Md. Khairul Ansari @ Khairul Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 775 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Md. Khairul Ansari @ Khairul Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand on 23 January, 2024

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

                                1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Criminal Revision No. 616 of 2018
                        ---------

1.Md. Khairul Ansari @ Khairul Ansari

2.Md. Atik Ansari @ Atik Ansari ..... Petitioners Versus

1.State of Jharkhand

2.Ishrat Jahan ..... Opp. Parties

----------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

---------

For the Petitioner : Ms.Kanchan Lata, Advocate For the State : Mr.Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr.Imran Beig, Advocate

---------

C.A.V. on 19.07.2023 Pronounced on 23.01.2024 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 18.4.2018, passed by Shri Vishnu Kant Sahay, learned Sessions Judge, Latehar in Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2016 arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 13.6.2016, passed by Md. Taufique Ahmed, C.J.M., Latehar in G.R. Case No. 810/13/Tr.No. 277/16, whereby the learned C.J.M., Latehar had convicted both the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Petitioner No. 2, namely Atik Ansari, was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 A of the I.P.C. and both the petitioners have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the charge under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. and in addition to that Petitioner No. 2-Atik Ansari was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- and he was further directed to undergo R.I. for one month in case of default of payment of the fine.

However, learned Appellate Court below, while partly allowing Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2016, has acquitted Petitioner No. 2 from the charge of 498-A I.P.C. however

upheld his conviction and sentence under Section 354A I.P.C.

The conviction and sentence of the Petitioner No.1 under Section 498-A I.P.C. was upheld by the learned Appellate Court.

2. The prosecution case on the basis of Complaint Application No. 268/2013, FIR, being Balumath P.S. Case No. 139/13 dated 12.11.2013 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 810 of 2013) was registered and as per the said F.I.R., the period of incident was from June, 2010 till the lodging of the complaint application dated 12.11.2013. It had been alleged that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized in the year 2005 with Jabarul Ansari according to Muslim rites and customs and at the time of marriage Rs.1,01,051/- was paid in cash to the father of the groom and some pieces of jewellery, like ear rings, gold rings, nose pin, silver chandrahar etc. were also given. After marriage the complainant lived in her matrimonial home and out of the wedlock one girl child was born, however, her husband died in the year 2007. On the "Chalisma" of her husband, her father-in-law assured her father, brother and other witnesses that she would be remarried with Khairul Ansari, the Petitioner No.1, who is the another son of her father-in-law and she remained in her in-law's house and her Nikah with Petitioner No. 1 took place in the month of June, 2010 with information to her parents, brother etc., who paid Rs. 1,11,000/-, as demanded by her in-laws, on the day of the Nikah apart from one watch and two gold rings. It is further alleged that after her marriage she remained there properly for about a month, but thereafter accused persons started assaulting her demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- and a Hero Honda motorcycle. Her sister-in-law (Nanad) and her husband

(Nandosi) also pressurised her to bring cash and articles and it is specifically alleged that in February, 2013, when her Nanad and Nandosi took her to their village and on one occasion her Nanad had gone to do the washing, her Nandosi tried to catch her with bad intention but the informant could somehow managed to save herself and on her information to her father-in-law her husband took her back. It is further alleged that in the month of March she was brutally assaulted and the accused persons, after taking entire articles from her, ousted her. The complainant came to her parents' house and in the month of April, when her brother and father went there, they too were ill-treated and threatened and the accused persons were not ready to take her back and asserted that they will perform second marriage of her husband- Petitioner No. 1, namely Khairul Ansari. As alleged, in the month of June, 2013 the Petitioner No. 1 got married to another woman, namely Nazma Khatoon. and F.I.R. was lodged against the present petitioners and said Nazma Khatoon. However, after investigation charge-sheet was not filed against said Nazma Bibi as there was no evidence was against her. Accordingly, charge-sheet No. 149/14 dated 18.12.2014 for offences u/s 498A, 494 of the I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was filed, however, cognizance was taken u/s 498A and 354A of the I.P.C. on 22.12.2014 by the learned C.J.M.

3. Mrs. Kanchan Lata, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the impugned judgments passed by the learned Appellate Court and Trial Court are not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned court below has not appreciated the evidence of the witnesses properly while upholding the conviction and sentence of Petitioner No. 1 under Section 498A I.P.C. as

the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar has acquitted the six accused persons, Md. Manir Ansari, father-in-law, Ajajul Ansari, brother-in-law, Atik Ansari-Brother-in-law (Nandosi), Afsana Bibi, sister-in-law, Salma Bibi-Mother-in- law, Shahnaj Bibi (Nanad) of O.P. No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the I.P.C.

