Citation: Bibi Parwana Khatoon & Anr. Vs State of Bihar, (2017) 6 SCC 792
Date of Judgement: 04/05/2017
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 888 of 2017
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Appellant: Bibi Parwana Khatoon and Anr.
Respondent: State of Bihar
Bench: Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon’ble Justice Prafulla C. Pant
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statutes Referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections- 34, 304B
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313
Facts:
- On 30.09.2009 Tamkinat Ara, (herein referred to as deceased) was married to Md. Parwez Alam and used to live in her matrimonial home with her in-laws. The deceased used to reside with her husband, Md. Parwez Alam, mother-in-law, father-in-law, Bibi Parwana Khatoon (sister of husband), and sister’s husband Md. Hasan.
- On 30.05.2010, Md. Faisal (brother of the deceased’s), received telephonic information about the ill-health of her sister from the father-in-law of the deceased’s. When he went to see his sister, he found her dead of burn injuries.
- Md.Faisal lodged a report at Khajanchi Hat, Madhubani Police Station under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the five accused, which was registered formally as Crime Case No. 184 of 2010.
- Arti Kumari Jaiswal, Station House Officer, led the investigation. The Deceased’s dead body was sealed and sent for postmortem. Dr. Umesh Kumar of Sadar Hospital, Purnea, on conducting the postmortem examination found the following premortem injuries:
- “Tongue was protruded between teeth.
- Signs of Rigor Mortis could be found in the limbs of the victim.
- Burnt blood clot from/in-ear opening.
- 100% burn of five degrees with a smell. Key oil and roasted smell, absence of line of redness along burn area and sign of inflammation, formation of granulation tissue absent, indicating postmortem burnt.”
- It was further opined by the Medical Officer that the cause of death was asphyxia, caused due to strangulation. In the later stage, Lal Babu Prasad, the investigation officer submitted the final charge sheet against all five accused.
- During the period of the trial, one of the accused Baitun Nisha (mother-in-law of the deceased) died, and the case against her stood abated while the court proceeded against the remaining four accused.
- Statements of Prosecution Witnesses including Syed Masuf Ahmad, Taleba Kauser (brother of the deceased), Md. Faisal (brother of the deceased and the informant herein), Dr. Umesh Kumar (who conducted post mortem examination), Arti Kumari Jaiswal (who started investigation), and Lal Babu Prasad (who concluded the investigation), under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, was recorded by the trial court.
- In response to this, defence evidence was corroborated, and Defence Witnesses consisting of Md. Mozammil Hussain, Md. Shamim, Manish Kumar Srivastava, Raghunandan Yadav, Dhani Yadav, Md. Jasir and Sanni Yadav (-co-residents) were examined.
- All the four accused were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted accordingly by the trial court.
- The court sentenced rigorous imprisonment to Md. Parwez Alam (husband of the deceased) for the term of ten years and the remaining three convicts were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
- As a response to the order dated 19.11.2013/ 26.11.2013, passed by the trial court, three appeals were filed before the High Court registered as Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2014 by Md. Parwez Alam, Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2014 by Abdul Gaffar (father-in-law of the deceased) and Criminal Appeal registered as 48 of 2014 filed by present appellants Bibi Parwana Khatoon and her husband, Md. Hasan.
- The appeal of the father-in-law of the deceased was allowed by the High Court, but the conviction and sentence against the other three were upheld
- Aggrieved by the judgment of Patna High Court, the sister-in-law Parwana Khatoon and the brother-in-law Md. Hasan of the deceased filed this appeal through special leave.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the conviction of Parwana Khatoon (sister-in-law) and Md. Hasan (brother-in-law) of the deceased, by the court, just and appropriate?
- Can a charge be established under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the brother-in-law & sister-in-law of the deceased?
Contention of Appellant:
- It was contended from the testimony of the defence witnesses that the brother-in-law sister-in-law of the deceased were not residing in Kali Prasad Tola, at the place of the deceased and her husband.
- Moreover, there is no special role assigned to these two appellants in the First Information Report lodged.
