SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sabbir Ahmad vs Mahfooz on 15 October, 2019


?Court No. – 13

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 206 of 2009

Revisionist :- Sabbir Ahmad

Opposite Party :- Mahfooz

Counsel for Revisionist :- Navita Sharma

Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

The present revision has been filed by the complainant impugning the judgement and order dated 17.3.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, court No.6, Raibareli in S.T. No.204 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No.17 of 2006, under Sections 498A, Section304B IPC and Section 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned trial court vide impugned judgement and order, had acquitted the accused Farukh and Naseem Bano, who are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the deceased Saabira Bano as the prosecution could not prove the case against them beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the accused Mahfooz, who happens to be the husband of the deceased Saabira Bano, was convicted under Section 498A, Section304 IPC and Section 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine under Section 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act, one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine under Section 304B IPC. It was further said that all the sentences would run concurrently.

Heard Ms. Navita Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vinay Kumar Shahi, learned AGA for the State.

This revision has been filed in the year 2009, but till date no notice has been issued.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court has mislead itself while appreciating the evidence inasmuch as from the statement of the mother and the father of the deceased, it is evident that all the accused used to demand dowry and they were subjecting the deceased to cruelty. She further submits that from the post-mortem report, it is evident that besides ligature mark, the deceased had received several injuries. She also submits that the trial court has given the minimum of the sentence to the accused Mahfooz though the case is proved for dowry death against him beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has not assigned any reason for giving the minimum of the sentence.

I have considered the submissions of the parties carefully.

The trial court has disbelieved the demand of Rs.40,000/- as additional dowry for valid and cogent reasons inasmuch as the prosecution was not able to prove the source of the amount of Rs.40,000/-, which was allegedly given to the accused. Further, from the evidence on record, it is evident that in-laws of the deceased were living separately from accused Mahfooz, who was working outside the State and whenever he used to go out from his house for work, he would send the deceased to her parents’ place and after he came back, he used to bring her back. The trial court in view thereof, has opined that when the parents were living separately, it would be difficult to believe that they subjected the deceased to cruelty particularly when the deceased did not live with them at any point of time, which is evident from the evidence led by the prosecution.

Considering all these aspects, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgement and order so far acquittal of the accused, Farukh and Naseem Bano is concerned. In respect of giving the minimum of the sentence under Section 498A and Section304B IPC to accused, Mahfooz, the trial court has considered the fact that it was the second marriage of Saabira Bano. There was a minor child out of the wedlock and there was no female member in the family, who would look after the minor child.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, the trial court has awarded the minimum of the sentence under Section 304B IPC to the accused, Mahfooz. Therefore, I do not think it proper to interfere with the minimum of the sentence awarded to the accused, Mahfooz.

In view of the aforesaid, the present revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 15.10.2019




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation