Md. Ektaz Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 04^th June, 2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 103 of 2014 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the present petitioner dated 14^th July, 2014 passed in Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No. 240/2010 (G.R. No. 2796/10 and T.R. No. 930/14) by the learned ST J.M., 1 Class, Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one and half year along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- as a compensation to be paid to the informant for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and further R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The factual matrix giving rise to this case is that a written report was filed by the informant stating inter alia therein that her marriage was performed with the present petitioner in February, 2007 as per Muslim Rites and Customs. She alleged that after remaining for two months in her matrimonial home, she went to her Maike, then, her husband on telephone demanded a gold ring, a pair of shoes and a motor cycle to bring her back to her matrimonial home. It is alleged that the aforesaid demands were fulfilled and she came back to her matrimonial home but the accused persons including present petitioner, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanad) started to torture and ousted from her matrimonial home. A panchayati was held in respect of above demand and torture and her husband, father-in-law assured her not to demand any dowry further and she returned to her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that on 07.09.2010 at about 01:00 pm, the accused persons including Md. Ektaj, Taibun Khatoon, Ruksana Khatoon, Gulsan Khatton, Amin Mian, Sahnaj Khatoon and Mumtaj Ansari assaulted and confined her to a room for two days and her Nanad brought her out from the room in order to kill her, then, she somehow managed to escape and reached her parental home and informed her brother and mother who took her to Barhi Sadar Hospital for treatment. She was further referred to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag and on 08.09.2010, she filed written report to Barhi P.S.

On the basis of the above written report of the informant, Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No. 240 of 2010 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 504/34 of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against accused persons namely Md. Ektaj, Taibun Khatoon, Ruksana Khatoon, Gulsan Khatton, Hamid Mian, Sahnaj Khatoon and Mumtaj Ansari.

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons namely Md. Ektaj Ansari and Hamid Mian under Section 498A and 323/34 of the IPC and after taking cognizance, the case was transferred to the Court of learned J.M. for trial and disposal. On 17.01.2011, charges were framed against both the accused persons. After closing of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The defence has taken the plea of innocence and false implication.

In the course of trial, altogether 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution :-

P.W.-1 Madan Kumar Sharma (I.O.)

P.W.-2 Md. Irfan, Brother of the Informant

P.W.-3 Md. Mukhtar Ansari

P.W.-4 Md. Rafik

P.W.-5 Ashma Khatoon (Nanad)

P.W.-6 Yashmin Khatoon (Victim)

Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution:-

Ext.-1 Signature of Informant on Fardbeyan

Ext.-1/1 Signature of Md. Irfan on Fardbeyan

Ext.-1/2 Signature of Md. Qudush Ansari on Fardbeyan

On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced by the defence. However, following documentary evidence has been adduced:-

Ext.-A A notice of the Family Court

Ext.-B Certified Copy of F.I.R. of Barhi P.S. Case No. 29 of 2011

The learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC which has also been upheld by the learned Appellate Court in Appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below has contended that the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court has failed to bring any injury report on record to substantiate the allegations of assault and torture by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged after the delay of nine months without any reasonable explanation. It has also been submitted that there was no torture and cruelty meted with the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It has also been submitted that the victim’s brother kidnapped the niece of this accused that is the reason of dispute leading to separately living in her parental home and did not go to her matrimonial home. Therefore, both the Courts below have committed gross error of law in convicting the petitioner which is liable to be set aside by allowing this revision.

Per contra, Learned A.P.P. assisted by Opposite Party No. 2 has defended the judgment of learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court on merits by stating that both the Courts below have very wisely and aptly gone through the record of the case and rightly found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 323 of the IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him and there is no merits in this revision which is fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.

The sole point for consideration in this revision is as to “whether the conviction and sentence of the petitioner suffers from any error of law, calling for any interference in this revision?

Before adverting to adjudicate upon the above point, I have to take brief resume of oral testimony of the witnesses examined in this case during trial.

