angle of mandible on upper bar below jaw lateral to thyroid cartilage. (larynx); and (3) Bruises of different size of 3" long above down ward and 2 cm. broad on lateral side left of thyroid cartilage. (larynx).
It was also recorded that on dissecting external bruising areas, there is subcutaneous bruising with hams ester patch & over thyroid cartilage. Bruises of laryngeal mucosa membrane and laryngeal swelling & fracture of laryngeal cartilage. Fracture of superior haring thyroid cartilage. In the column for larynx and trachea part of thorax, finding is recorded that the "injury of larynx caused by compression from both lateral side.
Occurs & finding described. Fine froth in bronchi and trachea present." The right lung was found with "congested pulmonary edema". In the column for Page No.# 24/34 abdomen, in respect of mouth, pharynx and esophagus, finding is recorded as "(1) presence of blood with blood stain, and (2) tongue is pushed forcibly between closed teeth and dark coloured." In the column for muscles, bones and joints, finding is recorded as "bruise, and abrasion on left thigh middle part of 2"
x 1" size.
In the column for more detailed description of injury or disease, finding is recorded as follows; viz., (1) The face is puffy, odemous, congested and cyanotic; (2) scleral & conjunctival petechial haemorrhage on eye; (3) tongue protruded and pushed between tight closed teeth with cynanosed; (4) bruises on both sides of larynx with bruise on lyngeal mucosa with fracture laryngeal cartilage and sup. horn of thyroid cartilage; (5) on section cut neck bruise area, there is petechial haemorrhage on subcutaneous tissue. The findings are ante- mortem. Time since death approximate more than 6 hours.
41] As per the inquest report (Ext.4), exhibited by Md. Badaruddin (PW-7), the following description of injuries are recorded, viz., (1) injury mark seen in the right ear and blood emanating from it; (2) injury mark was also seen between the neck and the jaw; (3) injury mark was also seen just above the throat and scars seen round the neck; (4) minor injury was also seen in the left thigh and stain of blood in the left foot.
OUR FINDINGS AND DECISION THEREOF 42] On analysis of the medical evidence on record we find that froth coming out from nostrils is a recognised consequence of anoxia (i.e. absence of oxygen) following pulmonary edema. This is also a sign that saliva has pooled in the mouth and throat because the victim has lost the ability to swallow and when this stage reaches, death is imminent. The description of other injuries Page No.# 25/34 indicates homicidal death of the victim, which can be caused only when the deceased was strangulated.
43] We also find that the multiple nature of injuries found on the neck region, face, eye, and bruise and injury in the left foot indicates that the victim was overpowered by more than one person and was strangulated, which had resulted in her death.
We are therefore of the opinion that the possibility of self-inflicting injuries of the nature as indicated in the post-mortem report (Ext.1) and inquest report (Ext.4) is ruled out in the event the victim had committed suicide, as sought to be projected by the learned counsel for the appellant.
44] Further we find that though the learned counsel for the appellant had strenuously argued that as the evidence of Saidul Alom (DW-2), the deceased had purchased a saree from Lanka Bazar and subsequently, he came to know that the deceased had committed suicide by the said saree. However, on a perusal of the contents of the inquest report (Ext.4), the Executive Magistrate, Hojai- cum- Circle Officer, Doboka Revenue Circle, which was proved by Md. Badaruddin (PW-7), the deceased was found wearing a printed saree. The defence case, as projected by the learned counsel for the appellant about suicidal hanging by the victim is ruled out as not acceptable because at the time of inquest and while conducting post mortem examination of the dead body of the victim, no ligature mark leading to theory of suicide by hanging was found. Rather, the fracture of the superior horn of thyroid cartilage indicates application of pressure during strangulation as injury mark were seen between the neck and the jaw, and moreover, injury mark was also seen just above the throat and scars seen round the neck. That apart, injury mark was seen in the right ear and blood was emanating from it, which is indicative of ante-mortem physical Page No.# 26/34 assault.
Dr. Lalit Chandra Nath who is the doctor who performed the post mortem examination has also opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling, thus we find that it is proved that the unnatural death of Hamida Begum cannot be due her hanging herself.
45] The learned counsel for the appellant had cited the case Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P reported in AIR 1994 SCW 2210: (1994) 5 SCC188 and had referred to para-11, wherein adverse inference was drawn to non-sending of copy of FIR and inquest report along with dead body to the medical officer. We are sorry to record that the learned counsel for appellant had cited a case which was overruled by a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Radha Mohn Singh @ Lal Sahed v. State of U.P., (2006) 0 Supreme(SC) 59: (2006) 2 SCC 450. The relevant paragraph as extracted from (2006) 0 Supreme(SC) 59 is quoted below:-
"it is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the purpose of holding an inquest is very limited, viz., to ascertain as to whether a person has committed suicide or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence. There is absolutely no requirement in law of mentioning the details of the FIR, names of the accused or the names of the eye-witnesses or the gist of their statement nor it is required to be signed by any eye-witness. In Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) the language used by the legislature in Section 174 Cr.P.C. was not taken note of nor the earlier decisions of this Court were referred to and some sweeping observations have been made which are not Page No.# 27/34 supported by the statutory provision. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the observations made in paras 11 and 12 of the reports do not represent the correct statement of law and they are hereby over-ruled."
