CRIMINAL REVISION No.64 OF 2002 ----- Against the judgment dated 1.10.2001 passed by Sri Shital Prasad Thakur, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2001/46 of 2000 (S.J) allowing the Judgment in part passed by Sri Binod Kumar Lal, Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya on 28.4.2000 in Complaint Case No. 666 of 1991/T.R.No.441 of 2000. ---- Sohaib Ahmad …… Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar …… Opp. Party ---- For the petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. R.B.S.Pahepuri, Addl.P.P. For the complainant : Mrs.Archana Shahi ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA ------ S.K.Sharma,J. This revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 1.10.2001 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Cr.Appeal No. 14 of 2001/46 of 2000(S.J.) allowing the judgment in part passed by Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya on 28.4.2000 in Complaint Case No. 666 of 1991/Tr.No. 441 of 2000 by which the petitioner and one Hasmat Khatoon were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Section under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and three months and fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more and the petitioner was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code with a direction that the sentences will run concurrently. The appellate court allowed 2 the appeal of Hasmat Khatoon and acquitted her form the charges leveled against her but the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed finding him guilty under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the he was also acquitted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Complaint Case No. 666 of 1991 under Sections 323,494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was filed by complainant Md.Tahir alleging therein that his daughter Marium Khatoon was married with the petitioner in the month of April, 1984 but after marriage, her husband and mother-in-law Hasmat Khatoon started torturing her in connection with demand of colour T.V., Sofa Set and Rs.9,000/- in cash and on 18.8.1987 the petitioner forcibly brought his wife to her parents house in injured condition and told that unless demands are fulfilled, he will not keep Marium with him. On 15.8.1991 the complainant came to know that the petitioner performed another marriage with the daughter of Sharfuddin of the same village. The matter was enquired into and after completion of enquiry cognizance was taken under Sections 323, 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons mentioned in the complaint petition. Summons were issued to the accused persons and they appeared. One accused namely, Nisar Ahmad, father of the petitioner, died and his name was deleted. Before charge five witnesses including the complainant 3 were examined and on the basis of the materials available on record, charges under Sections 323, 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against both the accused namely, the petitioner and his mother and trial proceeded. In course of trial, in support of its case, the complainant produced only three witnesses including himself. They are Md. Ali, Md.Tahir, the complainant and Marium Khatoon, the victim. Two witnesses namely, Md.Alam and Md.Azhar who were produced before charge have not been produced for examination after charge and their testimony were not considered. The statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence of the accused persons was that they have been falsely implicated as no such occurrence took place. In support of its case, the defence also examined four witnesses : They are D.W.1 Afroz Alam, D.W.2 Sajid Hassan , D.W.3 Md.Hasnain and D.W.4 Sohaib Ahmad, the petitioner himself.. The defence also produced some documents which have been marked as Exts.A and B. The courts below analysed the entire evidences of the witnesses examined on behalf of both sides and also the documents produced on behalf of the defence. The victim has supported the factum of her marriage, torture and demand of dowry by the petitioner. Complainant and another witness have 4 supported the evidence of the victim. The learned Magistrate after analyzing the evidences and other documents came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed torture in connection with dowry related demands. The appellate court also analysed the evidences on its own and accepted the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses and disbelieved the evidence of the defence. So the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld, as stated above. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is of the year 1984 and there is no allegation that the complainant and victim were being tortured by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has offered his wife to live with him but she refused to accept his offer. Further submission is that the petitioner is a Government servant and if his conviction and sentence are maintained, then he will have to lose the job. The prayer of the petitioner has been opposed by the learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant. I also analysed the entire evidences on record and also perused judgments of both the courts below. The marriage between the petitioner and complainant’s daughter Marium Khatoon is not in dispute. The witnesses of the complainant have proved that the complainant’s daughter Marium Khatoon was being tortured in connection with dowry related demands. The defence witnesses have not been able to 5 create any doubt with regard to consistency of the prosecution version regarding torture. Hence, in my view, the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below are perfectly correct and require no interference by this court. Accordingly, I see no merit in this revision application. In the result, the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence of the petitioner are upheld and this revision application is dismissed. The bail bond of the petitioner is cancelled and he directed to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentences. The trial court is also directed to take all coercive step to take the petitioner in custody. ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. ) Patna High Court, Patna The 21st April,2008. Tahir/-(NAFR).