Jamruddin Khan And Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:28314-DB )

Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 227 of 1997 (R)

[ Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.10.1997 passed by Shri Lakhan Kumar Sahay, learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 144/1996 ]

¶4

1. Jamruddin Khan, S/o Khadim Khan

¶5

2. Khadim Khan, S/o Late Amarali Mian

¶6

3. Matim Khatoon, W/o Khadim Khan

¶7

4. Safru Khan @ Safruddin Khan, S/o Khadim Khan

¶8

5. Tajim Khan, S/o Khadim Khan

¶9

6. Afroda Khan, S/o Khadim Khan

¶10

All are residents of Village- Jagmai, P.S. Chainpur, DistrictGumla. … … Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) … … Respondent

¶13

---------

¶14

P R E S E N T

¶15

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶16

For the Appellants : Mr. Shubham Sinha, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

¶17

---------

¶18

C.A.V. ORDER

¶19

Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

¶20

Heard Mr. Shubham Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.

¶21

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.10.1997 passed by Shri Lakhan Kumar Sahay, learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 144/1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellant no. 1 has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304(B) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life u/s 304(B) of the IPC and R.I. for 2 years u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act while the rest of the appellants have been convicted for the offences u/s 498(A) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and have been sentenced to R.I. for 2 years for the offence u/s 498A of the IPC and R.I. for 2 years for the

¶22

offence u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶23

3. The prosecution case arises out of a complaint case lodged by Md. Ayub Khan, in which, it has been stated that the sister of the complainant namely, Reshma Khatoon was married to Jamruddin Khan in the year 1993 and at the time of marriage there was a demand of a Rajdoot motorcycle and Television but the complainant and his family members expressed their inability to accede to such demand because of financial constrains. When the sister of the complainant went to her matrimonial house the demand was once again made and when approached the father and the brother of Reshma Khatoon once again expressed their inability to meet such demand as they were poor persons. The sister of the complainant was taken back to her matrimonial house where she was abused, assaulted and tortured. In the meantime, a son was born to Reshma Khatoon who was separated from his mother and she was threatened that till the dowry demand is not fulfilled she will not have any respite from the torture. It has been stated that recently Jamruddin Khan had taken Reshma Khatoon to village Choriya where he had asked the cousin brother of Reshma Khatoon as to why despite three years of marriage the demand was not fulfilled, at which, Jamruddin Khan was told of the troubles been faced by the family and in course of time everything will be settled. It has been alleged that on 26.01.1996 at 6:00 P.M., an information was received that Reshma Khatoon is sick, at which, the complainant and some family members had gone to the matrimonial house of Reshma Khatoon where her dead body was found lying in the courtyard. The accused persons had disclosed that Reshma Khatoon had set her ablaze and her child and the information was furnished to the Police station and postmortem had also been done. The complainant -2-

¶24

came to know from the persons of the locality that Reshma Khatoon used to be regularly tortured and she was murdered.

¶25

The complaint was sent to the Police u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. where it was registered as Chainpur P.S. Case No. 9/96. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 144/1996. Charge was framed against the accused Jamruddin Khan u/s 304(B) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, while against the rest accused persons u/s 304(B)/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶26

4. The prosecution has examined as many as seventeen witnesses in support of its case.

¶27

5. P.W.1 (Nasim Khan) has been tendered by the prosecution.

¶28

6. P.W.2 (Makbul Khan), P.W.3 (Seikh Idwa), P.W.4 (Saira Khatoon), P.W.5 (Gulshan Bibi), P.W.6 (Sarfulla Khan), P.W.7 (Imtiyaj Khan), P.W.8 (Nur Mohammad) and P.W.9 (Pyaran Bibi) did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶29

