MD.ALAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Cr. Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 304B/498A I.P.C. and order of sentence passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 138 of 1997 whereby and whereunder each of the appellants was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count with the stipulation that both the sentences against them would run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution story as it stands narrated in the Fard Bayan (Ext. 3) of the informant P.W. 3 Md. Umar on 17.9.96 was recorded in the following manner that his sister Rashida Khatoon (since deceased) was married to the appellant Md. Alam son of the appellant No.2 Md. Rafiq in the year 1990. Soon after the marriage his sister was tortured by her husband, father -in -law, mother -in -law and the elder brother of the husband Md. Siraj for dowry. She was often scolded and assaulted by them who had been extending threat to commit her murder. The fact was complained by her during visit to her parental home time to time but the witnesses were tolerating apprehending otherwise dissolution of her marriage. Yet, the witnesses tried to resolve the differences but in spite of the efforts they continued perpetrating torture to her by putting pressure to bring dowry from her parental home. On 14.9.96 they were informed by Babloo Mama on telephone from Chakradharpur that Rashida Khatoon was serious. Pursuant to such information, the witnesses came to Chakradharpur in the evening and went to the matrimonial home of Rashida where they learnt that she was removed to Tata in precarious condition. The informant alongwith his another sister Jahida Khatoon, younger brother Nuruddin and Babloo Mama came to Tata and in course of interaction the victim Rashida Khatoon, apprised that in the night of 13.9.96 at about 10 O'clock her husband, mother -in -law and father -in -law (all the three appellants) lit her body on fire with the help of matches after pouring kerosene oil and at that time her all four limbs were tied. She narrated that in spite of her screaming, none of them came forward to save her life and they returned to their rooms. Yet, on her screaming when the neighbouring people started assembling, her husband came and pretended to put out the fire from her body by pouring water, opened the door then the Mohalla people came in with the help of whom she was removed to Railway Hospital, Chakradharpur with severe burn injuries and from there to Tata. Rashida Khatoon succumbed her injuries in course of treatment on 16.9.96 at about 5 p.m. The informant further narrated that the elder brother of her husband Md. Siraj had come to Chakradharpur on 13.9.96 who hatched conspiracy and pursuant to that Rashida was burnt by pouring k. oil as a result of which she died. The informant put his signature on his statement, which was proved and marked Ext. 2. The police registered Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 124/96 on 17.9.96 under Section 304B/120B I.P.C. and after investigation charge -sheet was submitted. Charge against all the three appellants including one Md. Siraj was framed under Sections 302/34, 498A/34 I.P.C. Yet, separate charge against the appellants was framed under Section 304B LP.C. It is evident that the charge under Section 114 r/w Section 304B was framed against the co -accused Md. Shiraj and all the four were put on trial.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel assailed the impugned judgment and order on the ground that there was unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. The informant learnt about the occurrence on 14.9.96 and pursuant to that he went to Chakradharpur Railway Hospital and from there to Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur but no case was instituted against the appellants until the death of Rashida Khatoon on 16.9.96 of burn injuries. Learned Counsel pointed out that the prosecution case was that Rashida Khatoon before her death had explained the cause of her burn injuries to the witnesses but in spite of such narration neither police was informed about the cognizable offence nor any attempt was made to get her dying declaration recorded which gives rise to the concoction and inference that the occurrence did not take place in the manner presented by the prosecution. The learned Counsel exhorted that the informant of the instant case P.W. 3 Md. Umar, cousin (brother) of the deceased did not support the prosecution case being unfavourable and in this manner the entire prosecution case is liable to be disbelieved as it could not be proved.