LexBIBI PARWANA KHATOON @ PARWANA KHATOON AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 927 BIBI PARWANA KHATOON @ PARWANA KHATOON A AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 888 of 2017) MAY04,2017 [N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) B Penal Code, 1860 - s.304B rlw s.34 - Death by burning - Accused were husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband - During trial, mother-in-law died - Trial court C found all the remaining four accused guilty uls.304B rlw s.34 - High Court allowed the appeal of father-in-law of the deceased but maintained the conviction and sentence against other three - Appeal by sister-in 'aw and her husband - Held: It was sufflcient(v shown on the record that the appellants used to live in a different D village - Courts below did not discuss as to why the testimony of the witnesses as to the fact that married sister-in-law and her husband used to live in a different village was not believed - The public documents put on record read with the oral testimony adduced before the trial court, created serious doubt in the prosecution story, so far it related to the appellants - Appellants acquitted of charge of E offence punishable u/s.304B r/w s.34. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The trial court mentioned the name of defence witnesses but did not discuss as to why their testimony as to the F fact that married sister-in-law (of the deceased) and her husband used to live in village Sabutar was not believed. The High Court also committed the same error. Apart from that, in support of their plea, there were three documents filed on behalf of the appellants, which were copies of public documents, to show their residence at village Sabutar in District Purnea. All these public G documents read with the oral testimony adduced before the trial court, created serious doubt in the prosecution story, so far it related against the appellants.[Para 11)(931-B-C, E-F) 2. Both the courts below erred in law in holding that the H 927 928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A charge under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC stood proved as against the appellants. It cannot be said that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, who were sister-in- law and brother-in-law of the deceased, tortured the victim for any demand of dowry. In the present case based on circumstantial evidence, it cannot be said that appellants had any common B intention with the husband of the deceased in commission of the crime. It was sufficiently shown on the record that they used to live in a different village. They are acquitted of charge of offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC. [Paras c D E 13, 14)(931-G-H; 932-A-B] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminalAp!Jeal No. 888 of2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 48 of 2014. Gaurav Agrawal, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Ad vs. for the Appellants. Shivam Singh, Aditya Raina (for Gopal Singh), Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants, who are sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, have challenged the judgment and order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 48 of 2014 whereby said Court has dismissed the criminai appeal F affirming their conviction and sentence under Section 304B read with Section 34 ofindian Penal Code (IPC) recorded by the Ad hoc Additional DistrictJudge, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 1219 of2010 (with Sessions Trial No. 617 of201 l ). G H 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Tamkinat Ara@ Bulbul got married to Md. Parwez Alam on 30.09.2009 and she used to live in her in-laws' house. The prosecution case is that after her marriage deceased used to live with Md. ParwezAlam (husband), Abdul Gaffar (father-in- law), Baitun Nisha (mother-in-law), Bibi Parwana Khatoon (sister of husband) and her husband Md. Hasan (both appellants). It is alleged by the informant Md. Faisal PW-5 (brother of the deceased) that the BIBI PARWANA KHATOON @ PARWANA KHATOON v. 929 STATE OF BIHAR [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] deceased was killed by setting her on fire by all the above accused. On A receiving telephonic information on 30.05.2010 from father-in-law of the deceased, PW-5 Md. Faisal went to see his sister and found that she had died of burn injuries. On the basis of First In
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.