Nayeem Ansari Vs Moh. Azeem Hussain and Ors.

Bazarpara, Pratappur, District Surajpur C.G. 2 - Asgar Hussain S/o Mohd. Kalim Aged About 29 Years R/o Bazarpara, Pratappur, District Surajpur C.G. 3 - Anwar Hussain S/o Mohd. Kalim Aged About 36 Years R/o Shantinagar, Pratappur, P.S. Pratappur, District Surajpur C.G. 4 - State Of C.G. S/o Through The Station House Officer, Pratappur, District Surajpur C.G.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellant : Ms. Mahima Chandra, Advocate appears on behalf of Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Shri D. N. Prajapati, counsel appears along with Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Advocate. For State/ Respondent No.4 : Shri Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

¶14

DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J

¶17

05/01/2026

¶18

This appeal has been preferred by the complainant-uncle of the deceased under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 29.11.2014

¶19

2

¶20

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.06/2014, whereby the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 IPC.

¶21

Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 04.08.2013 at about 3:00 a.m., the deceased, namely, Shabnam Parveen went to the kitchen for making sehri as that was required to be made for Ramzan , but at that very moment she fell down suddenly, owing to which, she was brought to the hospital by her brother-in-law, namely, Asgar Hussain (respondent No.2) and during the course of treatment, she died on the same day at around 6:15 a.m.. After holding the merg enquiry, an FIR (Ex.P.-19) was registered against her husband, namely, Mohd. Azeem Hussain (respondent No.1), her mother-in-law Haseena Begam, who died during the course of trial, and her brother-in-laws, namely, Asgar Hussain (respondent No.2), Anwar Hussain (respondent No.3). During the course of inquiry, a note (Article A), written by the deceased was seized from the spot on 04.08.2013 vide Ex.P.-7 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Amanulla (PW-3) and Mohd. Masoom (PW-14) and, during further investigation, it was revealed that she was harassed and maltreated because of demand of dowry, owing to which, she consumed poison and died on the same day. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 IPC in connection with the Crime No.117/13 and the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, they have been

¶22

3

¶23

charge sheeted with regard to the offence as mentioned herein-above which was denied by them and committed to be tried.

¶24

After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the deceased- Shabnam Parveen was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws’, owing to which, she died on 04.08.2013 by consuming poison and accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the offense punishable under Section 304-B/34 IPC and being aggrieved, the complainant-uncle of the deceased has preferred this appeal.

¶25

From perusal of the record, it appears that though it was alleged by the prosecution that she died while consuming poison, but from a bare perusal of the postmortem report (Ex.P-14) duly proved by Dr. A. K. Vishwakarma (PW-16), her death was, in fact, found to be occurred because of peritonitis disease and not by consuming poison, as alleged by the prosecution. It is to be seen further that on the date of occurrence of the incident, a written report (Ex.P-2) was lodged by the complainant-uncle of the deceased on 04.08.2013 before the concerned Police Station stating therein that after one month of the solemnization of his niece’s marriage, she was harassed by the respondents as she used to be ill frequently and was also harassed for demand of money, owing to which, she consumed poison. Further of her alleged report would reveal the fact that she was not only harassed and maltreated by two of her brother-in-laws, namely, Asgar Hussain and Anwar Hussain but was also by one Raju, the another brother-inlaw of the deceased, as well as, father-in-law and mother-in-law was also implicated, but a different allegation was, however, made by him in his another report (Ex.P-3), lodged two days after the occurrence of the

¶26

4

¶27

incident, i.e., 06.08.2013, as it was alleged therein that because of demand of Rs.50,000/- and a gold ring, she was harassed approximately after two months of her marriage and because of that, she consumed poison. Though it was alleged by him that because of the alleged harassment, she consumed poison, but when he was examined (PW-2) before the Court, it was, however, stated that the alleged fact was stated by him merely on apprehension, which was even not found to be corroborated by the postmortem report (Ex.P-14), as observed here-inabove and, similar is the statement of her mother Sehnaaz Baano (PW-1). Therefore, under such a wage allegation, it cannot be said that she consumed poison on the date of the incident, because of the alleged harassment meted out by the respondents.

¶28

Pertinently to be noted here further that a note (Article A), written by the deceased was seized from the spot on the date of the incident itself vide Ex.P-7 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Amanulla (PW-3) and Mohd. Masoom (PW-14), who have duly proved the recovery of the alleged note and, a bare perusal of it would reveal the fact that she died on her own and her husband was not held responsible for it.

¶29

In view of the above, and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution that she died because of the alleged harassment made by the respondents, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

Sd/Sd/-

¶31

( Sanjay S. Agrawal ) ( Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

Nikita

Nayeem Ansari v. Moh. Azeem Hussain and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayeem Ansari v. Moh. Azeem Hussain and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Singh Vs Aditya Kumar

The State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Kashiram Sahu

Sunil Malakar Vs Smt. Usha Dubey

Venkatraman Shrivas Vs Harishankar Shrivas