MD. AZAD HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT criminal revision is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and order of sentence passed against the petitioners, whereby each of them has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - with default stipulation, passed by the S.D.J.M., Hazaribag on 10.8.1995 in T.R. No. 506 of 2005 arising out of Hazaribag (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 14 of 2002 and the judgment passed in Cr. Appeal No. 139 of 2005 on 17.5.2006, upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. -III, Hazaribag.

(2.) FACT of the case, in short, giving rise to the present revision is that the Complainant -Opposite Party No. 2 Yasmin Khatoon filed a Complaint Case No. 986 of 2001 on 3.11.2001 before the C.J.M., Hazaribag which was referred under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure giving rise to Hazaribag (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 14 of 2002 registered on 8.1.2002 for the alleged offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against eight named accused persons including the petitioners. The Investigating Officer after Investigation submitted chargesheet against all the eight accused persons for the alleged offence and they were put on trial. After trial five accused were acquitted, but the petitioners were convicted for the alleged charge but only under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Charge under Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act could not be proved. Complainant was married to the Petitioner No. 1 Md. Azad Hussain on 29.4.1997 and a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - was given in cash to the Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 on the eve of marriage in presence of the witnesses for arranging Barat etc. At the time of Roksadi, it was stated that ornaments and household articles were also given to the bridegroom. Petitioners are respectively the husband, the father -in -law and the mother -in -law of the Complainant -Opposite Party No. 2. After few months of marriage, it was alleged that the petitioners started demanding Rs. 30,000/ - in cash on the allegation that parents of the Complainant had given old furniture and that the father of the Complainant though had promised to give Rs. 30,000/ - after the marriage, but without heed thereto. After birth of a child, the husband started neglecting Complainant and that other petitioners also joined in extending torture to her in various ways. Whenever the Complainant used to raise the voice, she had been assaulted by the petitioners with fists and blows. Sometimes, she used to be put under confinement in a room stopping her food etc. It was further alleged that the petitioners had once attempted to kill her by pushing her in the well, but when she raised alarm, the villagers assembled there and rescued her. A panchayti was convened but the petitioners abstained from the panchayti. However, pressure was mounted upon the petitioners to keep the Complainant with all dignity and honour and for that, she lived in her matrimonial home for one and half months without any sort of trouble, but again they reiterated their demand of Rs. 30,000/ -. On 28.10.2001, she was brutally assaulted and when the accused persons attempted to strangulate, she escaped and came to her parental home and had been living there since then.

(3.) THE specific defence was that the Petitioner No. 3 Mehrun Nisa when visited the parental home of the Complainant to bring her back, Minhaz Ansari and others refused to send her back to her matrimonial home and assaulted the Petitioner No. 3 causing serious injuries and for that a criminal case was instituted at the police station against the Complainant and others. Petitioners had adduced evidence by producing three defence witnesses including the Petitioner No. 3 who deposed as D.W. -3 and narrated the occurrence as to how she was assaulted at the hands of the Complainant and others in her parental home when she had been there to bring the Complainant back to her matrimonial home. Petitioners had produced several documents in support of their counter allegation.