AMIR ALAM Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment/Order dated 11.03.2010/16.03.2010 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 100/06 + S. Tr. No. 905/06, whereunder the sole appellant/accused No. 1 has been convicted for the offences under Ss. 304B, 120B, 201, 498A of the Penal Code and Ss. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, R.I. for 14 years, 3 years, 3 years, 5 years and two years under different Ss. respectively. The sentences have, however, been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case as stated in the complaint petition dated 22.07.2004 bearing Complaint Case No. 87/2004 filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur is that sister of the complainant, namely, Salma Khatoon @ Guria was married to Md. Amir Alam (appellant) five years earlier as per Mohammedan customs. On the occasion of marriage, father of the complainant and others had given gift in the form of utensils, ornaments, clothes and other articles worth Rs. 25,000/ -. After the marriage, sister of the complainant went to her in -laws house in village -Kaidrabad, but the accused persons were not satisfied with the gift and used to ask her to arrange for further gift in the form of dowry of Rs. 25,000/ - but she told the accused persons about the difficulties faced by her parents. Accused persons, however, threatened her with dire consequences. In the meanwhile, sister of the complainant gave birth to a girl child through Md. Amir Alam, which was also not appreciated by them and the accused persons further tortured her asking to arrange dowry. The sister of the complainant informed her father and the witnesses about the torture for dowry whenever she came to her parents house. Accused persons at the time of taking her to their house from her parents house also used to torture her for payment of dowry, on which father of the complainant used to pay Rs. 4 -5 thousand every time to accused persons in order to make them happy and to take her sister to their house. In the meanwhile, the complainant began to live at Delhi where he received a telephone call that her sister has been done to death by the accused persons for non -payment of dowry and her dead body has been made to disappear. After receiving telephonic information, the complainant came to his village home and went to her in -laws village in search of his sister but the house of the accused persons was found locked and the accused persons not available. The complainant tried to search her sister and then learnt that accused persons took his sister to some other place and having killed her also concealed her dead body for failure of her parents to pay dowry. In the complaint, it is also stated that the complainant went to the Police Station, but the Officer Incharge advised him to file a complaint in the court and delay was caused in filing the complaint. In the complaint, it is also stated that besides the witnesses named in the complaint, others have also seen the occurrence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur having received the complaint forwarded the same to Mohiuddin Nagar Police Station, on the basis of which the Officer Incharge of Mohiuddin Nagar Police Station registered Mohiuddin Nagar P.S. Case No. 55/04 dated 23.08.2004 under Ss. 498A, 304B, 201, 120B of the Penal Code and Ss. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with further endorsement that S.I. Sri J.N. Pandey will investigate the case.

(3.) In the complaint, there are four witnesses, namely, (i) Nazmul Begam (ii) Md. Nayeem (iii) Md. Nasin and (iv) Md. Samsul. Amongst four witnesses named in the complaint, witness Nos. 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased Salma Khatoon. Witness No. 3 Md. Nasin is maternal uncle of the deceased. Witness No. 4 Md. Samsul is co -villager of the complainant/informant. The Investigating Officer, J.N. Pandey, S.I. having examined the witnesses named in the complaint, as also after securing 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Neha, daughter of the deceased, submitted chargesheet No. 100/05 dated 09.10.2005 against accused No. 2 Md. Shahid (brother -in -law of the deceased) keeping the investigation pending against other accused persons named in the complaint. It appears that after submitting first chargesheet dated 09.10.2005 S.I.J.N. Pandey was transferred. The further investigation thereafter was conducted by S.I. K.P. Singh, who submitted chargesheet No. 52/06 against accused No. 1 Md. Amir Alam, husband of the deceased, while keeping investigation pending against rest of the accused. Before S.I. K.P. Singh could conclude the investigation he was also transferred and the subsequent investigation in the case was conducted by S.I. Hari Narain Singh, who submitted 3rd Chargesheet No. 82/06 against accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5, as also against Md. Hanif, the father in law of the deceased, showing him absconder. In the light of chargesheet the court took cognizance after supply of police paper and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial court framed charge against accused persons under order dated 22.08.2006 and 22.01.2007.