46] Moreover, we find that in the State of Assam, there is no provision in the Assam Police Manual, requiring a copy of FIR and Inquest Report along with the dead body to the Medical Officer. Therefore, in the absence of such a provision, the ratio of the overruled case of Meharaj Singh (supra), cannot be applied under the distinguishable facts of the present case in hand. 47] With regard to the delay in sending the copy of the FIR to the Magistrate, we find it appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex court in Chotkau v. State of U.P, (supra) wherein it was held that "69. On the question of compliance of Section 157(1) along with logical reasoning for doing so, the following passage from the decision in Jafarudheen v. State ofKerala [Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 436] may be usefully quoted as under : (SCC p. 462, paras 28-29) "28. The jurisdictional Magistrate plays a pivotal role during the investigation process. It is meant to make the investigation just and fair. The investigating officer is to keep the Magistrate in the loop of his ongoing investigation. The object is to avoid a possible foul play. The Magistrate has a role to play under Section 159 CrPC.
29. The first information report in a criminal case starts the process of investigation by letting the criminal law into motion. It is certainly a vital and valuable aspect of evidence to corroborate the oral evidence. Therefore, it is imperative that such an information is expected to reach the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest point of time to avoid any Page No.# 28/34 possible ante-dating or ante-timing leading to the insertion of materials meant to convict the accused contrary to the truth and on account of such a delay may also not only get bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, there is also a danger creeping in by the introduction of a coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. However, a mere delay by itself cannot be a sole factor in rejecting the prosecution's case arrived at after due investigation. Ultimately, it is for the court concerned to take a call. Such a view is expected to be taken after considering the relevant materials."
48] We find that in the instant case, nothing was asked in the cross- examination of the I.O. Further, although much argument was raised about alleged ante timing of FIR, but no such questions were put before the case I.O. and the Sub Inspector who registered the FIR, when they appeared before the court as PW-8 and PW-9. Further it is seen from the evidence of the informant that on 11.07.2014 at around 9:30 to 10 AM the informant was informed over phone that his daughter was admitted to Doboka hospital in a serious condition. Then around 11 to 12 o'clock, he went to Doboka hospital and he found that his daughter was dead and he then filed the FIR. Later on, the police and Circle Officer came and inquest report was made, the dead body was sent for Post Mortem on the same day i.e. on 11.07.2014.We thus find the FIR was promptly filed and registered and immediate necessary steps was taken to send the body for post mortem examination. It is not the plea of the learned counsel for the appellants that the delay in sending a copy of the FIR to the JMFC cast a doubt on its authenticity and we are of the considered view that in the instant case, no case is made out that the delay in sending the FIR to the JMFC affect the Page No.# 29/34 right of accused adversely and thus is not found to be fatal, in the instant case. 49] We shall now examine whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient in order to bring home a conviction under section 304-B IPC. The ingredients to constitute an offence under section 304-B IPC are extracted hereunder:
"304-B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
50] From the evidence adduced, we find that it is an undisputed fact that the incident occurred within 7 (seven) years of their marriage. Pw 3 had deposed that the deceased Hamida Begum and the appellant no.1 got married in 2013, the evidence of PW 2 and PW-5 shows that they were married in 2014, while the incident occurred on 11.07.2014, thus, we find that the incident occurred within 7 years of their marriage.
51] The next ingredient that needs to be proved is that soon before her death, Hamida Begum was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband or in connection with any demand for dowry.
Page No.# 30/34 52] On scrutiny of the deposition of the prosecution depositions, we find that PW No.2 Mohammed Harej Ali, being the informant had mentioned that since the marriage, the appellant No.1 had been torturing his daughter, the deceased victim. When the deceased victim came to his house on 09.07.2014, she had mentioned about the demand of One lakh rupees made by her parents -in- law.Pw-4 had also stated that he was informed that the accused had demanded Rupees One lakh and that he had also assaulted the deceased victim Hamida. Pw-5 had also mentioned that since a few days after the marriage the accused had torturing Hamida by demanding dowry of Rupees One lakh by her parents- in-law and her husband. PW No.3 Moinuddin Laskar states that he had also heard that Hamida Begum had been tortured by her husband and his parents in law and that he got to know about the demand of Rupees One lakh.
It is thus seen that all these prosecution witnesses have been consistent in their statement that there was a dowry demand of Rupees one lakh, further the witnesses have also mention that the deceased victim was tortured but have not elaborated on the nature of the torture.
