Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 3829 of 2004
Judge: Syed Md. Ziaul Karim,
Court: High Court Division,,
Advocate: Mr. M.A. Mannan Mahon,,
Citation: 2 LNJ (2013) 235
Case Year: 2013
Appellant: Most. Umme Kulsum
Respondent: Shahidul and others
Delivery Date: 2013-05-15
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
|Syed Md. Ziaul Karim, J.
Ashish Ranjan Das, J.
Most. Umme Kulsum @ Zinal Ara,
. . . Informant-Appellant.
Shahidul Islam & others
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain (VIII of 2000)
None of the witnesses supported the allegations of the informant. Some of the witnesses stated that informant was divorced long before. Considering the FIR and Naraji petition it appears that the allegation made therein are contradictory to each other. Moreso, the informant was divorced on 14.1.2002 by the accused and notices were duly served upon her. After giving divorce the question of demanding of dowry does not arise. The vague and unspecific allegation of torture made in the FIR does not attract an offence under section 11(Kha) of the Ain. So, the allegations made in the FIR, even if are taken as true, do not constitute an offence punishable under section 11(Kha) or 11(Kha)/30 of the Act. . . .(9)
M. M. Ishak Vs. State and another, 56 DLR 516 ref.
No one appears,
Mr. M.A. Mannan Mohon, D.A.G. with
Mr. Md. Osman Goni Sheikh, A.A.G.
No one appears,
Criminal Appeal No. 3829 of 2004
By this appeal the informant-appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 14.08.2004 passed by learned Judge of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Special Tribunal No. 5, Dhaka, accepting the Final Report by rejecting Naraji Petition in Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Case No. 825 of 2003.
Facts in brief are that, on 21.4.2003 the appellant as informant lodged a First "inform-ation Report with the Mirpur Police Station against the respondents alleging that on 21.04.2000 she was married with accused respondent No. 1 Shahidul Islam. During their wedlock one child born. She used to live in her conjugal home. Her accused husband along with other accused respondents used to torture her for the cause of dowry. On 17.04.2003 all the accused tortured her and demanded Tk. 3,00,000/- (three lacs) as dowry. When she refused, she was drove out from the conjugal home. She further alleged that afterward her accused husband divorced her. The First Information Report was recorded as Mirpur P.S. case No. 88 dated 21.04.2003.
The Police after investigation submitted Final Report on 18.08.2003. Against which on 30.06.2004 the informant filed a Naraji Petition.
Eventually, after hearing the learned Judge accepted the Final Report by rejecting the Naraji Petition by the impugned order.
Feeling aggrieved the informant preferred the instant appeal.
No one appears to support the appeal. In view of the facts this is an old appeal of 2004. We are inclined to take it up for disposal on merit considering the materials on record.
The learned Deputy Attorney General appearing for the State opposes the appeal and submits that, the learned Judge of the Court below after considering the materials on record rightly passed the impugned order, which calls for no interference by this Court.
In order to appreciate his submissions we have gone through the record and given our anxious consideration to his submissions.
On going to the materials on record it transpires that, the informant made allegations -against the respondents for demanding of dowry by causing hurt which was recorded under Sections II(kha)/30 of the Nari-O-Shishu NiIjatan Daman Ain, 2000. The police during investigation recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But none of the witnesses deposed supporting the allegations of the informant. Moreover, two local witness namely Baharuddin and Md. Hossain stated that informant was divorced by her accused husb-and long before. On meticulous examination of the materials on record particularly F.I.R., and Naraji Petition, we find that the allegation made therein are contradictory to each other. Moreso, the informant was divorced on 14.1.2002 by the accused and notices were duly served upon her. So the learned Judge of the court below rightly held that after divorce the question of demanding of dowry does not arise. Moreso, there is vague and unspecific allegation of torture, Mental or physical torture and causing hurt or injury are not the same act. The allegation of torture does not mean causing hurt. Thus the vague and unspecific allegation of torture made in the First Information Report does not attract an offence under section II(kha) of the Ain. So, the allegations made in the First Information Report, even if are taken as true, do not constitute an offence punishable under section 11 (kha) or 11 (kha) / 30 of the Act. With this regard reliance is being placed in the case of MM Ishak Vs State and another 56 DLR 516.
Therefore, the learned Judge of the Court below after considering the materials on record rightly accepted the Final Report by rejecting the Naraji petition of the appellant. Thus the appeal having no merit fails.
In view of foregoing narrative the appeal is dismissed.
Office is directed to communicate the order at once.