NUR HASSAN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instances of onslaught on females in their matrimonial houses are not very uncommon and large number of dowry deaths do come to notice of Courts notwithstanding there being at tempt to restrict them from social cores. The happiness of Hajara Khatoon, the deceased, wedded to Abul Hassan Ansari too was quite short lived, as allegedly after her marriage she had to face hostile atmosphere in her in-laws' house and was even tortured and maltreated by in-laws for failure of her parents to make provisions of sufficient dowry to them, and as the prosecution alleges the in-laws, who are appellants, having killed, dropped her in the well, pursuant thereto having taken out the dead body, buried it, and first information report with more or less these accusations was drawn up on behest of father of the deceased, pursuant to which the investigation commenced. During investigation, the police officer entrusted to onerous task of investigation, collected evidences, recorded statement of witnesses, got the dead body exhumed from the burial ground under supervision of a Magistrate, got autopsy held by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation laid charge-sheet before the Court.

(2.) In the trial that followed, the State examined altogether ten witnesses and it seems from evidence of P.W. 10 that the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased could not be examined at trial though the post-mortem report was placed on the record with the aid of evidence of said witness, which, in my view, was admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Those examined by the State include father of the deceased who is also maker of the Fardbeyan, the brother and other family members of the deceased and also those who had shown some sort of proximity with the incident of killing of Hajara Khatoon in the in-laws' house.

(3.) The defence of the appellants before the Court below and this Court had been that of innocence and false implication for no good reason. The defence of Nurul Hassan Ansari and his wife was that they were living separately from Abul Hassan Ansari and there was no occasion for them to get involved in killing of Hajara Khatoon. The other defence of the appellants was that shortly after death of Hajara Khatoon her parents were informed by the in-laws and they too participated in burying the dead body and it was only on account of failure of the in-laws to return ornaments of the deceased to her father that this false case had been concocted against them. The defence too had chosen to examine six witnesses ostensibly to rebut the accusations attributed to them, and from narrations made by the witnesses it would seem that the defence of the appellants was that Hajara Khatoon suffered eclampsia attack and in the process of drawing water, she fell in the well and met her tragic end. Other witnesses examined by the defence were put in the witness box to persuade the Court to believe that after death of Hajara Khatoon, parents were duty informed by the in-laws.