Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 789
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
Alok Kumar Basu & Tapas Kumar Giri
Moinuddin Sheikh @ Bulu Sheikh & Others
Versus
State of West Bengal
C. R. A. No. 525 of 2004
Decided On : 15-12-2006
Dipak Sengupta, Kaji Safiuddin Ahmed, Subir Ganguly for the appellants; Asimes Goswami, K. J. Ahmed, J. N. Chatterjee for the State.
In a case of dowry death under Section 304B IPC, if the prosecution proves the unnatural death of the wife within seven years of marriage, torture over dowry demand, and the husband's responsibility for the torture, a presumption of dowry death arises, and the husband and other members of the matrimonial home are legally bound to give an explanation. If they fail to provide a plausible explanation, the presumption will stand, and they will be held guilty.
Headnote:
Dowry Death - Section 498A and 304B IPC - Husband's Conviction Upheld, Parents Acquitted - Unnatural Death of Wife Within Two Months of Marriage - Presumption of Dowry Death - Husband's Failure to Rebut Presumption - Sentence Reduced.
Fact of the Case:
Moinuddin Sheikh, along with his parents, was convicted under Section 498A (dowry harassment) and Section 304B (dowry death) of the IPC for the unnatural death of his wife, Selina Bibi, within two months of their marriage. The prosecution alleged that Selina was tortured for dowry in the form of a motorcycle and committed suicide as a result. The Trial Court convicted Moinuddin and his parents but acquitted two other accused.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the conviction of Moinuddin's parents, Ainuddin Sheikh and Nasima Bibi, could not be sustained as there was no evidence that they ever pressed any demand for dowry or took part in torturing Selina. However, the Court upheld Moinuddin's conviction, finding that the prosecution had proved all the necessary ingredients of Section 304B IPC, including the unnatural death of Selina within seven years of marriage, torture over dowry demand, and Moinuddin's responsibility for the torture.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the necessary ingredients of Section 498A and 304B IPC against Moinuddin Sheikh and his parents? 2. Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting Moinuddin's parents? 3. Whether the sentence imposed on Moinuddin under Section 304B IPC was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the post-mortem report, which indicated that Selina died due to consuming unknown poison, and the statements of prosecution witnesses, who testified about the torture inflicted on Selina over dowry demand, to hold that the prosecution had proved the necessary ingredients of Section 304B IPC against Moinuddin. 2. The Court held that the Trial Court erred in convicting Moinuddin's parents as there was no evidence to show that they ever demanded dowry or participated in torturing Selina. 3. The Court considered the fact and circumstances of the case and reduced Moinuddin's sentence under Section 304B IPC from life imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence of Moinuddin's parents and confirming Moinuddin's conviction under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. However, the Court modified Moinuddin's sentence under Section 304B IPC to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.
Alok Kumar Basu, J.
Moinuddin Sheikh @ Bulu, Ainuddin Sheikh, Tulu Sheikh @ Anarul, Dalim Sheikh and Nasima Bibi faced charges under section 498A and under section 304B of the IPC and in the alternative section 306 of the IPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Track Court, Krishnanagar in the district of Nadia in connection with Sessions Trial No. 11 of April, 2004 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 1(12) of 2003 and after conclusion of trial, Moinuddin Sheikh @ Bulu along with his parents Ainuddin Sheikh and Nasima Bibi were convicted under section 498A along with section 304B of the IPC and all the three were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under section 304B and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under section 498A of the IPC. Tulu Sheikh @ Anarul and Dalim Sheikh were, however, found not guilty and both of them were acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
2. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the order of conviction and sentence, Moinuddin Sheikh along with Ainuddin Sheikh and Nasima Bibi have preferred this appeal.
3. The prosecution case in brief was that Selina Bibi, the youngest daughter of de facto complainant Tehesan Ali was married to appellant Moinuddin Sheikh @ Bulu, son of appellant Ainuddin Sheikh and Nasima Bibi on 18th April, 2001 and at the time of marriage Rs. 35,000/- in cash and other articles including gold and silver ornaments were given by de facto complainant.
4. It was the specific allegation of de facto complainant that soon after marriage when Moinuddin Sheikh along with Selina Bibi came to the house of de facto complainant, and the de facto complainant at that time assured Moinuddin that he would give a new motorcycle to him at appropriate time.
5. It was alleged in the petition of complaint that after return to Nagadi where Moinuddin used to reside with Selina Bibi after marriage, Moinuddin along with his parents started torturing upon Selina both physically and mentally for non-fulfillment of the demand of appellant Moinuddin regarding the motorcycle.
6. On 31st May, 2001 getting news about illness of Selina Bibi, when de facto complainant along with his wife and other relatives went to Nagadi, they came to learn that Selina was already removed to Bethuadahari Hospital and going at Bethuadahari Hospital de facto complainant found the deadbody of Selina Bibi.
7. De facto complainant thereafter lodged the petition of complaint on 7th June, 2001 alleging torture meted to Selina by the appellants over dowry demand and resulting the unnatural death of Selina.
8. On the basis of complaint of de facto complainant, Nakashipara P.S. instituted the present case against the appellants and others and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all of them.
9. The Trial Judge framed charges under section 498A as well as under section 304B of the IPC and in the alternative charge under section 306 of the IPC against the appellants and as the appellants pleaded innocence and claimed for trial, prosecution produced ten witnesses before the Trial Judge and apart from oral evidence, prosecution also placed before the learned Trial Judge, the original written complaint of Tehesan Ali, the post-mortem report of the deceased lady, seizure list and other documents.
10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge having regard to the statement of P.W.1 and after considering the post-mortem report was of the view that Selina Bibi, daughter of de facto complainant Tehesan Ali, died an unnatural death at her matrimonial home within almost 48 days from her marriage. The learned Judge after due consideration of the statement of P.W.2 Tehesan Ali, P.W.3 Kamala Bibi, P.W.4 Ehesan Ali, P.W.5 Murtaz Ali and P.W.6 Emajuddin Sk. came to the conclusion that since her marriage Selina Bibi was subjected to both physical an