7. P.W.10 (Sharif Khan) is the father of the deceased Reshma Khatoon who has stated that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Jamruddin Khan on 26.01.1993. Jamruddin already had a wife prior to his marriage with Reshma Khatoon. His daughter used to be tortured by Jamruddin Khan and this was disclosed by his daughter whenever he went to meet her. After marriage, his son-in-law used to demand a motorcycle and a colour T.V. His daughter had disclosed that she was subjected to assault for non-fulfillment of the said demand. His daughter had

¶30

-3-

¶31

come to his house about 2-2½ months prior to the occurrence. At that point, of time his son Ayub Khan used to stay at Bijupara. He had told his daughter to go to Bijupara and disclosed about the demand to her brother. After three days, Jamruddin had come and since Reshma Khatoon was at Bijupara he also had left for Bijupara from where he took Reshma to his house. He has stated that on 26.01.1996 at 1:30 P.M. Afroj and the cousin brother of Afroj had come to his house on a motorcycle and disclosed that Reshma and her son are suffering from diarrhea and that their condition is precarious. He had gone to Jamgai where he had found a truck standing in front of the matrimonial house of his daughter. The brother of Jamruddin had disclosed that his daughter and grandson are serious and they are being taken to Chainpur for treatment. The brother of Jamruddin namely, Tajim had assured him that after Roza he would take him to Chainpur but he did not follow his assurance and he remained at night in the matrimonial house of his daughter. On the next day at 11:00 A.M., the truck came and from it, the dead body of his daughter and grandson were taken out. He had become unconscious and later on, he saw the dead bodies, which were in a burnt condition.

¶32

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the mother of Jamruddin had disclosed that the first wife of Jamruddin used to remain sick and she had also not given birth to a child because of which she was given Talak by Jamruddin. Jamruddin after his marriage used to stay separate from his brother and father.

¶33

8. P.W.11 (Yaseen Khan) has stated that Reshma Khatoon was his niece. On 26.01.1996 at 5:00 P.M., a person had come from the house of Jamruddin who had disclosed that Reshma is suffering from diarrhea. On 27.01.1996 at 12:00 P.M., he had reached Jamgai and at 1:00 P.M., a truck

¶34

-4-

¶35

came where the brunt dead bodies of Reshma and her son were lying. Jamruddin and his brother evaded questions as to how the deceased had suffered such injuries. He could find from the ambiance that both were burnt to death in the house itself.

¶36

In cross-examination, he has deposed that it is his personal belief that the incident had taken place inside the house.

¶37

9. P.W.12 (Murtaza Khan) is the cousin brother of Reshma who has stated that on 26.01.1996 he had come to know about the incident of 25.01.1996. He had gone to Jamgai on 27.01.1996, where he had seen the bodies after being bathed were covered with cloths. He had removed the cloths and from the face, he could find out that the bodies have been badly burnt. Md. Tajim and Sarfu had disclosed that if the demand of motorcycle and T.V. were fulfilled the incident would not have happened. He had thereafter left with the others to cremate the dead bodies. Jamruddin and Tajim had disclosed that Reshma had sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and set herself ablaze. About 15/20 days prior to the occurrence, Jamruddin and Reshma had come to his house and demand was made of motorcycle and T.V.

¶38

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not gone to Jamgai earlier. He does not know as to why Jamruddin had given Talak to his first wife. By the time he and Tabaraq had reached Jamgai the mother, brother and sister of Reshma were already found present. He had later on come to know that Jamruddin had earlier solemnized a marriage and he had also given Talak to his first wife. He and his family members had assured after marriage that a T.V. and a motorcycle will be given to Jamruddin.

¶39

10. P.W.13 (Tabaraq Khan) has been tendered by the prosecution.

¶40

-5-

¶41

11. P.W.14 (Dr. Rajesh Kr. Gupta) was posted as a Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on 27.01.1996 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Reshma Bibi and had found the following:

¶42

“ The whole body was in pugilistic attitude, smell of kerosene and burnt tissues present. Ruptured blisters with reddish base and margin present all over the body, slight distinction present in abdomen. Dermoepidermal burn of whole body except waistline area, front and back i.e. the burn was 95%. Scalp, hairs back burnt and smegma and fallen out. Lower part of both legs deeply burnt with charring of soft tissues, muscles and bones; carbon porthole found all over body. Larynx and trachea, lungs and stomach, cherry red blood present in all four chambers of heart. Tongue swollen, blackish and protruded out of mouth. The burn was antemortem and was grievous in nature, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ”

¶43

The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to burn. The postmortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2.

