Last Updated on June 25, 2021 by Administrator
A division bench of the Patna HC was in course to conform the death sentence awarded (Under Section 302) to the accused Nasiruddin Mian, the same was rejected and while rejecting the death sentence the HC went to the extent of saying, “…this is an example of how not to write a judgment”.
The Patna HC set aside a judgment passed by the trial court in which the trial court has convicted the accused husband for death sentence in the matter for dowry death case of her own wife.
In this case, the accused Nasiruddin Mian was held guilty of cruelty, murder to his own wife for dowry by poisoning her and later burying her without giving information to her matrimonial family thus causing the disappearance of evidence. The trial court convicted him under sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
As the death sentence was referred to the HC bench for conformation, the HC after analyzing the judgment found that there was no direct evidence against the accused person and so “it is a case of circumstantial evidence, proof of motive would be an important corroborative piece of evidence and the motive relied upon by the prosecution is ill-treatment by the appellants meted out to the deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of motor-cycle and the illicit relationship between the appellant Nasiruddin and Salamu Nesha, however, the evidence on record does not show any proof that the deceased was ever subjected to cruelty for the demand of dowry or there was an illicit relationship between the appellants ”.
Further, the court also took reference from various Supreme Court judgments and raise the concern on proof beyond reasonable doubt as it was a case of homicidal death. The court in its seventy-seven-page order also raises serious concern over the way in which the court used derogatory words and prejudice remarks against the accused-appellant and not appreciated the judgment and lastly strike down the same.
By – The Team SLC @sociolegalcorp