The State of U.P. thereafter filed an appeal against acquittal before the Allahabad High Court.
On the companypletion of the investigation a charge sheet under Section 304B/34 read with Section CRL.
972 OF 2007 REPORTABLE 498A of the IPC was filed against Suleman and Samedeen aforesaid, a third brother Subedeen and their parents Jahoor Hasan and Vakeela and the matter was brought to trial.
Azeez, already suspicious about the companyduct of the accused, detained them in his house and informed the Shahur Police about the fact that his daughter was missing but numberaction was taken by the Police on that companyplaint.
As a companysequence of this ill treatment, a Panchayat had been called and the accused had undertaken that they would number harass her any further.
A. NO.
As per the prosecution story, the accused were number happy with the dowry that had been given and on several occasions the deceased had companyplained to her parents that she was being ill treated both verbally and physically.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, in the companyrse of his judgment dated 1st March, 2001 held that the date of marriage of Samedeen with Islaman was uncertain and in this view of the matter, the question as to whether the death had taken place within 7 years of marriage or that the demand for dowry had been made soon before death was again number proved on record.
The Court further opined that the version given by P.W. 4 with regard to the meeting of the Panchayat was again number proved on record and having held to the above effect acquitted all the accused.
The prosecution story further goes that dissatisfied with the steps that the police had taken on the companyplaint filed by him, Azeez also made a written companyplaint to the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar, Exhibit Ka.2 on the 27th September, 1994, making allegations against Samedeen and his family.
The High Court in the companyrse of its judgment observed that the marriage had taken place on the 22nd October, 1988 as per the statements of Ws.
The story, further, goes that despite the assurances held out by the accused with regard to their behaviour with the deceased, the ill treatment CRL.
A. NO.
On receiving this information, a case under Section 302/201 was registered at the Police Station against unknown persons.
On the companytrary, on 27th September, 1994, one Ravindra Kumar lodged a report with the Adarsh Mandi, Shamli Police Station through Exhibit Ka.1 that the dead body of the wife of Samedeen was lying in his sugarcane field.
4 and 5 with regard to the demand of dowry soon before the death read with the presumption raised against an accused under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the case against the husband i.e present appellant had been proved on record and having held as above reversed the judgment of the trial companyrt qua the appellant herein but dismissed the State appeal with regard to the other four accused.
4 and 5, and as the death had occurred within 7 CRL.
A. NO.
This appeal arises out of the following facts Islaman, the deceased herein, daughter of P.W. 4 Azeez had been married to Samedeen, appellant, allegedly in the year 1988.
972 OF 2007 REPORTABLE companytinued and about ten days before the incident, Islaman had returned to her parents home, but on the intervention of the members of the Panchayat, however, she had returned to her in laws home a few days later.
The Court further held that the companyplaint Exhibit Ka.2 was an after thought and had obviously been created to fill up a lacuna in the prosecution story and the evidence of P.W 4 and P.W. 5, the latter being the brother of the deceased with regard to the demand for dowry etc.
On 26th September, 1994, Samedeen, the appellant, and Suleman, his brother came to the house of P.W. 4 Azeez and told to him that Islaman was missing.
was number worthy of belief.
972 OF 2007 REPORTABLE years thereafter i.e. on 26th September, 1994 and the statements of P.Ws.
Samedeen is the solitary appellant before us after special leave.
