SOHAIB AHMAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 1.10.2001 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2001/46 of 2000 (S.J.) allowing the judgment in part passed by Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya on 28.4.2000 in Complaint Case No. 666 of 1991/Tr. No. 441 of 2000 by which the petitioner and one Hasmat Khatoon were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and three months and fine of Rs. 1000/ - each under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more and the petitioner was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code with a direction that the sentences will run concurrently. The appellate court allowed the appeal of Hasmat Khatoon and acquitted her from the charges leveled against her but the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed finding him guilty under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and he was also acquitted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Complaint Case No. 666 of 1991 under Sections 323, 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was filed by complainant Md. Tahir alleging therein that his daughter Marium Khatoon was married with the petitioner in the month of April, 1984 but after marriage, her husband and mother -in -law Hasmat Khatoon started torturing her in connection with demand of colour T.V., Sofa Set and Rs. 9,000/ - in cash and on 18.8.1987 the petitioner forcibly brought his wife to her parents house in injured condition and told that unless demands are fulfilled, he will not keep Marium with him. On 15.8.1991 the complainant came to know that the petitioner performed another marriage with the daughter of Sharfuddin of the same village. The matter was enquired into and after completion of enquiry cognizance was taken under Sections 323, 494 and 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons mentioned in the complaint petition. Summons were issued to the accused persons and they appeared. One accused namely, Nisar Ahmad, father of the petitioner, died and his name was deleted.

(2.) BEFORE charge five witnesses including the complainant were examined and on the basis of the materials available on record, charges under Sections 323, 494 and 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against both the accused namely, the petitioner and his mother and trial proceeded.

(3.) THE defence of the accused persons was that they have been falsely implicated as no such occurrence took place. In support of its case, the defence also examined four witnesses. They are D.W. 1 Afroz Alam, D.W. 2 Sajid Hassan, D.W. 3 Md. Hasnain and D.W. 4 Sohaib Ahmad, the petitioner himself. The defence also produced some documents which have been marked as Exts. A and B.