MOHD RAFIQ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No. 5 got married with Shama (now deceased) on 9th September, 2009 according to the Muslim rites and ceremonies.

(2.) LEARNED counsel further submits that the said marriage was preceded by love affairs between the two. After marriage both the parties had been staying in a rented accommodation and there was no intervention from the side of either party to the life of the deceased. Before death, deceased Shama was suffering from fever and abdominal pain as she was pregnant and having six and a half months pregnancy. She was admitted in a nearby hospital i.e. Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital, however the condition of the deceased became critical on 19th June, 2010. Therefore, she was referred to GTB Hospital. On 20th June, 2010, the deceased expired at GTB Hospital due to sepicemic shock as per the MLC prepared at the GTB Hospital.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the first statement of the father of the deceased wherein he stated that after the marriage her daughter was living in her matrimonial home without any information to them. Her in-laws were not allowing him to meet with their daughter for demand of dowry. It is stated that he gave mobile phone to his daughter and the said mobile phone was further given by his son in law to his brother. His daughter was pregnant and was not aware of the same. After coming there, he came to know that his daughter was to be operated upon but her in-laws did not allow for the same due to which their daughter had died. It is further stated that he had doubt that his daughter had been killed due to harassment for dowry and due to perforation of mental agony and due to non-permission for her operation.