GULAM SAMDANI AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the State on an interlocutory application bearing No. 704 of 2015 wherein prayer has been made to admit the appellant No. 1, Gulam Samdani on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that it is the case of the prosecution that Razia Khatoon (deceased) had earlier married to one person but during subsistence of the marriage, she was leading adulterous life with appellant No. 1, Gulam Samdani and that she used to stay for whole night in a room with Gulam Samdani. In that event, husband of Razia Khatoon had given divorce. Thereafter a panchayati was convened where the, appellant No. 1 Gulam Samdani agreed to marry Razia Khatoon and accordingly, he married her, though he was having first wife -When Razia Khatoon had started living with Gulam Samdani, the first wife did not like it and therefore, there used to be tense situation in the family. The other day perhaps out of annoyance, first wife of Gulam Samdani consumed poison and when her condition became quite precarious, family members took her to a Nursing Home. While the family members were engaged in getting her treatment, Razia Khatoon was found hanging through a tree away from home. When the information was received by the father of Razia Khatoon, he came and lodged a case with the allegation that the husband as well as these appellants and co -convicts were demanding Rs. 20,000/ - and on account of non -fulfilment of demand of dowry, she was being subjected to torture and hence, suspicion was raised against all these appellants and other accused persons. In course of trial, the father, (informant) and mother of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution though some of the witnesses have testified about the demand of dowry and subjection to cruelty but those circumstances would not be enough to convict the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) FURTHER submission is that there has been absolutely no evidence either direct or circumstantial except those two materials stated above to establish that it was appellant who was responsible for causing murder of the deceased and under the circumstances, the appellant deserves to be admitted on bail.