TAHRUL ISLAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 29-8-1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 90/1992, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted all the three appellants for the offence under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of two and half years each. They were further convicted for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of four months each on each, count and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3000.00 each in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of two months.

(2.) In short the prosecution case is that the informant's sister Samima Begum was married to Kalimuddin Seikh (appellant No. 3) three years prior to the alleged occurrence. After the marriage, Samima Begum went to her in-laws' place and then her husband started demanding wrist watch by way of dowry and for that he also started torturing his wife Samima Begum. On 14-5-1986 the informant's sister Samima Begum, was severely assaulted by her in-laws due to non-fulfilment of the demand of the wrist watch and they also tried to kill her by pouring Kerosene Oil but any how she could save her life. Further case of the prosecution is that on 18-3-1997 due to the intervention of the villagers, settlement was arrived at between the husband and the wife and then the husband Kalimuddin Seikh took his wife with him. But after 5-6 days the husband again started demanding watch by way of dowry and the in-laws again started torturing the victim in various ways. In that course on 25-3-1987 all the accused persons by hatching up a conspiracy, in order to kill Samima Begum started assaulting her and then sprinkled kerosene oil on her person and tried to set her on fire but when she raised hulla then some of the villagers, i.e. Saifuddin Sk., Habibur Rahman, Tajamul Hussain etc. came and then the life of Samima Begum was saved. Thereafter. the victim was sent back to the house of the informant, where the victim lady narrated about the occurrence to the informant and, thereafter, the FIR was lodged on 30th March 1987.

(3.) The defence case is of total denial of the allegation and of false implication.