The New Nation - Internet Edition

Appellate Division

(Criminal)

Mohammad Fazlul Karim-J.

M.M. Ruhul Amin-J.

Criminal petition for leave to appeal no. 395 of 2006.

(From the judgment and order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Revision No.1167 of 2000.)

Md. Shahidullah Kawsertt..Petitioner.

Vs.

Israt Zahan Popy & another tttttttRespondents.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate on-Record.

For the Respondent: Not represented.

Judgment: September 16, 2007

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980-

Section 4- Charge of offence of demanding dowry-

The trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to suffer' imprisonment for one year having found him guilty on the proof of the charge by the evidence brought on record. The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and thereafter the High Court Division also discharged the Rule in the revision. In the ultimate analysis the Appellate Division found nothing wrong with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

The High Court Division held that in this case marriage was not disputed. The divorce was registered on 20.01.1996 and a copy of the notice seeking divorce was sent to complainant on 21.01.1996 and before the expiration of 90 days, the petition of complaint was filed by the complainant, on 13.02.1996 that is during the subsistence of the marriage. Since the demand for dowry was made during subsistence of marriage the offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was found to have been committed by the High Court Division. The High Court Division further held that the demand for dowry has been proved by evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 & 4 tt(Para 6)

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision ttt(Para 7)

JUDGMENT

M. M. RUHUL AMIN-J: This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2006 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Revision No.1l67 of 2000 discharging the Rule.

2. Short facts are that one Israt Zahan @ Popy lodged the petition of complaint on 13.02.1996 before the Magistrate, 1st Class, Mymensingh against the accused petitioner and four others alleging, inter alia, that she was married to the accused petitioner by a registered kabinnama on 27.01.1995 and they were living as husband and wife. Thereafter on 20.04.1995 the accused. petitioner demanded a 100 c.c. Motor Cycle, 24" Colour Television and Video Cassette recorder as dowry and when the complainant expressed her inability to give those articles she was sent to her father's house. When the complainant informed her mother about the claim of dowry by the accused petitioner her mother along with other witnesses went to the house of the accused petitioner and expressed their inability to meet the demand but the accused petitioner insisted that without those things it would not be possible for him to live with the complainant and the witnesses were insulted, and driven out of the house of the accused petitioner. On 17.01.1996 at about 7 P.M. the petitioner along with other accused persons visited the complainant's house rind demanded Tk. 150,000/ as the price for the articles demanded as dowry and said that on failure to make such payment, the accused petitioner will divorce the complainant and the petitioner thereafter refused to take back the complainant and hence the petition of complaint.

On receipt of the said petition the trial Court issued process against the accused petitioner under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and thereafter framed charge against the accused petitioner under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial prosecution examined 5 witnesses. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted the accused petitioner under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. Being aggrieved thereby the accused petitioner preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, Mymensingh and the Court of appeal dismissed the appeal and afforded the judgment and order passed by the trial Court.

4. Being aggrieved thereby the present petitioner led an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court Division and obtained the present Rule which after hearing was discharged.

5. We have heard Mr. Md. Aftab Hossain, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.

6. The High Court Division held that in this case marriage was not disputed. The divorce was registered on 20.01.1996, and a copy of the notice seeking divorce was sent to complainant on 21.01.1996 and before the expiration of 90 days, the petition of complaint was filed by the complainant on 13.02.1996 that is during the subsistence of the marriage. Since the demand for dowry was made during subsistence of marriage the offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was found to have been committed by the High Court Division.

The High Court Division further held that the demand for dowry has been proved by evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 & 4.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussions made above, we are of the view that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision.

8. The petition is dismissed.