AKBAR ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.8.2005 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Sessions Case No.82/03 convicting the appellant under Sec. 304 (B) Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years .

(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that the appellant married the informant's daughter Rafiya Begum and out of said wedlock a male child was born. The informant's daughter was allegedly killed by the appellant on 21.12.2002 due to failure of the informant to meet the dowry demand. The informant's FIR was received and registered as Belsor P.S.Case No.138/2001 under Sections 498 (A)/304 (B) Penal Code. The usual investigation was carried out. The post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased in the Nalbari Civil Hospital and after conclusion of the investigation and collection of the post mortem report, the IO concerned laid the charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections of law. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against 8 (eight) accused persons, including the present appellant, under Sec. 498A and 304B /34 Penal Code. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They accordingly stood the trial. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses while the accused persons examined none. The accused persons took the plea of complete denial. On the basis of the materials and evidence on record the learned trial court convicted the present appellant Md. Akbar Ali under Sec. 304 B Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The other co-accused persons were acquitted. Hence this appeal by this present appellant alone against the said conviction and sentence.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the records as well as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which are available on record. The informant, Md. Rahman Choudhury is the father of the victim and he was examined as PW-1. He has testified the fact of filing Ejahar but he has not stated anything about the dowry demand by the appellant and the other co-accused persons. The prosecution also examined some neighbours as independent witnesses namely PW-2 and 3. They are reported witnesses and they have not stated about the dowry demand. From the evidence it is found that none of the witnesses except PW-5, mother of the deceased, made any statement regarding dowry demand. In the evidence of PW-5 there is a little reference about the demand for gold ring by the present appellant from the in laws to give it as a present to the grandson the occasion of his birthday. It cannot, in true sense, be termed a dowry demand inasmuch it was only a demand for the grand son and not for himself or any of the in laws. There is nothing in the evidence that the appellant, and for that matter, any of the co-accused or relative of the appellant demanded dowry in the form of cash or kind.