Acquittal in Dowry Death Case: Supreme Court’s Verdict in Bibi Parwana Khatoon vs. State of Bihar

The case of Bibi Parwana Khatoon & Anr. vs. State of Bihar revolves around the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court had to determine whether the appellants, who were the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, were rightly convicted for dowry death based on circumstantial evidence.

Background of the Case

The case pertains to the death of Tamkinat Ara @ Bulbul, who was married to Md. Parwez Alam on September 30, 2009. After her marriage, she lived with her husband, in-laws, and her husband’s sister (Bibi Parwana Khatoon) and brother-in-law (Md. Hasan). According to the prosecution, she was harassed and ultimately killed by setting her on fire on May 30, 2010.

The deceased’s brother, Md. Faisal (PW-5), received a phone call about his sister’s death and upon reaching her matrimonial home, found that she had died due to burn injuries. He lodged a First Information Report (FIR), alleging that all the accused—including the husband, parents-in-law, and the appellants—were responsible for her death.

Charges and Conviction

The case was registered under Section 304B (Dowry Death) read with Section 34 (Common Intention) IPC. During the trial, the following points were crucial:

• The post-mortem report indicated strangulation as the cause of death, with burns inflicted post-mortem.
• The deceased had suffered 100% burns but showed no signs of struggle.
• PW-6, Dr. Umesh Kumar, confirmed that the burns were inflicted after death to mislead investigators.

Trial Court’s Findings

The trial court found all four accused guilty and sentenced:

• Md. Parwez Alam (husband) – 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
• Bibi Parwana Khatoon (sister-in-law) – 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.
• Md. Hasan (brother-in-law) – 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.
• Abdul Gaffar (father-in-law) – Convicted but later acquitted by the High Court.

High Court’s Ruling

The accused filed separate appeals. The High Court acquitted the father-in-law but upheld the convictions of the husband, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Appellants’ (Bibi Parwana Khatoon & Md. Hasan) Arguments

• The appellants lived in a different village (Sabutar, Purnea) and were not present at the scene of the crime.
• There was no direct evidence against them, and they were convicted purely based on circumstantial evidence.
• Several defense witnesses (DW-1 to DW-10) confirmed that they were not living in the deceased’s matrimonial home.
• Public records, including a residence certificate, PAN card, and service book, showed their permanent residence was not the crime scene.

Respondent’s (State of Bihar) Arguments

• The appellants were close relatives of the husband and actively participated in the harassment of the deceased.
• The trial court correctly convicted them under Section 304B IPC based on the circumstantial evidence.
• The prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-5) consistently maintained that the deceased was harassed for dowry.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the oral and documentary evidence and found the following:

• The defense witnesses (DW-1 to DW-10) consistently testified that the appellants were living in a different village (Sabutar, Purnea).
• The trial court failed to discuss why the testimonies of the defense witnesses were disregarded.
• The appellants provided documentary proof that they lived elsewhere:
• Residence Certificate – Issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Purnea, confirming their residence.
• PAN Card – Addressed to the village Sabutar.
• Service Book – Showing that Parwana Khatoon was a Panchayat teacher in Sabutar.
• The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had a role in the crime.

Key Observations

The Court stated:

“In view of the evidence discussed above, it cannot be said that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the present appellants, who are sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, tortured the victim for any demand of dowry.”

On the issue of common intention under Section 34 IPC, the Court noted:

“In the present case, which is based on circumstantial evidence, it cannot be said that the appellants had any common intention with the husband of the deceased in the commission of the crime.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court set aside the convictions of Bibi Parwana Khatoon and Md. Hasan:

• The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC were quashed.
• The appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released from jail immediately unless required in another case.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling is crucial in dowry death cases as it reinforces the principle that convictions must be based on concrete evidence. The key takeaways include:

• Importance of Alibi: The appellants provided solid proof of their residence in another village, which was disregarded by lower courts.
• Failure to Prove Common Intention: The Supreme Court emphasized that mere relation to the primary accused does not establish guilt.
• Critical Role of Documentary Evidence: Public records played a major role in proving that the accused were not present at the crime scene.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict in Bibi Parwana Khatoon vs. State of Bihar highlights the necessity of rigorous judicial scrutiny in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. The acquittal of the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased underscores the importance of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and ensures that innocent individuals are not wrongfully convicted.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bibi Parwana Khatoon vs State of Bihar Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-05-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Dowry Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Prafulla C. Pant
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category