TAHIR MIAN AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which falls for determination in the instant criminal revision application is whether a matrimonial dispute resulting in conviction of the petitioners at the instance of the informant-wife under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act can be allowed to be compounded under Sec. 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) The factual aspect of this case in detail is not required to be reproduced, herein, rather brief statement of facts would be sufficient to settle the above question framed in the case. At the instance of informant-Amna Bibi, Bishrampur P.S. Case No.97 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No.1224 of 2005 was instituted under Sections 379, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with the allegation that her marriage with petitioner no.1-Tahir Mian was solemnized on 10.05.2004 as per Muslim rites and after marriage she remained in her matrimonial home for 15 days but thereafter a Splendour motorcycle was demanded by her husband and in-laws. Her father being poor could not provide the same and due to non-fulfilment of their demand, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. When her father and guardian visited her matrimonial home for her Bidai, she narrated everything to her father. The thumb impression of her father was forcibly taken by in-laws on a paper and only thereafter she was allowed to go with her father. However, they snatched her ear ring and other gold and silver ornaments.

(3.) It appears from the record that the police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners where after the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence in the above Sections. Accordingly, charges were framed. After trial, the court below convicted the petitioners-Tahir Mian, Mokhtar Mian and Rauf Ansari under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of 5000.00 with default clause and simple imprisonment of 15 days respectively. They were also convicted under Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine of 3000.00 with default clause. Similarly, petitioner no.4 Sahina Baz @ Sahina Bano and petitioner no.5-Saidi Bibi @ Sazda Bibi were convicted under Sec. 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each with fine of 3000.00 with default clause and simple imprisonment for 15 days respectively and also under Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine of 2000.00 with default clause. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal but the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this revision against the concurrent findings of the two courts below.