4. It is submitted that marriage between the Petitioner No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 is disputed and no Nikah was performed and no legal marriage took place and no Nikahnama was prepared at the time of alleged Nikah. It is submitted that Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the O.P. No. 2 and Petitioner No. 2 is the Nandosi of O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that general and omnibus allegation have been levelled against the petitioners for torture and demanding dowry from O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that the first husband of O.P. No. 2 had died but O.P. No. 2 has denied to reside in her matrimonial home and she has falsely claimed that she has been married to Petitioner No. 1. It is submitted that even on the date of alleged marriage the petitioner was a minor and less than 18 years of age and hence the Nikah between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 could not be performed. It is submitted that Petitioner No. 1 is married with one Nazma Khatun and he has children also and he has not married this O.P. No. 2. It is further submitted that allegation against the Petitioner No. 2 of outraging the modesty of the informant is false and concocted and no incident of outraging the modesty of the informant took place, hence the petitioners may also be acquitted and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed.

It is also alternatively submitted that Petitioner No. 1 has remained in custody for 67 days, whereas Petitioner No. 2 has remained in custody for around 81

days and hence lenient view may be taken in favour of the petitioners.

5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the submission. It is submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below are fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the complainant and witnesses have fully supported their case and hence, this criminal revision may be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, after adopting the submission of the learned A.P.P., has further submitted that this Criminal Revision application is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the learned C.J.M., Latehar has fully discussed the deposition of the witnesses while convicting seven persons including these petitioners. It is submitted that on Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2016, being filed by the petitioners herein and five others, the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar has acquitted five persons, namely Manir Ansari, Ajajul Ansari, Afsana Bibi, Salma Bibi, Shahnaj Bibi, but has convicted Petitioner No.1 under Section 498 A I.P.C. and has also convicted Petitioner No. 2 under Section 354 A of the I.P.C.

7. It is submitted that Ext. 2 is the Nikahnama, which shows that the Nikah was performed between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2.

It is submitted that the petitioner was not a minor at the time of Nikah with this O.P. No.2 and that the witnesses examined on behalf of defence, i.e. D.W. 2 has also supported the fact of second marriage of Petitioner No. 1 and thus, the cruelty is proved.

8. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2 has examined eight (08) witnesses in support of her case and P.W. 1 is the complainant-O.P. No.2 herself and she has fully supported her case by stating that she was married with

one Jabarul Ansari and after his death she had entered into Nikah with Petitioner No. 1 and was residing in his house.

9. It is submitted that evidence of P.W.1 is fully supported by P.W.2-Mustkim Miyan, P.W.3-Anjar Mian, P.W.4-Usman Mian, P.W.5-Md. Farukh Ansari, P.W.6-Md. Irfan Mian and P.W.7-Atik Mian. It is submitted that P.W.8 is the I.O. of the case who has also supported and corroborated the prosecution case.

10. It is further submitted that D.W.1, D.W.2, D.W. 3 and D.W. 4, namely Ejajul Ansari, Md. Mujibullah Ansari, Israfil Ansari and Md. Hasim Ansari are not reliable and hence the learned appellate court has not committed any illegality by affirming the conviction and sentence of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 and hence, this criminal revision may be dismissed.

11. Perused the Lower Court Record and considered the submission of both the sides.

12. It transpires that one Complaint Case No. 268 of 2013 was filed by the O.P. No. 2 against the petitioners and six others on 12.11.2013 and it was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. through the police by the learned C.J.M./J.M., Latehar.

13. It transpires that O.P. No. 2 has lodged F.I.R., being Balumath P.S. Case No. 139/13 on 12.12.2013 against both the petitioners namely Khairul Ansari and Atik Ansari and five others for committing offences under Section 498 A, 494, 354 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

14. It transpires that one Complaint Case no. 268 of 2013 was filed by the O.P. No. 2 against the petitioners and six others on 12.11.2013 and which was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the police by

the learned C.J.M./J.M., Latehar. Police submitted chargesheet against the petitioners and five others on 18.12.2014 before the learned S.D.J.M., Latehar under Section 498 A/354 (A) I.P.C. and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and has separately submitted a chargesheet under Section 498A/354/354 (A)/109/120 B of the I.P.C. and Section 3/ 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against six others. Thereafter, learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance under Sections 498A/354/354 (A)/109/120 B of the I.P.C. and 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against both the petitioners.

15. After supply of police papers to the accused persons, charges were framed against both the petitioners and five others (i.e. the persons who were acquitted by the learned appellate court) on 10.6.2015 under sections 498 A I.P.C. and 354 I.P.C. by the learned S.D.J.M., Latehar and to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and the trial began.

16. During trial the prosecution has got examined eight witnesses, who are as follows:

          (i)    P.W. 1 is Ishrat Jahan, who is the
          informant

(ii) (ii) P.W.2 is Mustakim Mian, i.e. the father of the informant-O.P. No. 2,

(iii) P.W.3 is Anjar Miyan, the formal witness,

(iv) P.W.4 is Usman Mian,

(v) P.W.5 is Md. Faruque Ansari, i.e. brother of the O.P. No. 2,

(vi) P.W. 6 is Md. Irfan Mian,

(vii) P.W.7 is Atik Mian,

(viii) P.W. 8 is Indradeo Prasad Yadav, who is the I.O. of this case.

17. The prosecution, in support of its case, has got marked some documents as Exhibits, which are as follows:-

(i) Exhibit 1 is the entire C.P.No. 268 of 2013 and

(ii) Ext. 2 is the Original Nikahnama signed by the Petitioner No. 1-Khairul Ansari and informant Ishrat Jahan @ Ishrat Praveen.

18. Thereafter, the petitioners and five others were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the learned court below on 25.2.2016 and to which they denied the circumstances put forth before them.

19. The petitioners in support of their case have also got examined four witnesses who are as follows:

(i) D.W.1 is Ejajul Ansari, i.e. brother of both the petitioners,

(ii) D.W.2 is Md. Mujibullah Ansari.

(iii) D.W. 3-Israfil Ansari,

(iv) D.W.-4-Md. Hasim Ansari, Member of Anjuman Committee.

20. However, no document has been marked as exhibit on behalf of the defence.

21. Thereafter, the Court below has convicted the petitioners and five others as mentioned earlier.

22. Thereafter, petitioners and five others filed Criminal Appeal No. 20/16, however, learned Sessions Judge, Latehar has acquitted five persons, Md. Manir Ansari, Ejajul Ansari, Afsana Bibi, Salma Bibi and Sehnaz Bibi but has upheld the conviction of the petitioner No. 1 under Section 498 of the I.P.C. and has also upheld the conviction of the Petitioner No. 2 for the offence under Section 354 A of the I.P.C. and sentencing part with respect

to the petitioners herein has not been disturbed by the learned Sessions Judge by affirming the same.

23. It transpires that the learned trial court has assessed the age of the Petitioner No. 1 Khairul Ansari as 23 years on 25.2.2016 and has also assessed the age of the Petitioner No. 2 Atik Ansari as 25 years while recording their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 25.2.2016.

24. The learned trial court has modified the sentence of the Petitioner No. 2 by convicting him under Section 354 A of I.P.C. though he was convicted under Section 354 of the I.P.C. by the learned C.J.M., Latehar and as such appreciation of the evidence of prosecution witnesses will be necessary.

25. P.W.1 is Ishrat Jahan, who is the wife-O.P. No. 2 of the Petitioner No. 1 and she has stated during her evidence that she was firstly married with one Jabarul Ansari in the year 2005. However, after the death of her first husband, she had performed second Nikah with Khairul Ansari i.e. Petitioner No.1 as per Muslim customs and after Nikah she remained in her matrimonial home properly for a period of one month and thereafter, her husband and other in-law members including Petitioner No. 2 started torturing and assaulting her and they used to demand Rs. One lac in cash and one motor cycle. However, she remained in her matrimonial home.

26. She has stated that her father had given Rs.1,11,000/- lac in cash, one watch, one gold ring and had also given jewelleries of gold and silver of around 15 Bhar and several other articles were also handed over to the persons of her matrimonial home. She has alleged that her Nandosi tried to tease her with bad intension in her room while her Nanad had gone for washing cloths. She has also stated that she was assaulted by the persons of

her matrimonial home at the instigation of her Nandosi. Her father tried to pacify the matter but nothing was done. She has proved the complaint petition marked as Exhibit 1.

During her cross examination, she has stated that she was married from the house of her father-in-law in village Lejang in the year 2005. However, after the death of her first husband she was married to Petitioner No. 1- Khairul Ansari after three years and her husband kept her properly for three years. However, her in-law members used to torture her in the name of dowry and also started demanding Rs. One lac cash and motor cycle and they used to assault her, but she could not file any paper of treatment of her assault.

It is further stated that Petitioner No. 2-Atik- Ansari took her to his house and teased her and tried to show her blue film and also tried to drag her hands but somehow she managed to escape.