53] PW-6 Bedena Begum, is the prosecution witness who witnessed the appellants assault Hamida Begum on 11.07.2017 morning, which had resulted in her death. On 11.07.2017 morning, she heard Hamida scream and saw her father-in-law sitting on her chest and pressing her neck. The mother-in-law of Hamida pulled Hamida by the hair and her husband was holding and pulling both her legs the deceased. PW-8 the case I.O, deposed that the statement of PW 6 under section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded by the Magistrate, Hojai Sankardev Nagar on 03.12.2014 and PW-8 also recorded the 161 Cr.P.C statement of Bedena Begum on the same day.
Page No.# 31/34 54] We notice that there were three investigating officers in the case and they were examined as PW nos. 8, 9 and 10. However, none of the said three investigating officers were cross-examination on the point of inordinate delay of about 162 days in recording the statement of Ms. Bedana Begum (PW-6) under section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus, when the appellant had failed to cross-examine the three investigating officers of the case, i.e. PW nos. 8, 9 and 10, the appellate Court cannot examine the question of delay, if any, in recording of statement of Ms. Bedana Begum (PW-6) under section 161 Cr.P.C. In this regard, we find support from para-16 of the case of Harbeer Singh v. Seeshpal, (supra). It may be mentioned that in the said case, the Supreme Court of India had not interfered with the decision of the High Court, doubting the evidence of PW nos. 1, 5 6 and 11 on the ground of delay in recording statement of particular witnesses. However, the observations made in para-16 thereof is quoted below:-
"16. As regards the incident of murder of the deceased, the prosecution has produced six eye-witnesses to the same. The argument raised against the reliance upon the testimony of these witnesses pertains to the delay in the recording of their statements by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, the date of occurrence was 21.12.1993 but the statements of PW-1 and PW-5 were recorded after two days of incident, i.e., on 23.12.1993. The evidence of PW6 was recorded on 26.12.1993 while the evidence of PW-11 was recorded after 10 days of incident, i.e., on 31.12.1993. Further, it is well-settled law that delay in recording the statement of the witnesses does not necessarily discredit their testimony. The Court may rely on such testimony if they are cogent and credible and the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. [See Ganeshlal v.
Page No.# 32/34 State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106; Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B., (2002) 7 SCC 334; Prithvi (Minor) v. Mam Raj &Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 279 and Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1]."
55] In the instant case this Court finds that no question was raised before the trial court with regards to the delay in recording the statement of PW-6. The credibility of the deposition of PW-6 was not shaken in the cross examination and no reason was made out in the cross examination as to why the testimony of PW6, who had witnessed the assault of the deceased Hamida Begum by the appellants, should not be believed. Further the nature of injuries described in the post mortem report and in the inquest report, suggested that the victim was overpowered by more than one person and was strangulated, which had resulted in her death. For the aforesaid reasons we are of the considered opinion that that delay in recording the statement of the PW-6 does not necessarily discredit her testimony and we find that the deceased victim was subjected to physical torture.
56] We have also considered the evidence adduced by defence witnesses and we are of the considered opinion that though the appellants have taken the plea that the death of was caused by hanging herself with the saree which she had bought on her way when she returned from to her in- laws house however as already discussed the Post Mortem Report and the Inquest report do not support their claim that her death was caused by the victim hanging herself and though the said saree was seized there is no evidence to indicate that the seized saree was used by the deceased for hanging herself. 57] Thus, considering the prosecution evidence in its entirety we find that the incident occurred within 7 years of their marriage. There was a demand Page No.# 33/34 for Rupees One Lakh by the parents-in-law and the husband of the deceased victim Hamida Begum when the deceased victim visited her parents on 09.07.2014.She returned to her in laws- house on 10.07.2014 and thereafter, the next day of her returned on 11/07.2014, it is shown that she was subjected to physical assault by her husband and parents-in-law and was taken to Doboka hospital, where she died by the time the informant reached the hospital. Thus, we find that the required ingredients to constitute an offence under section 304 B IPC have been proved in the instant case. Likewise, there is the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act as to the dowry death, if it should be shown that soon before her unnatural death, which took place within seven years of the marriage, the deceased had been subjected, by such person, to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry. 58] Thus, in view of the above findings we are of the considered view that the learned Additional Districts & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in it's order dated 21.06.2019 in S.C. No.32(N)/2016, has rightly convicted of the appellants under Section 304B IPC.
59] We however, find that the appellants in the sentence order dated 26.06.2019, have been sentenced to undergo the maximum punishment of rigorous imprisonment for life. We find it appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727 wherein it was held that (quote) "Section 304-B IPC only raises presumption and lays down that minimum sentence should be seven years but it may extend to imprisonment for life. Therefore, awarding extreme punishment of imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case ."Accordingly, while confirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B IPC, we Page No.# 34/34 find it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to 8 years' Rigorous Imprisonment.
60] In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the above modification of sentence.
61] Crl. Appeal No.298 of 2019 thus stands disposed of as above.
62] LCR to be returned.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant