Umme Kulsum vs Shahidul Islam (2014) 19 BLC 17

Fact of the Case:

Umme Kulsum, wife of Shahidul Islam on 21.04.2003 lodged a first information report with the Mirpur police station against her husband and others under Section 11(b) / 30 of The Prevention of Oppression Against Women and Children Act, 2000 alleging that her husband along with other accused respondents used to torture her for the cause of dowry. On 14-04-2003 all the accused tortured her and demanded taka three lakhs as dowry. When she refused, she drove out from her husband’s house and following that she was divorced.

Issues:

The Police after investigation submitted final report on 18-08-2003. Against which on 30-06-2004 the informant (Umme Kulsum) filed a Naraji Petition. After the hearing, the learned judge accepted the Final Report by rejecting the Naraji Petition. Feeling aggrieved the informant filed an appeal to the High Court Division. By this appeal, the informant-appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the order accepting the Final Report and rejecting the Naraji Petition.

Decision:

After considering all the materials placed before the appellate court it took the same view of the lower court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Justification:

1. The informant made allegations against the respondents for demanding dowry by causing hurt. The police during the investigation recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. But none of the witnesses deposed supporting the allegations of the informant.

2. The informant was divorced by her husband on 14-01-2002 and notices were duly served upon her. But the allegation was made by the informant that she was tortured by her husband on 14-04-2003 demanding dowry. After divorce, the question of demanding dowry does not arise.

3. There is a vague and unspecific allegation of torture. Mental or physical torture does not amount to causing hurt. So, the vague and unspecific allegation of torture does not attract an offence under Section 11(b) of The Prevention of Oppression Against Women and Children Act, 2000. Even though this allegation is taken to be true does not constitute an offence under Section 11 (b).

Case Law Referred:

i. MM Ishak vs State 56 DLR 516

Written By---

Md Sajib Ali

Department of Land Management and Law

Jagannath University, Dhaka