BAJARU Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant No.2, Shamima Khatoon, is the second wife of appellant No.1, Md. Bajaru. Deceased in the present case is the first wife of appellant Md. Bajaru. Both the appellants were held guilty under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default clause. They were, however, acquitted of the charge under Sections 201 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case narrated in the written report (Ext.1), in brief, is that on the night intervening 28/29.6.2007 while the victim was at her matrimonial home, she was strangulated to death and the dead body was placed on the darwaja of the house. The written report (Ext.1) was lodged on 29.6.2007 at 12.30 P.M. by Md. Abid (P.W.7), who is the brother of the deceased. As a motive it was alleged in the written report that Abida Khatoon (deceased) was married to appellant No.1 several years ago. 4 to 5 years ago appellant No.1 again married with appellant No.2. Both the wives were residing in the house of appellant No.1. There was perennial quarrel(s) between them, inasmuch as the victim used to be physically harassed by the appellants on numerous occasions. At times she used to flee from her sasural and come to the house of the informant who, expressing his inability to support her due to his poverty, used to persuade her to return back to sasural. A formal FIR (Ext.3) was drawn. The Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest report, inspected the place of occurrence and upon receipt of the post mortem report concluded the investigation and submitted charge sheet against the appellants. The trial of the case was assigned to learned trial judge where charges were framed and explained to the appellants. They abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. On going through the record it appears that appellants took a plea of alibi as well as their false implication merely on suspicion.

(3.) In order to buttress their defence, D.W.1, Nadima Khatoon, being daughter of the deceased and D.W.2, Abdul Majid, being the uncle of appellant No.1, were examined. On bare narration of the case it appears that it is based on circumstantial evidence. Learned trial court has also proceeded on that premise and evaluated the evidence.