MD. DAUD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record.

(2.) This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 29.6.2001 and sentence order dated 30.6.2001 passed by Sri Aditya Kumar Trivedi, learned Addl. Sessions Judge VI, Begusarai in Sessions trial no. 309/2000 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellant under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the above stated offence and he also directed that period of detention as under trial prisoner would be set of as section 428 of the IPC. Furthermore, learned Addl. Sessions Judge VI, Begusarai acquitted the appellant and co accused Md Ataul for the offence punishable under section 304 B of the IPC.

(3.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W. 8, Md Zakir Hussain, gave his fardbeyan on 22.5.1999 at about 5.00 p.m. to the ASI of Mufassil police station to this effect that his daughter Rajiya Manowar Begum was married with the appellant Md Daud in the year 1993 and after marriage, she went to her in-laws' house and after four months of her marriage, Md Daud demanded Rs 30,000/- but he could not meet the aforesaid demand on account of his poverty. The appellant Md Daud started torturing and assaulting his daughter which forced his daughter at so many occasions to come to her natal place and a Panchyati was held so many times between the parties and in that Panchyati, it was decided that neither the aforesaid Rs 30,000/- was to be given nor the appellant and other accused would torture the girl but appellant and his other family members did not change their behaviour. P.W 8 further stated in his fardbeyan that on 22.5.1999 at about 3 p.m. his son Md Kadir informed him that his daughter Rajiya Manowar Begum committed suicide by consuming poison and having got the aforesaid information, he came at the house of the appellant and found that his daughter was lying dead and her in-laws were not present there. He claimed that on account of non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand, his daughter was killed by the appellant and her other in-laws.