ALLAUDDIN MIAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants alongwith one Rahim Mian were tried for the charges under Sections 302/34 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Rahim Mian died during the pendency of the said case. Learned Court below, giving benefit of doubt, acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted them under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that the daughter of the informant Usman was married three years ago with Sahur Mian -appellant No. 3 on 29.10.1986. At the time of marriage of his daughter, he had given dowry to the appellants according to his capacity, but after marriage, the appellant No. 3 and other relatives had been demanding bicycle and wrist watch in dowry. The same was conveyed by the informants daughter. However, the informant sent his daughter to Sasural (in -law's house) and was in the hope that by passage of time the problem will die down. But, the accused persons continued with the demand of the said articles and to press their demand, started torturing the informant's daughter in various ways. The informant ultimately had arranged the money and had given to his son -in -law for purchasing the demanded articles. Even, thereafter, they continued with their demand of watch and for that purpose tortured her daughter. On 29.9.1986, the accused persons went to the house of the informant and informed that his daughter is missing. On getting that information, the informant alongwith Kurban Mian, Budhan Mian, Ali Bux Mian and Chhotu Mian started searching in the adjoining wells and other places and ultimately they found the dead body of Shakila Khatoon near the boundary wall of Tilak Mian and Rahim Mian with ligature mark on the neck and some other injuries on her back. The informant suspected that his daughter was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons for demand of dowry and thereafter, she was killed by them. The police, after investigation, submitted charge -sheet under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE prosecution examined six witnesses and also proved the first information report (Exhibit 1), the charge -sheet (Exhibit 4). P.w. 1 happens to be the sister of Usman Mian, informant (P.w. 5). She stated in her evidence that Shakila was killed after marriage due to non -fulfilment of dowry demand. However, she is not an eye witness. In paragraph 5 of her deposition, she has stated that cycle was given in dowry, but the demand of watch was not fulfilled. P.w. 2 Bhikhan Mian has not said anything about the demand of dowry or any cruelty to the informant's daughter. P.w. 3 stated about the recovery of the dead body and has proved the inquest report (Exhibit 1), but he has also not said anything about the demand of dowry or torture on Shakila. P.w. 4 Birendra Prasad is a formal witness and has proved the formal first information report (Exhibit 2), the signature of the Sub -Inspector thereon (Exhibit 3) and the charge -sheet Exhibit 4. P.w. 5 Usman Mian is the informant. He has stated that his daughter was married about three years ago. After about one year of the marriage, her daughter was being tortured to bring watch and bicycle.