MD BADRUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 12th of December, 1996 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 593 of 1994 convicting all the seven appellants under Secs. 326, 307 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.) and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for five years, ten years and one year respectively. All the appellants were also convicted under Secs. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but no separate sentence was awarded under these sections. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that informant Sogra Khatoon (P.W. 4) who is mother of the victim lady gave a written report dated 31.5.1992 before the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, alleging that her husband Abdul Hafiz (P.W. 1) employed at Calcutta in the Defence Department. The victim lady Rizwana Khatoon is her daughter. She was married with Md. Badruddin (Appellant No. 1) about three years ago. At the time of marriage she was given articles worth Rs. 50,000.00 in gift. After the marriage the Appellant No. 1, Md. Badruddin and his parent and brothers started demanding money and threatened that if the money is not brought by the victim lady (Rizwana Khatoon) from Naihar she will be killed. The victim lady gave birth to a daughter about one and half years ago. She further alleged that on 25.5.1992 her nephew Md. Shamsher (not examined) came to her and stated that appellant Md. Badruddin and his brothers (Appellant Nos. 2 to 7) and his mother Bibi Zaitun had tied the hands and feets of her daughter Rizwana Khatoon and accused -appellant Badruddin sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire. He further reported that she had severe burn injuries. On receipt of this message, she along with her nephew and others went to Nawadah at the house of Md. Badruddin where she met Md. Salam and Md. Ijahar, the brothers of Md. Badruddin to whom she enquired about her daughter Rizwana Khatoon but they did not reply and fled away from the house. On enquiry from the neighbours she learnt that all the accused -appellants with an intention to kill her daughter, had set her on fire after sprinkling kerosene oil and has concealed her in burnt condition somewhere. She went to the local police station but Sub -Inspector of Police was not ready to entertain her complaint. She became disappointed and sent her son to Calcutta to inform and bring her husband. Her husband came back from Calcutta and they all started searching their daughter Rizwana Khatoon. She was located confined in a house of one Md. Aslam and found her in the State of half -burnt condition. The victim lady told them that her husband and other accused -persons have burnt her with an intention to kill after sprinkling kerosene oil. She requested them to send her in the hospital for her treatment but they did not listen and confined her in this house without any treatment. It is further case of the prosecution that when the local police failed to entertain her complaint, she filed the above petition before the Superintendent of Police and on his direction the case was registered in the police station. After investigation the charge -sheet was submitted and after commitment, the trial proceeded in the Court below.

(3.) THE case of the defence is that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The victim lady Rizwana Khatoon wanted to get divorce from her husband Md. Badruddin because he became the patient of leprosy. Since she was not allowed divorce she tried to commit suicide by burning herself. They have not sprinkled kerosene oil on her body nor her husband or anybody set her on fire. They have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also the case of the defence that accused -persons, namely, Md. Jamil, Md. Quamaruddin, Md. Salim and Md Shakil were not present in their house on the alleged date of occurrence and they were at different places. The Case of the accused -appellants Md. Shamshuddin is that on the date of alleged occurrence he was working at Haldia and Md. Jamil was working at Madhya Pradesh. In support of these contentions, the defence has examined three witnesses and has produced some documents (Exts. A to C).