ASHRAF ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr. Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2001 and order of sentence dated 01.05.2001 recorded by Shri Abdul Samad, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Nos. 1 & 2 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years whereas Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 7 years each was awarded to the appellants No. 3 & 4.

(2.) The prosecution story that stands recorded in the Fard Bayan of the informant Ali Hussain speaks that his daughter Ambia Bibi was married to the appellant Ashraf Ansari in the year 1991 and on the eve of marriage the informant had presented several articles according to his capacity to his son-in-law. However, after some time of the marriage, he was called for by his "Samdhi" Umar Ansari (an accused who died during trial) and when he visited the matrimonial home of his daughter Ambia Bibi, the informant was confronted with his "Samdhin" Masira Bibi (she being an accused also died during trial), son-in-law and brother of the son-in-law, who unanimously demanded one Radio failing to which he was threatened that his daughter would be deserted. Complying the demand of the accused, the informant delivered a Radio to them. After some time, he was again called for and this time all the appellants including Saleha Khatoon and Saida Bibi expressed that nothing substantial was given on the eve of the marriage of his daughter, as such, they demanded Rs. 10,000/-, a T.V., and a cartfull of articles and only then Sabia Bibi would be allowed to stay there at her matrimonial home otherwise her dead body would be thrown after committing her murder and Ashraf Ansari would be remarried. The informant expressed his inability to fulfill such demand on account of his poverty which ignited the appellants and the other accused who asked him to leave the place by extending threat that he should now forget his daughter. On 14.06.1995 in the morning at about 6.30 a.m. the informant being scared of the misconduct of the accused persons when visited the matrimonial home of his daughter, he did not find any of the inmates there and all the doors of the house were found open. On query, he gathered from the neighbours that all the members of the family had already left the house after committing murder of his daughter. The informant then immediately went inside and found his daughter hanging with the plastic rope of green colour tied around her neck and she was dead. He came to learn from one Shailesh Mistri that on 13.06.1995 at about 12 O'clock he had visited the shop of one Inayet Ansari situated adjacent to the house of Umar Ansari and witnessed the appellants and the other accused assaulting Ambia Bibi with kicks and fists as also by sticks and when he interfered, he was also assaulted by them. The informant had, therefore, reason to believe that his daughter was killed in the night of 13/14.06.1995 by the appellants and others only because of non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry and thereafter she was hanged by giving a colour of suicide. In the meantime the police arrived, recorded the Fard Bayan of the informant on 14.06.1995 at about 10 hours at the matrimonial home of the deceased and thereby registered Chainpur P.S. Case No. 55 of 1995 for the alleged offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants and other co-accused persons. However, after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 304B/120B of the Indian Penal Code. After framing of charge under Sections 304B/120B of the Indian Penal Code, and after conclusion of prosecution evidence the appellants were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by confronting the materials produced in course of trial. Their defence was of false implication and innocence and that the instant case was instituted only because the informant had demanded the ornaments of his deceased daughter which was not returned to him. That they had neither demanded dowry from him nor she was ever tortured to death. It was their defence that the informant wanted 'Talaq' of his daughter from his son-in-law to which she did not concede and that she was compelled by such circumstances and there was no way out except to commit suicide in order to get rid of the problems she was facing in her life.

(3.) The prosecution examined altogether 13 witnesses and out of them P.W. 2 Mohamaddin Ansari and P.W. 12 Dhani Mian were tendered by the prosecution. The other witnesses such as P.W. 1 Sattar Khalifa, P.W. 3 Inayet Hussain, P.W. 4 Rahamuddin Ansari, P.W. 5 Shailesh Mishtry and P.W. 11 Imamuddin were unfavourable to the prosecution hence declared hostile. P.W. 9 Dr. John F. Kennedy had examined the injuries on the person of Shailesh Mishtry (P.W. 5) whereas P.W. 10 Dr. Krishna Murari Sah had held autopsy on the body of Ambia Bibi. P.W. 13 Manohar Ram was the Investigating Officer, who filed charge-sheet and the other material witnesses were P.W. 8 Ali Hussain (informant himself), his wife P.W. 6 Shahidan Bibi and his son P.W. 7 Mubarak Hussain.