Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 1057

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Shaukat Ali - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1587 of 2003
Decided on : 16-12-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. A.K. Rashidi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, Advocate

The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of a compromise in a matrimonial dispute, which led to the mitigation of the charges and the allowance of the appeal.

Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Matrimonial Dispute - IPC 323, 498-A, Dowry Prohibition Act
Fact of the Case:

The case involved the conviction of the appellant for offenses under IPC sections 323, 498-A and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant and the informant wife had entered into a compromise, and the court found that they were living together harmoniously.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant and the informant wife had resolved their disputes and were living together in a cordial relationship. The court allowed the appeal in view of the compromise between the parties and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Issues: The main issue was the conviction of the appellant for offenses under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, which was mitigated due to the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the joint compromise petition and the harmonious relationship between the appellant and the informant wife as the basis for allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. The lower court records were to be sent back to the court concerned.

JUDGMENT :

Navneet Kumar, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2003 by which the sole appellant Shaukat Ali (Husband) has been found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under section 323, 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Prosecution Story

2. The prosecution case has arisen in the wake of the Keredari P.S. Case No.48/2001 dated 20.09.2001 based on the Complaint Case No. 750 of 2001 filed by the complainant/informant/respondent no. 2 Shaibunnisa alleging there in that the complainant/informant Shaibunnisa was married to the accused-appellant Shaukat Ali on 21.06.1999 according to Muslim rites and customs. The father of the complainant had given dowry of Rs. 18001/- in cash according to his capacity and other articles were also given as gift in the marriage. It is further stated that Dain mehar was also settled to the tune of Rs. 12,551/- at the time of Nikah and Nikah was also reduced into writing but the co-accused Basarat Mian @ Bital Mian did not sign the Nikahnama because he was pressing the father of the complainant to pay Rs. 10,000/-. It is further stated that after marriage, the complainant lived peacefully in her Sasural about 25 days and after that she was asked to bring Rs. 10,000/- in cash and further asked to bring Hero Honda Bike and a colour T.V. by the Sasural people. The complainant was also tortured by the accused persons for not bringing the above cash and articles. It is further stated that on 20.07.2000, the accused persons of Joko came at Lai Sukuwar and they inquired from the husband of the complainant as to whether the father of the complainant had fulfilled the demand of dowry or not. Due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the husband and Dewar of the complainant started torturing the complainant. It is further stated that the father of the complainant also paid Rs. 4000/- towards the treatment of his daughter. It is further stated that while the complainant was carrying pregnancy of about three months, the accused-husband of the complainant brutally assaulted her with a view to abort the pregnancy. The abortion of pregnancy of the complainant due to assault by the accused-husband, took place in the month of February, 2001. The accused persons even then did not facilitate medical treatment to the complainant and thereafter, the complainant became seriously ill. The husband of the complainant took out all the ornaments and thereafter, the complainant is residing with her parents in the Naihar since the year 2001. It is further stated that the complainant approached the Anjuman to settle the dispute. The husband of the complainant came to Jamira Village but did not became ready to settle the dispute rather he threatened the Anjuman as well as the father and brother of the complainant. The Anjuman Committee convened a Panchayaat on 19.08.2001 at Zamira School in which both the parties signed on the Panchaiti paper but the accused persons created nuisance.

It is further stated that both parties went to police and narrated whole story. The police called accused Basarat Mian to pacify the dispute and also assured for inquiry but when no inquiry was done by the police, the complainant then filed complaint petition before the court of C.J.M. Hazaribagh, who sent the case to the police U/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. for institution and submission of final form.

On the basis of the aforesaid complaint the case was instituted vide Keredari P.S. case No. 48 of 2001 u/s 323, 313 & 498-A of I.P.C. and also u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. After investigation the case was committed to the court of Session where charges were framed and after conclusion of the trial impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed which is under challenge.

4. In support of the case, the prosecution has been able to examine altogether nine witnesses including the informant wife P.W. 1 Shaibunnisha, P.W. 2 Abdul Manan, P.W. 3 Md. Feroz

Click Here to Read the rest of this document