IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S. Talapatra, S.G. Chattopadhyay, JJ.
Babul Miah - Appellants
Vs.
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 64 (J) of 2019
Decided On : 22-12-2020
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 498A/302/34, 304B - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 428, 161 and 313(1)(b) - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 2 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-B - Appeal against conviction – Cruelty - Demand for dowry - Commits murder - Whether acquittal of appellants of offence punishable under Section 498A makes any difference - Whether accused has committed the dowry death of a woman - Whether subjected to cruelty or harassment on demand of dowry soon before her death which occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage - Whether subjected to cruelly within meaning of Section 498A of IPC - Complaint filed Case under Section 498A/302/34 of IPC was registered and taken up for investigation - Complaint, PW-3 had revealed cognizable offence to officer-in-charge of said police station by staring that his daughter marriage to appellant as per Shariat law. At the time of marriage, a cash gold jewelry weighing 1 1/2 bhari, wooden furniture etc. were given away on demand of groom - His daughter and appellant lived their married life peacefully for one and half year - One girl child was born in wedlock - After birth of girl child started torturing his daughter physically and mentally - They had increased their torture on his daughter by saying that materials given in marriage were not good enough - His daughter used to inform him about such incidents over her mobile phone - As PW-3 was not comfortable with his finance, he could not give television set at time of marriage – Held, PW 3's daughter committed suicide - There is no evidence in respect of beating – Court do not have hesitation to hold there is no evidence that victim was meted out with cruelty or she was harassed on demand of dowry - No presumption can also be drawn under Section 113B of the IPC - As regards, beating by appellant, investigating officer has stated that those statements were not made to them - Allegation of appellants illicit relation was not revealed to investigating officers - Allegations are general in nature and to some extent was not beyond insignificant tear of marital life - Appellant has got any connection with demand of TV or fridge - Allegation is clear that under the influence of liquor appellant used to beat Rahima. As stated earlier, there is no evidence that such cruelty did take place soon before death of the victim – Court have failed to find that any particular event has been highlighted by prosecution to show impact which drove victim to hang herself – Court do not find any evidence to connect death with harassment for dowry demand or cruelty meted to her - Even post mortem doctor did not support testimony of PW 4 who had stated that he found the injury marks over person of Rahima Bibi. PW 12 - Statement was contradicted by one defence witness it cannot be by means inferred that the crying out was for torture - we are of the view that prosecution evidence has gone haywire – Court are unable to affirm conviction of appellant under Section 304B of IPC - Even for want of any reliable evidence which instills confidence in court – Court are unable to uphold conviction as returned under Section 498A of the IPC - Appeal stands allowed
JUDGMENT :
S. Talapatra, J.
1. The appellant was charged under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC and alternatively, under Section 302 of the IPC along with two other accused namely Karam Ali and Anwara Begam by the Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District. The other two accused were acquitted from the charge on benefit of doubt but the appellant has been convicted under section 498A and 304B of the IPC by the Sessions Judge, having observed that from the evidence of PWs-2, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 11, it has clearly transpired that wife of the appellant namely Rahima Begam @ Marjina was being tortured and harassed by the appellant on demand of dowry, particularly for articles like televisions etc. That harassment goaded the victim to commit suicide. Pursuant to the said conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 3 (three) years and to pay fine Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. He has been further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC. It has been directed if the fine money is realized, the same shall be paid to the father of Rahima Begam (the deceased). Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The period of detention as undergone by the appellant has been directed to be set off from the term of imprisonment under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.09.2019 are challenged by the appellant in this appeal.
2. Based on a written complaint (Exbt-2) filed by one Rajjak Miah (PW-3) on 2.6.2016, Kakraban PS Case No. 2016 KKB042 under Section 498A/302/34 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. In the said complaint, PW-3 had revealed cognizable offence to the officer-in-charge of the said police station by staring that his daughter, Rahima Begam was given marriage to the appellant as per Shariat law. At the time of marriage, a cash of Rs. 5000/- gold jewelry weighing 1 1/2 bhari, wooden furniture etc. were given away on demand of the groom. His daughter and the appellant lived their married life peacefully for one and half year. One girl child was born in the wedlock. After birth of the girl child, Babul Miah (the appellant) Karam Ali (the accused who has been acquitted) Anwara Bibi (the other accused who has been acquitted) and Habul Miah (the brother of the appellant) started torturing his daughter physically and mentally. They had increased their torture on his daughter by saying that "the materials given in marriage were not good enough". His daughter used to inform him about such incidents over her mobile phone. As PW-3 was not comfortable with his finance, he could not give the television set at the time of marriage.
Moreover, the appellant had one television in their house. When his daughter went to watch that television, the accused persons used to make bad comments e.g. if you want to see the television, then bring it from your father's house.
3. On 24.05.2019, the appellant had beaten his daughter severely. Several times, PW3 visited his daughter's matrimonial home to bring his daughter. Every time the accused persons used to tell him to change the material those were given in the marriage, else his daughter would not be permitted to go to their house. On 01.06.2016, the day before the filing of the complaint (Exbt-2) at about 9.30 p.m. when the PW 3 had called his daughter, she told him that the appellant had told her that she would never be allowed to go to her father's house. On 02.06.2016 about 10 am in the morning, one Rubel Miah, a resident of Rajdhannagar, informed him over telephone that Rahima had died by hanging a few moments ago. PW 3 having the said information, rushed to the place of the appellant along with his relatives. Thereafter, in that context, he has stated in the complaint as follows:
Durga Prasad & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 9 SCC 73
Biswajit Haider Vs. State of West Bengal reported in: (2008) 1 SCC 202
Hira Lal & Ors. Vs. State (Govt, of NCI)
Smt. Shanti & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1991) 1 SCC 371
Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2018) 10 SCC 593
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in : 2010 (12) SCC 350
Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N.; (2004) 9 SCC 157 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1417
Vipin Jaiswal Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2013 CrLJ 2095
Appasaheb & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721 : (AIR) 2007 SC 763 : 2007 AIR SCW 456
Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd.
Chemicals and Fibres of India v. Union of India
State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal & Anr. reported in (1994) 1 SCC 73
Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh : (1990) 1 SCC 445
Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1996 CrLJ 883
Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 6 SCC 477
Bachni Devi & Anr. v. State of Haryana
Pathan Hussain Basha v. State of A.P.
Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana
Raminder Singh v. State of Punjab
Suresh Singh v. State of Haryana
Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.