On further cross examination she has admitted that a meeting was convened by Anjuman Committee in Patratu and the second meeting was held at village Huchulu. She has denied the suggestion that she was married from the house of Atik Ansari, i.e. Petitioner No. 2 and there were conciliation twice. She admitted that first compromise is correct but in the second compromise, which was prepared for leaving her, Mehr of Rs. 2,87,000/- was fixed but it was interpolated as 1,19,000/-. The second compromise was a forged paper with her signature and she has instituted a fresh case for forging her signature and she has made even the officer-in-charge of the case as an accused.

27. She has further admitted that Petitioner No. 1 has performed second marriage with Nagma Khatun, who

is a resident of Ranchi. She had denied the suggestion that she had ran away from Khairul Ansari.

Thus, on scrutinising the evidence of P.W.1, it appears that she has supported her case as given in the complaint petition which led to the lodging of the F.I.R.

28. However, during cross examination she has admitted that Panchayati/meeting was held twice resulting in two written compromise but she admitted only the first compromise and refused the second compromise petition due to alleged interpolation in Meher of Rs. 2,87,000/- to Rs. 1,19,000/-.

29. P.W. 2 is Mustakin Mian and who is the father of the informant-O.P. No. 2 and supported the case of his daughter. He also stated that Petitioner No. 1 has performed his second marriage with one Nagma Khatun and thereafter, a Panchayati was held at Huchulu but when they received no amount, they have instituted the case.

During cross-examination, he admitted that after the death of Jabarul Haque, who was the first husband of the O.P. No. 2 she had performed second marriage with Khairul Ansari-Petitioner No. 1. He further stated that when the Petitioner No. 1 performed second marriage on 07.6.2013 then she instituted the case. He has shown ignorance that the articles were returned to his daughter along with list of all articles.

30. He further admitted that none of the person of his house became witness as they lived outside. He also shown ignorance as to who was the Kaji at the time of marriage of her daughter and he also does not remember the name of the first Kaji of the marriage of her daughter. He also shown ignorance for not remembering the name of the witnesses in the Nikahnama, but he admitted that he

was present in the Nikah. He further submitted that as per Shariyat, there is provision of widow remarriage and in the Muslim law it is allowed and the grand daughter has got share in the house but till date the share has not been allotted to her and even till the time of second marriage of his daughter there was no partition.

Thus, from scrutinising the evidence of P.W.2, it is evident that he has made general and vague allegation against the petitioners and five other persons (who were acquitted by the learned appellate court below) and hence his evidence is not reliable.

31. However, P.W. 2 has not supported the fact of teasing or outraging the modesty of this O.P. No. 2 by Petitioner No. 2. He, however admitted for not remembering the name of the Kaji of the Nikah and has filed this case only after denial of the share of his daughter by the petitioners.

32. Thus, from scrutinizing evidence of P.W. 2 it is evident that although he has supported the allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the Petitioner No. 1, but he had not supported the allegation of outraging of modesty of O.P. No. 2 by Petitioner No. 2.

33. P.W. 3 Anjar Mian, who is a formal witness, has merely stated that the O.P. No. 2 was married with Petitioner No. 1 in the year 2005 as per Muslim customs and she remained properly in her matrimonial home for one month and thereafter, her in-laws and other members of her family had ousted her after keeping all her articles. He also stated that Petitioner No. 1 has performed second marriage at Lohardaga.

34. In his cross examination, he admitted that police has not recorded his statement and he is not aware of the name of In-law members of O.P. No. 2, but he is aware of

the name of Khairul Ansari, Salma Bibi, Nagma Bibi and Islam Mian only.

Thus, on scrutinising his evidence, it is clear that he has given contradictory statement on the point of Nikah between the Petitioner No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 as he stated the year of Nikah in the year 2005 whereas Nikah took place in the year 2013 and he was also not aware of the names of other in-law members and has not even taken the name of petitioner No. 2 Atik Ansari & thus evidence of P.W. 3 is not reliable.

35. P.W. 4 is Usman Miyan, who has although supported the marriage of O.P. No. 2 and has stated that after the O.P. No.2 was assaulted by the Petitioner No. 1 herein, a Panchayati took place in Patratu and Petitioner No.1 took away his wife Israt Jahan-O.P. No. 2 but he again started assaulting her and performed second marriage.

During cross examination, he admitted that he had not participated in the Nikah between Ishrat and Khairul as he had been working in Sahibganj at that time.