¶44

12. P.W.15 (Md. Ayub Khan) is the informant who has stated that the marriage of his sister Reshma Khatoon was solemnized with Jamruddin Khan in the year 1993. At the time when the marriage discussions were going on Jamruddin had demanded a Rajdoot motorcycle and a Television. Despite being said that in their religion there is no concept of dowry and they are also not financially capable to meet such demand Jamruddin and his brother Nasim and mother used to come to his house and expressed their intention to get the marriage solemnized and they will not demand anything. Believing in their words the marriage was got solemnized. After his sister had gone to her matrimonial house at Jamgai her husband and in-laws started taunting her and demanded a T.V. and a motorcycle. When his sister came to Kairo she

¶45

-6-

¶46

had disclosed about the demand to him. When after marriage Jamruddin and Reshma had come to Kairo Jamruddin had once again made a demand of a T.V. and a motorcycle. He was somehow pacified by making a promise to fulfill the demand when the financial condition improves. Whenever Reshma came from her matrimonial house, she used to complain that she was abused and assaulted by her in-laws. The accused persons had tortured her since their demand was not fulfilled. On 26.01.1996, he had received an information from his brother Nasim that on the same day the brother of Jamruddin and another person had come and informed that Reshma is vomiting and she is having loose motion. On 27.01.1996, he had gone to Jamgai from Bijupara where he had seen burnt dead bodies of his sister and her son lying in the courtyard of Jamruddin. He had met his parents there who had disclosed that when they reached Jamgai on 26.01.1996 in the evening they had seen a truck standing and it was disclosed that Reshma was being taken to a hospital. When he had asked about the incident to Tajim it was disclosed that the incident would not have happened had the demand been fulfilled. From the neighbors he could learnt that his sister was frequently assaulted and she was burnt to death. He had thereafter gone to Chainpur P.S. where it was disclosed that investigation is going on. Since he felt that the Police were hand in gloves with the accused, they had instituted a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. He has proved his signature on the complaint, which has been marked as Exhibit-3.

¶47

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he knew that Jamruddin was already married and that he had a daughter from the said marriage. He had stated before the Police that when Reshma and Jamruddin had come to his house Jamruddin had demanded a T.V. and a motorcycle

¶48

-7-

¶49

otherwise he would keep Reshma at her parents’ house and leave. He and his parents and brother had never witnessed any torture committed upon Reshma. He had gone to Jamgai only once when he had put up in the house of his sister and brother-in-law. There are twenty family members in the house of the in-laws of Reshma. He had stated before the Police that Jamruddin had disclosed that he had made a minor assault upon Reshma regarding planting of garlic. 13. P.W.16 (Sharefan Bibi) is the mother of the deceased Reshma who has stated that Afroj had come to her house along with his cousin brother at 12:00 Noon and disclosed that Reshma and her son are suffering from diarrhea and asked her to go and see Reshma. Her husband on hearing such news left for Jamgai with Afroj on the same motorcycle. She had gone on the next day to Jamgai with Ayub. When she had reached, they had found a truck standing and the dead body of Reshma and her son were being brought down from the truck. Both the bodies were in a burnt condition. When she asked as to how they suffered burn injuries, she was reprimanded by Sarfu and Najeeb. Her daughter when she came to her house for the first time after marriage was not willing to return back to her matrimonial house on the ground that Jamruddin constantly demands T.V. and motorcycle and commits physical assault upon her. Her daughter had also disclosed that she would be sent to jungle to graze cattle and would also be abused. About 20-22 days prior to the incident Reshma had come to her house and then also she did not want to go back to her matrimonial house. The parents and brother of Jamruddin used to instigate Jamruddin to commit torture upon Reshma.

