IMRAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preferred against the judgment & order dated 08.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, in connection with Sessions Case No. 54(A)/2005, convicting the accused appellant Sri Imran Khan, u/s. 498(A) IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The brief facts of the prosecution can be stated in a nut-shell that the daughter of the informant Abu Sama was given marriage to the accused Imran Khan about 3 years back and out of their wed-lock, a girl child was born. Suddenly, on 10.06.2003, at about 8PM, they got an information that their daughter has committed suicide and thereafter, the father of the deceased woman lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge, Abhayapuri, to the effect that the accused and his family used to torture her demanding Rs. 15,000/- as dowry. So, it might be a case of murder on the part of the accused persons and thereafter, hanged her body on a tree. A case was registered vide Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 73/2003 u/ss. 498A/306 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused person Imran Khan and his mother. On being committed, the accused faced the trial before the learned Sessions Court and the accused denied the charges levelled against him. In course of trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of the case and defence also examined 4 witnesses on plea of their denial. At the conclusion, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused Imran Khan guilty u/s.498(A) IPC and convicted and sentenced him, as aforesaid.

(2.) Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant has preferred the appeal on the grounds that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and has arrived at an erroneous finding about guilt of the accused while there is no conclusive evidence as regards the cruelty on the part of the accused persons in terms of section 498(A) IPC. Further contention of the appellant is that the demand of dowry as mentioned in the FIR is only an afterthought which can be inferred from the delay in the FIR and no explanation has been given for delay in filing the FIR. On the next, the FIR itself is given on mere assumption and prior to that also, there was no any case has been filed alleging torture by the appellant. Thus, it has been assailed that in absence of clear, consistent and inspiring evidence from the side of the prosecution, and in view of defence evidence so adduced by the accused appellant, it can be held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

(3.) Initiating the argument, the learned addl. P.P. has argued that in view of testimony of the parents as well as the testimony of the relative of the deceased, a case of cruelty is made-out on the demand of dowry. The fact that the deceased reported the demand of Rs. 15,000/- by the accused, and the assault made by the accused husband, to her parents when she came to her parental house, is enough to hold about the cruelty on the part of the accused appellant. The fact that the victim died in a doubtful circumstance is another aspect which aim at the cruelty meted upon the victim.