Taiyab Khan vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 Supreme(SC) 1526

2005(8) Supreme 211
Supreme Court of India
(From Jharkhand High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan & Arun Kumar, JJ.
Taiyab Khan & Ors. —Appellants
versus
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 849 of 2004
Decided on 23-11-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Anis Ahmed Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Anil Kumar Jha, Advocate.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 304B—Dowry death—Deceased, wife of appellant No. 1 and daughter-in-law of appellants 2 and 3, died within three years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances—Conviction by Courts below—Appeal—Evidence of brothers and mother of deceased that deceased was being constantly harassed for demands on account of dowry—Death was said to have been caused by poisoning—Absence of vicera report did not make any difference as fact remained that it was a case of unnatural death—Conviction could not be interfered with—Keeping in view advance age of appellants 2 and 3, their sentence reduced to 7 years imprisonment from 10 years awarded by Courts below.
Held : Present is a case of death of a woman having taken place within three years of her marriage. It is a case of an unnatural death, that is, death which occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. The first three ingredients are clearly established. The only other ingredient which needs to be considered is the harassment of the woman by the husband or his relatives to connection with demand for dowry. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW1 and PW2 were the brothers of the deceased, PW3 was her maternal uncle while PW4 was the mother of the deceased, PW5 was a villager, PW6 was the Investigating Officer of the case and PW7 was the doctor who examined the deceased in the hospital. PW 1 to PW 5 have spoken about the dowry demands made by the appellants and the harassment of the deceased on account of such demands by the appellants. It is clear from the evidence of these witnesses that the deceased was being constantly harassed for demands on account of dowry. The deceased was being asked to bring further cash and gold/silver ornaments and on account of non-compliance of such demands, she was being denied food. On the fateful day she had been removed to hospital in an unconscious state. PW 2, one of the brothers of the deceased was also the informants to the police at whose instance the FIR was recorded. He works in a garage where he was informed that his sister was lying unconscious in the Mandar Hospital. He went home and informed other family members and they all went to the hospital to find out about the condition of the deceased. The defence tried to suggest that the deceased took poison on her own and committed suicide. However, this was disbelieved by both the courts below. It is a case of unnatural death. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the vicera report would have shown as to whether the death occurred on account of consumption of poison. This report was never received and therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of death by poisoning. In our view, the absence of vicera report does not make any difference to the fate of the case. The fact remains that it is a case of unnatural death. Section 304B IPC refers to death which occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. It cannot be said to be a case of normal death. No other point was urged. We find no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. After holding them guilty of the offence under Section 304B, the courts below have sentenced the three accused to imprisonment for ten years each. Keeping in view the advance age of appellants 2 and 3, who are parents of appellant No. 1, we consider it appropriate that their sentences be reduced. Accordingly in case of appellants 2 and 3 the sentence of ten years awarded by the courts below is reduced to seven years. (Paras 2 to 4)

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.—This is an appeal against a judgment of conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code passed by the VIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and confirmed by the High Court of the State of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The three appellants were sentenced to 10 years R.I. each. The appellant No. 1 Taiyab Khan is the husband of the deceased while appellants No. 2 and 3 are his parents. The deceased was named Noorjahan. Marriage of appellant No. 1 with Noorjahan took place in April 1991. The incident leading to death of Noorjahan is of 9th February, 1994. Death of Noorjahan is said to have been caused by poisoning. The main ingredients of Section 304B IPC are :

(a) Death of a woman;

(b) By burns or bodily injury or occurrence otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(d) Soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand for dowry.

2. Present is a case of death of a woman having taken place within three years of her marriage. It is a case of an unnatural death, that is, death which occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. The first three inBaruah, C.P. Sharma, V.N. Koura, Choudhary, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Advocates for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co., Advocates.

For the Respondent : Sanjay Parikh, A.N. Singh and Ms. Anita Shenoy, Advocates.

Important Point

Burden would be on workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment to claim benefit of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ONGC’) calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court, Agartala Bench, dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellants and thereby affirming order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition (Civil Rule No. 144/1992).

2. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows :

In May, 1992 respondent filed a writ petition before the Guwahati High Court claiming that he had been working as casual worker in ONGC since November, 1982 with intermittent lay offs and but for such intermittent lay offs which were deliberate, he would have worked for more than 240 days and in any event during the period 1989-90 and 1990-91 he had worked continuously for more than 240 days. It was averred that from 2.12.1984 to 10.6.1985 he had worked as an Automobile Mechanic Helper which established that he is a skilled mechanic and entitled to the said post on a regular basis. It was further claimed that on 10.1.1992 he made a representation/demand seeking regularization in the post of Automobile Mechanic but the same was rejected by communication dated 30.4.1992. Respondent challenged the said decision in a Writ Petition (Civil Rule No. 144/1992). In the writ petition, prayer was made to quash the said communication and for a direction to absorb him in the regular post of Automobile Mechanic with effect from November, 1982 with all incidental benefits. Counter-affidavit was filed by the appellants denying the claim of the respondent that he had been engaged for 240 days. Respondent filed further affidavit stating that he was called for interview for the post of Junior Security Guard (which was open only to contingent workers who had completed 240 days service in a year) which substantiated his claim of having worked for more than 240 days.

3. Appellants’ further stand was that during the pendency of the writ petition, in December, 2000, demand was raised by several unions for reinstatement for 340 workers of the 180 days category including respondent. Name of the respondent figured in the list of 340 workers at serial no. 88. Conciliation was held and settlement was arrived at on 27/28.1.2001. As per the settlement the contingent workers (180 days category) were entitled to be re-engaged only

Click Here to Read the rest of this document