¶50

In cross-examination, she has deposed that prior to the marriage of her daughter with Jamruddin she knew that Jamruddin was earlier married but a Talak had been

¶51

-8-

¶52

given to his first wife. She had not disclosed to any of the villagers the reluctance on the part of Reshma to go back to her matrimonial house since she was assaulted for nonfulfillment of the demand of a motorcycle and T.V. Reshma had come to her house twenty-two days prior to the incident and Jamruddin had also accompanied her who had stayed for a day.

¶53

14. P.W.17 (Shanker Ram) was posted at Chainpur P.S. and on 17.02.1996, a complaint was received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla being C19/96 on the basis of which Chainpur P.S. Case No. 9/1996 was instituted. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit4. He has proved the handwriting and signature of the Officerin-Charge of Chainpur P.S. on the complaint which has been marked as Exhibit-3/1. He was handed over the investigation of the case. Before lodging the FIR, a case being U.D. Case No. 2/1996 was instituted in which the inquest report, seizure etc. were attached. He had inspected the place of occurrence, which is the residential house of Jamruddin Khan situated at village Jamgai. The room on the northern side is the place of occurrence. A half-burnt bed was found along with burnt mattress and cloths. Some of the portion of the wall had become black. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and the statement of the witnesses. He had perused the postmortem report, U.D. Case Diary and on completion of investigation had submitted charge-sheet. He had recorded the statement of Maqbool Khan who had stated that two days prior to the occurrence Jamruddin had committed assault upon Reshma Khatoon. He had also recorded the statement of Seikh Idwa who had stated that Jamruddin used to regularly commit assault upon his wife and on 24.01.1996 assault was also committed. The witnesses Saira Khatoon, Gulshan Bibi, Sarfullah Khan,

¶54

-9-

¶55

Imtiaz Khan, Noor Mohammed and Pyaran Bibi have all stated about quarrel between Jamruddin and his wife and the assault committed upon her by Jamruddin Khan.

¶56

In cross-examination, he has deposed that with respect to demand of dowry and torture no Panchayati was ever held. The witness Afroj Khan had not disclosed that Najeem had asked Reshma Khan to bring a T.V. and a motorcycle from her parents.

¶57

In examination on recall, he has proved the seizure list, which has been marked as Exhibit-5. The inquest reports have been proved and marked as Exhibits- 6 and 7.

¶58

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the seizure list and the inquest report were not prepared in his presence.

¶59

15. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, they have denied their complicity in the commission of the offence.

¶60

16. The defence has examined two witnesses in support of its case.

¶61

17. D.W.1 (Joakim Xalxo) has stated that an incident of fire had taken place on 25.01.1996 in the house of Jamruddin and due to which his wife and children had died. He had searched for Jamruddin in the market and on finding him had disclosed about the incident to him. Jamruddin used to stay separate from his parents.

¶62

In cross-examination, he has deposed that before he had left for the market the house of Jamruddin was already on fire.

¶63

18. D.W.2 (Md. Sahadat Khan) has stated that before solemnization of the marriage of Reshma Khatoon with Jamruddin several prospective bribe grooms had seen Reshma but none of them agreed to marry her, as she was mentally ill. After the marriage no demand of dowry was made

¶64

-10-

¶65

by Jamruddin from the parents of Reshma. Reshma had never made any complaints against her in-laws.

¶66

In cross-examination, he has deposed that Reshma was his niece in relation.

¶67

19. It has been submitted by Mr. Shubham Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants that the prosecution has failed to establish that there was a demand of dowry and the deceased Reshma Khatoon was subjected to torture. It has been submitted that most of the witnesses of the prosecution are related to the deceased hence interested witnesses. A plausible explanation has been given by D.W.1 regarding a fire which had taken place in the house of Jamruddin and this fact has been established by the evidence of P.W.7. All the independent witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution. The incident had occurred due to an accident which fact has not at all been considered by the learned trial court.