P.W.-1 Madan Kumar Sharma is the investigating officer of this case who has recorded the further statement of the informant as well as the statemens of witnesses including Md. Qudush, Gulam Md., Irfan, Asma, Md. Rafi, Mukhtar Ansari, Sumsuddin, Md. Akbar and Md. Munauwar and deposed that all have supported the case of the prosecution. This witness has proved the place of occurrence. This witness has also found injuries on the person of the informant and she was referred to Hospital for treatment and obtained medical report. This witness further deposed that after completing investigation, submitted charge sheet.

P.W.-2 Md. Irfan is the brother of the informant who has deposed and witnesses the factum of marriage of her sister with the present petitioner. He has further deposed that after two to three months, his sister came to Maike where a demand of Motor cycle, Gold Ring, etc. were made. He further deposed that they fulfilled the demand and his sister went back to her matrimonial home but again his sister was tortured by Rukhsar, Ektaj, Hamid Mian and Mother-in-law of his sister due to materials given as dowry was of not good quality. He further deposed that he met with his sister at Padma in an injured condition when she was ousted from her matrimonial home where his sister informed that she was confined to a room for about three days.

In his cross-examination, he admits that his sister went to police station and from there, she was sent to Hospital for treatment. There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve the above testimony of this witness.

P.W.-3 Md. Mukhtar Ansari is a hearsay witness who has also corroborated the factum of marriage with the present petitioner. He has stated that after two to three months of marriage, the cruelty meted with her and in that respect, a panchayati was held on 08.09.2010 at Dhanbad.

P.W.-4 Md. Rafik has deposed that He knows the complainant. She was married to my neighbor Ektaj Ansari in the year 2007 as per Muslim Custom and Rites. He also deposed that informant was tortured for want of demand of dowry at her matrimonial home. This witness has further deposed that a panchayati was held and the matter was resolved but again the informant was subjected with cruelty.

P.W.-5 Ashma Khatoon is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the informant who deposed that his brother got married with the informant in the year 2007 and after two months of marriage, Tairun Khatoon, Rukhsana and Gulsan Praveen, Ishrat Praveen and four to five other persons started assaulting the informant and in this respect, a panchayati was also held where the accused persons assured to keep her well but after 15 days, the informant was again assaulted and tortured and in the year 2009, the informant was confined in a room for two days and somehow, the complainant escaped from there and reached Padma Police Station and gave her statement. The complainant suffered severe injuries to her Head, Feet and Hands and there was bleeding also. She was treated at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag.

P.W.-6 Yashmin Khatoon is the informant of this case. She has deposed that she remained peacefully in her matrimonial home for two months and when she came to her parental home, her husband demanded a Gold Righ, One Motor Cycle and a set of pant and shirt on a telephone. She further deposed that except Motorcycle, the demand was fulfilled and a panchayati was also held in that respect and she lived peacefully for about five months in her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she came to parental home then no body came to take her to her matrimonial home for about three years. When the mother of the informant inquired about the matter, the accused said that they will take her daughter after panchayati and after panchayati in the year 2010, she was taken to her matrimonial home where she was again assaulted by the accused persons and her Bhaisur threatened to kill. She has further deposed that she was confined in a room for about two to three days and also received injury on her head due to assault and when she came to police station, she was sent to Hospital for treatment.

In her cross-examination, she has been examined at length but nothing has come to disbelieve her testimony.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is an admitted fact that the marriage was solemnized between the informant and the present petitioner and after marriage, there was demand of dowry such as Motor cycle, Golden Chain, etc. by the husband of the informant and due to non-fulfillment of dowry in entirety and of not good quality, consequential torture and assault was also meted with the informant as per the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is also an admitted fact that in that respect, panchayati was also held. Therefore, there is direct allegation against the petitioner and both the Courts below have very minutely dealt with the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution witnesses and has rightly convicted the petitioner as stated above, warranting no interference in this revision. Therefore, I find no legal substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner about the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below regarding the guilt of the present petitioner. Accordingly, this revision stands dismissed.

Consequently, the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 06^th April, 2017 during pendency of this revision, is hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within two months from the date of this Judgment to undergo the remaining period of sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court, failing which, the learned trial Court shall take all coercive steps for arrest and detention of the petitioner for sustaining the remaining period of sentence awarded to him.

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the court concerned for information and needful.