- It was also claimed by the DW-1 Md. Mozammil Hussain, cousin of the husband of the deceased, Parwana Khatoon and Md. Hasan were residents of the Sabutar, and also on the incident day, they were not in Kali Prasad Tola, Madhubani.
- Also, DW-4 Raghunandan Yadav (resident of Kali Prasad Tola), DW-7 Nakir Yadav (resident of Sabutar), DW-8 Dhani Yadav, DW-9 Md. Jasir and DW-10 Sanni Yadav (all neighbours of the deceased) have also stated that the present appellants used to live in village Sabutar (Purnea).
- Apart from Defence witnesses, the three copies of public documents which included: a residential certificate, PAN Card, and a service book of Parwana Khatoon, were produced on behalf of the appellants, to prove that they were the residents of village Sabutar in District Purnea.
Contention of Respondent:
- It was alleged by the learned counsel for the State that both, Bibi Parwana Khatoon (sister of the husband) and her husband, lived along with the deceased in the same house and had previously threatened to kill the victim.
- The death due to asphyxia, as per the post mortem report, somewhere indicates that after the death by strangulation (fracture of the larynx, hyoid bone, and trachea was found), an attempt was made to burn the dead body of the victim.
- Further, there has also been an allegation of demand for dowry and subjecting cruelty against the appellants to which witnesses have given their support. Also, the marriage of the victim is solemnized within seven years. Hence, a case of ‘Dowry Death’ under section 304B IPC is completely made out.
- It is also to be mentioned that neither any certificate of attendance register nor any certificate of working in school on the day of the incident could be produced by the appellants.
- Moreover, the certificate produced before the court was issued in the year 2008 while the occurrence took place in 2010. Even, there was no such mention as well as the examination of the issuer of these documents and hence they were not reliable.
Judgement:
- After hearing the matter and considering the necessary evidence, the bench was of opinion that both the courts below have erred in law in holding that the charge under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code stood as against the present appellants.
- Based on produced pieces of evidence, above, it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the present appellants, who are sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, ill-treated the victim for any such demand of dowry.
- Neither, based on circumstantial evidence, it can be proved that appellants had any common intention with the husband of the deceased in the commission of the crime.
- Moreover, it is adequately clear from the documentary record that they used to live in a different village.
Accordingly, this appeal was allowed.
- Hence, the order of sentence and conviction recorded as against Bibi Parwana Khatoon and Md. Hasan is put aside. In the above case, acquittal from the charges under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is granted to the present appellants.
Ratio Decidendi:
- For holding charges under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, it should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that there was the commission of the offence of dowry death with the common intention or in furtherance of all the accused stated.
- Firstly, no specific complaint against both the present appellants was made in the FIR lodged. Secondly the testimony of one of the DW, Md. Mozammil Hussain (cousin of the husband) states that they were not residing in Kali prasad tola on the very day of the incident.
- The above-stated fact has been further corroborated by other defence witnesses too. Both the trial court and high court have mistaken not considering the testimony of witnesses.
- Apart from these witnesses, the authenticated public documents which consist of a copy of residence certificate, copy of Pan, and a copy of service book of Parwana Khatoon, issued by the authorized body were produced before the court by the appellants. These documents sufficiently show that the present appellants were residents of village Sabutar, district Purnea.
- Hence, in this case, the present appellants, who are sister in law and brother in law of the deceased cannot be said to have ill-treated the victim for any demand for dowry.
- Nor, they can be said to share any common intention with that of the husband of the deceased in the commission of the crime.
- Owing to the absence of sufficient evidence against the present appellants, an appeal was granted to them.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded from the above discussion that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was appropriate in setting aside the order previously passed by the lower courts against the present appellants of the case. This judgement can be regarded as an attempt to review and replace the error made on the part of the trial court and the High Court. The judgement also explains the importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the Indian Criminal System.
Drafted By: Shivani Tiwary, School of Law DAVV.
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: October 5, 2021 at 10:06 IST