¶68

20. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State has submitted that the involvement of the appellants is apparent from the fact that initially a different story was projected to the effect that Reshma Khatoon and her son were suffering from diarrhea and subsequently when the parents and relatives of Reshma Khatoon had reached village Jamgai they had found the bodies of Reshma Khatoon and her son in a badly burnt condition and no explanation has been put forward by the defense as to the reason for suffering such burn injuries. The incident had taken place in the matrimonial house of the deceased Reshma Khatoon which further more strengthens the case of the prosecution.

¶69

21. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records.

¶70

-11-

¶71

22. Initially a complaint case was filed by the complainant Ayub Khan which on being referred to the Police u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. resulted in institution of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 9/1996. After the incident had occurred an unnatural death (U.D.) case being U.D. Case No. 2/1996 was registered in which the autopsy was done and a seizure list was also prepared with respect to seizure of some burnt articles. Though the prosecution has examined as many as seventeen witnesses but most have not supported the case of the prosecution and were accordingly declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.15 and P.W.16 are the relevant witnesses of the prosecution and all are closely related to the deceased. The evidence of these witnesses are primarily centered around the role played by the appellant no. 1 who is the husband of the deceased namely, Jamruddin Khan. Whenever the deceased Reshma Khatoon used to come to her parents’ place, she had disclosed about the demand of T.V. and a motorcycle made and she was regularly subjected to assault by the appellant no. 1. Even a few days prior to the incident, a demand was made and Reshma Khatoon was subjected to assault. The role played by the appellant no. 1 in the entire incident has occupied a predominant place in the evidence of the witnesses who have been consistent with the demand of dowry made by the appellant no. 1 and the regular assault and torture committed upon the deceased Reshma Khatoon. Though the defense has tried to present a picture that Reshma Khatoon was mentally ill but no document or any concrete evidence has been brought on record in support thereof. The deceased had died at her matrimonial house in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and immediately preceding her death a demand of T.V. and a motorcycle was made by the appellant no. 1 which convincingly proves the involvement of the appellant no. 1 in

¶72

-12-

¶73

committing the dowry death of his wife. D.W.1 has stated that a fire had taken place in the house of the appellant no. 1 leading to the death of Reshma Khatoon and her son but the evidence of P.W.17 reveals about burnt bed, mattresses and cloths only found in the room where Reshma Khatoon was residing and there is nothing to indicate that there were signs of burns at any other place inside the premises.

¶74

23. So far as the rest of the appellants are concerned, there have been vague insinuation cast against them and nothing of substance has come in the evidence of P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.15 and P.W.16 so far as these appellants are concerned. However, at the same time we must take a note of the evidence of P.W.10 who in his cross-examination has stated that Jamruddin after his marriage used to stay separate from his brother and father. In fact, D.W.1 has reiterated the said fact of the appellant no. 1 living separately from the other appellants. The rest of the appellants have been convicted which primarily stems from the fact that they all are related to the appellant no. 1.

¶75

24. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of conviction so far as the appellant no. 1 (Jamruddin Khan) is concerned and as regards the rest appellants the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.10.1997 passed by Shri Lakhan Kumar Sahay, learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 144/1996 is hereby set aside. They are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

¶76

25. The appellant no. 1 has remained in custody for more than three years. On consideration of the entire facets of the case, the period of custody undergone by the appellant no. 1 as also considering the rigors of the case undergone by him for about three decades, we modify and reduce the sentence to R.I. for 10 years.

¶77

-13-

¶78

26. Since the appellant no. 1 is on bail, he is directed to surrender immediately and forthwith to serve out the rest part of his sentence.

¶79

27. This appeal is partly allowed.

¶80

28. Pending I.As., if any, stands closed.

¶81

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶82

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)