IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MARLI VANKUNG, JJ.
Md. Sabir Ahmed S/o- Md. Amir Ali And Anr – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Assam And Anr - Respondents
Crl.A. 298 of 2019
Decided on : 24-04-2024
1] This is an appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in S.C. No.32(N)/2016, wherein the appellants were convicted under Sections 304 B/34 of I.P.C and vide order dated 26.06.2019, were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2] Aggrieved the appellants have filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. for setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 and the subsequent sentence order dated 26.06.2019.
3] The facts of the case in a nutshell is that an FIR was filed on 11.07.2014 by the informant to the effect that, his daughter Hamida Begum, married to the accused/appellant No.1 about one and half months back. After marriage, the appellant No.1 and other members of the family starting assaulting her by demanding money as dowry. On 09.07.2014 his daughter came to his house and informed him that the accused persons demanded 1 (one) lakh rupees as dowry and that the money was required to be given to them. On his persuasion, she went back to his son-in-law’s house the previous day of the incident. Today (i.e on 11.07 2014), around 10:00 A.M, a person named Abdul Rahim informed him that his daughter was unwell and he should go to see her in the hospital. When he went to the Doboka Village Hospital, appellant no.1 had escaped and he found that his daughter was dead with marks on injuries and various parts of the body. The accused person have murdered his daughter in a pre-planned manner and he asked for the investigation of the case. Four accused persons were named in the FIR namely;
2) Amir Ali, S/o Sonajaji
3) Sayarun Begum, W/o Amir Ali
4) Abdul Rahim (Mulla) S/o Sonahaji and others
All are R/o South Nowabil,
P.S – Murajhar
The FIR was registered as Murajhar P.S case No.283/2014 under Section 304(B) IPC and investigated into. The Investigation Officer/Rajib Buruah, visited the place of occurrence and drew rough sketch map of place of the occurrence. The I.O. examined the witnesses namely – Harej Ali (informant), Nizam Uddin, Moinuddin, Abdul Ahed and Foizur Rahman. The inquest was done by the Circle Officer and the Post Mortem Report was done at Nagoan Civil Hospital, Thereafter, he got transferred.
4] The second investigating officer/ASI, Jiten Borah, collected the PME report and had gone to the CHC, thereafter, he got transferred and handed over the MCD to the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh P.S. along with the extra copy of GD entry 232 dated 11.07.2014.
5] Bipin Ch. Nath is the third investigating officer on the transferred of the previous I/O, who was handed over the C.D. of Murajhar P.S. 283/14 for further investigation. He forwarded the witness Bedena Begum for recording her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. The accused Md. Sabir Adhmed and Amir Uddin surrendered before P.S. and he arrested them and recorded their statements. Later on, he collected the supplementary CD from Doboka P.S and finding enough material against the accused CD, he filed the charge-sheet under Section 304 B/34 IPC for the accused to face trial.
6] On 02.07.2016 the learned Trial Court framed charged against both the accused persons/appellants under Section 304B/34 IPC, wherein both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. During trial as many as 10 prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused persons/appellants were then examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and 5 (five) defence witnesses were also examined, wherein the appellant No.1 deposed as DW-4 and Amir Uddin/appellant No.2 deposed as DW-5, the stand of the appellants was that the deceased Hamida Begum had committed suicide by hanging herself.
7] The learned Trial Court on considering the evidence record and on hearing both the parties found both the accused persons guilty of the offence under section 304(B)/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Aggrieved, the a
Durga Prasad and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 9 SCC 73
Baijnath and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 101
Chotkau v. State of U.P reported in (2023) 6 SCC 742
Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra
Harbeer Singh vs. Seeshphal & Ors.
Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala
Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P reported in AIR 1994 SCW 2210: (1994) 5 SCC188
Prithvi (Minor) v. Mam Raj &Ors.
Radha Mohn Singh @ Lal Sahed v. State of U.P.
Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2016) 4 SCC 96
Steel Authority of India Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 12 SCC 667
Satvir Singh And Ors vs State of Punjab And Anr reported in (2001) 8 SCC 633
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304B IPC for dowry death, establishing that the evidence of demand for dowry and physical assault was sufficient to prove homicide.
The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry shortly before her death, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
The requirement of substantial evidence of dowry-related harassment is essential to sustain a conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, which the prosecution failed to demonstrate.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder and dowry death, establishing a proximate link between dowry-related cruelty and the victim's death.
The conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC was quashed due to insufficient evidence of dowry demand or cruelty, emphasizing the necessity of credible evidence for such serious charges.
The court affirmed conviction for dowry death, highlighting evidentiary requirements under IPC and the presumption of guilt upon failure to rebut accusations.
The conviction for dowry death requires proof of harassment and demand for dowry preceding the death, establishing a presumption that the accused caused the death, which is rebuttable by the defense.
Continuous demand of dowry and torture leading to the death of the deceased proved the ingredients of dowry death under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.