Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

43. This witness was cross-examined by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, this witnesses praised the accused Akhtar @ Bhoora for his work. However, at the end he finally stated that he does not know anything about the marital life of the accused Akhtar @ Bhoora.

(II) D.W. 2 Gohar Ali is an Advocate practicing at Collectorate, District Badaun. He deposed before the Court below on 31.10.2011. According to this witness, he is working as public notary for many years. He produced the notary register of 2009. As per the entry occurring at Serial No. 166 dated 28.1.2009, Smt. Anisha Begum wife of Abdul Laik, executed a deed dated 28..1.2008 in favour of Majrunlah. Anisha Begum was identified by Tavesh Ali S/o Nause Ali. The deed of surrender (dastbardari) was executed in favour of Majrun lah- S/o Anisha Begum. He further stated that at the end of identification of the accused, attestation were done. The defence produced the original deed of surrender (dastbardari) which was marked as Ext. Kha-3.

47. The Court below, after having recorded the aforesaid reasons for accepting the testimony of P.W. 2 Smt. Tasleem the first informant/mother of the deceased proceeded to evaluate the case.

48. On behalf of the accused, various submissions were made before the Court below in proof of their innocence and also to establish that the prosecution case is highly improbable and the circumstantial evidence does not support the same. It was then urged that the Police upon completion of the Investigation of the Case Crime Number concerned, has submitted the charge-sheet only against three out of the four nominated accused in the F.I.R. Acchan, the father-in-law of the deceased has been excluded from the charge sheet which goes to show that the prosecution case is false. It was next submitted that at the time of consideration of the bail application of the accused, affidavits were filed by the parents of the deceased wherein they categorically stated that the accused persons have not killed their daughter on account of non fulfillment of the demand of dowry nor there was any demand of dowry by the accused persons. The veracity of the averments made in the affidavit were got enquired by a Circle Officer. In continuation of the aforesaid, the credibility and reliability of P.W.1 Majrul was challenged on the ground that at the time of occurrence P.W.1 was in Madras, as such, he could not have any knowledge of the occurrence. It was then submitted that P.W. 2 Smt. Tasleem the mother of the deceased has not supported the occurrence in her previous statements. It was also urged that P.W. 2 Smt. Tasleem in order to give such statements which are favorable to the accused had demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- . However, in lieu of the same, a house has been given which is evident from the deed of surrender (dastbardari) executed by Anisha Begum in favour of her son Majrunlah. The aforesaid deed has been proved by D.W. 2 Gohar Ali, Advocate, who had notarized the aforesaid deed. It was further argued that at the time of occurrence, eight years had expired from the date of marriage. There is no justification that after the expiry of such a long period, the in-laws will demand a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards dowry. The conduct of P.W. 2 Smt. Tasleem was seriously challenged by submitting that she has continuously changed her stand. Firstly, she deposed as P.W. 1 and supported the defence. However, as money was not paid to her she took a somersault. She submitted an application under section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking her recall as a witness on the ground that the earlier testimony was given by her on account of coercion and misrepresentation on the part of the accused. In the subsequent statement which was recorded by treating her as C.W. 1. she has implicated the accused in the commission of the alleged crime. In view of the above, no reliance could be placed upon her statements. The defence has produced respectable persons in evidence regarding the proof of their innocence. It was also urged that there is contradiction in the oral evidence which has come on the record. In view of the affidavit submitted by P.W. 2 Smt. Tasleem, the first informant, the accused are liable to be acquitted. The accused Akhtar @ Bhoora was not present in the house, which is the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. The same stands substantiated by the testimony of the accused Akhtar @ Bhoora himself as recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he has clearly stated that at the time of occurrence, the accused Akhtar @ Bhoora (husband of the deceased) was at the shop of Akhlaq Furniture, making some purchase for a retired Police Sub-Inspector namely, Mohd. Naeem D.W.1. As such, the innocence of the accused Akhtar @ Bhoora was sought to be pleaded on the basis of plea of alibi. According to D.W. 1, Mohd. Naeem, he and the accused Akhtar @ Bhoora had gone to make some purchase. While they were purchasing something from one of the co-accused Akhtar Hukumdar at around 3:00 pm of 25.7.2008, they received news that Shaboo @ Shabenoor, wife of Akhtar @ Bhoora has been murdered in the jungle. As such, the plea of alibi was sought to be raised.