Back
2016 Supreme(Gau) 375
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
AJIT SINGH, N. CHAUDHURY, JJ.
Md. Altab Hussain Khan S/o Late Taleb Hussain Khan - Appellant
Versus
Jehir Choudhury @ Jeku & Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2014
Decided On : 19-08-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Medhi
For the Respondents: Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, Mr. B.M. Choudhury, Ms. S. Jahan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a perceptible nexus between the infliction of dowry-related harassment and the woman's death, as well as the interpretation of the term 'dowry' in the context of financial stringency or urgent domestic expenses.
Headnote:
Dowry Death - Criminal Law - Section 304B of the IPC - [147, 342, 304B] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 304B of the IPC and the essential components of the section. It highlighted the requirement of a perceptible nexus between the infliction of dowry-related harassment and the woman's death. The court also emphasized the definition of dowry as per the Dowry Prohibition Act and the interpretation of the term 'dowry' in the context of financial stringency or urgent domestic expenses. The court's decision was influenced by the failure of the prosecution to establish the demand for dowry and the absence of evidence satisfying the essential components of Section 304B of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Barpeta in a case involving the death of a woman in her matrimonial house. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry, leading to her death. However, the Sessions Judge held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish by cogent, consistent, and clinching evidence that the accused persons subjected the deceased to commit suicide in connection with the demand for dowry. The court emphasized the divergent views of the prosecution witnesses and the absence of evidence showing a demand for dowry soon before the victim's death.
Issues: The issues revolved around the prosecution's failure to prove the demand for dowry and establish the essential components of Section 304B of the IPC, including the perceptible nexus between dowry-related harassment and the woman's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 304B of the IPC, the definition of dowry as per the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the requirement of a perceptible nexus between dowry-related harassment and the woman's death. The court emphasized the absence of evidence satisfying the essential components of Section 304B of the IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal against acquittal was dismissed as the court found that the findings of the Sessions Judge were based on the materials available on record and were in conformity with the law holding the field.
N. Chaudhury, J.
Informant, as appellant, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 152 of 2010. By that judgment, the learned Sessions Judge held that prosecution failed to establish case against the accused persons for offence under Section 304 B read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution story is that one Altab Hussain Khan lodged an ejahar with Officer In-charge, Barpeta Sadar Police Station on 28.01.2008 at 11.30 p.m. alleging that his younger sister Fatema Begum @ Manju married to one Md. Jehir Choudhury @ Jeku of North Barpeta, Barpeta Town died in her matrimonial house. He disclosed that Md. Jehir Choudhury, the husband of the deceased had informed him at 4.15 p.m. of the same day that Fatema Begum had committed suicide that day at about 1.30 p.m. According to the informant, Jehir Choudhury and his family members tortured the deceased physically and mentally in various ways so as to compel her to transfer her properties in their names. They used to keep her confined in a room alone under lock and key without providing her food. Failing to endure all these atrocities, she came back to paternal house at No. 1 Dolabari, Tezpur in the month of June, 2007. But in the month of October, 2007, two younger brothers of Jehir Choudhury took back the deceased to Barpeta promising that there would be no further torture on her. The informant expressed his doubt that Jehir Choudhury and all other members of the family, namely, Litan, Liku, Jubu, Mitali, Begi, Jeli and their mother must have killed Fatema in a pre-planned way. On the basis of this ejahar, Barpeta Police Station Case No. 65/2008 under Sections 147, 342, 304B of the IPC was registered and investigation started.
3. Police held inquest over the body, recorded statements of the witnesses and sent up the body for post mortem examination. The post mortem examination could not reveal any reason for death for which the doctor recommended for forensic examination of viscera. The stomach with its contents, part of liver tissue and left kidney were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory whereupon Shri Samudra Baishya, Senior Scientific Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati, opined that the viscera gave positive test for Organochlorine insecticide. Having considered these reports along with the statements of the witnesses, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against Jehir Choudhury and six other family members including three ladies under Sections 147, 342, 304B of the IPC on 21.04.2008. Having considered the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate committed the case to Sessions by an order dated 01.12.2010. Sessions Case No. 152/2010 was registered by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta and framed charges under Section 304B/ 34 of the IPC against all the 8 accused persons. The charges were read over to the accused persons whereupon they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and adduced 7 documents including ejahar (Ext. 1), Inquest Report (Ext. 2), post mortem report (Ext. 3), Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ext. 4) and charge sheet (Ext. 7). Considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Sessions Judge delivered judgment on 11.06.2014 holding that prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused persons and accordingly acquitted them. Aggrieved, the informant has preferred this appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. We have heard Mr. SK Medhi, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. AK Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. BM Choudhury, Advocate for the accused persons and Ms. S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have also perused the records.
6. Learned Sessions Judge discussed the depositions of al