Thus, the evidence of P.W. 4 is also not reliable. P.W.4 has alleged nothing against Petitioner No. 2 and even against Petitioner No. 1 for demanding dowry of 1,11,000/- and in second Panchayati to leave of the O.P. No. 2 in lieu of Rs. 2, 87,000/- or Rs. 1, 19,000/-.

36. P.W. 5 is the brother of O.P. No. 2 and although he has supported the case of O.P. No. 2 during his evidence, but he has stated that second marriage of O.P. No. 2 and Petitioner No.1- Khairul Ansari took place in the year 2010 and she lived in her matrimonial home for two months properly but the in-law members again started demanding Rs.1,00,000/-. He has alleged that Nandosi of her sister proposed to keep illicit relationship with her but

she refused, however, he has stated that Panchayati had taken place twice at Huchulu and at Patratu respectively.

During his cross examination he has denied the suggestion that he has not stated before the police regarding Panchayati. He has denied the suggestion for informing the police that after the death of her first husband, Ishrat was living in her Maika.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 5, it is evident that he has tried to support the case of the O.P. No. 2. on the terms and conditions of the Panchayati and he is an interested witness and hence his evidence is not reliable.

37. P.W.6 is Md. Irfan Mian, who has tried to support the case of O.P. No. 2 through his evidence by making general and vague allegation.

During his cross examination he has stated that he is not aware about the number of accused persons on whom the informant has lodged the case and he admitted to have learnt about the occurrence from the complainant and that police had not recorded his statement. He gave his evidence for the first time.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.6, it is evident that he is a formal and hearsay witness and therefore, is not reliable.

38. P.W. 7 is Atik Miyan, who is a member of the Anjuman Islamiya. During his evidence he has supported the prosecution case by making general and vague allegations against all the accused persons. He claimed to have attended the Panchayati but the decision of the Panchayati was not implemented by the accused persons.

During his cross examination he has admitted that he was not present in the Nikah. He claimed that Nikahnama was prepared by Lejang Anjuman Committee.

Thus P.W. 7 is formal witness and he had not attended the Nikah and therefore, the evidence of P.W. 7 is also not reliable.

39. P.W. 8 is the I.O. of this case, who has merely stated that the informant has lodged F.I.R. against the accused persons and has recorded the statement of witnesses and has prayed for issuance of warrant but in the meantime the accused persons were enlarged on bail. He has stated that he had learnt from the witnesses that Petitioner No. 1 Khairul Ansari has performed second marriage.

40. During his cross-examination, he has stated that father and brother of the O.P. No. 2 has supported the demand of dowry by the Petitioner No. 1 and his family members, however, he has not made the person close to the in-law members of the O.P. No. 2 as witness in chargesheet. He also admitted for not recording the statement of Nagma Khatun (second wife of petitioner No.

1) and has also not obtained the documentary evidence of marriage, Nikahnama etc. and has submitted final form against Nagma Khatun.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 8, it is evident that the Investigation of P.W. 8, i.e. the I.O. was perfunctory and he has not made a proper investigation.

41. So far as averments in complaint case no.260/13 which led to the lodging of the F.I.R., is concerned, it would appear that after death of the first husband of the petitioner on 29/30.08.2007, a meeting was convened and her in-law members assured her that the complainant will not go anywhere as they would perform her Nikah with their second son, namely Md. Khairul Ansari, i.e. the Petitioner No. 1. Thereafter, she was

married to the petitioner no. 1 in the year 2013 i.e. after six years.

Thus, from scrutinizing the entire evidence, it is evident that no specific allegation has been levelled against Petitioner No. 2- Atik Ansari by the witnesses, particularly P.W. 2 to P.W.7 and P.W.8 except the allegation of P.W. 1 i.e. informant-O.P. No. 2, there is no other allegation is proved and hence Petitioner No. 2 Atik Ansari is acquitted for the offence under Section 354 (A) of the I.P.C. and he is also discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

42. So far as Khairul Ansari is concerned, it transpires that defence has tried to show dispute between petitioner No. 1 and O.P. No. 2. However, from perusal of Ext. 2, i.e. Nikahnama written in Urdu, translated in Hindi, copy of which has been enclosed in the complaint petition, it appears that the date of marriage/Nikah has not been mentioned.

It, therefore, transpires that the Nikahnama has not been proved. From the perusal of the ordersheet of the learned court below, it transpires that the Nikahnama was proved on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge on 21.02.2017 for the first time after disposal of the G.R. Case by the learned S.D.J.M, Latehar.

43. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.1, i.e. the informant-O.P. No. 2 that out of two settlements, she had admitted only the first settlement but she denied the second settlement in which it was agreed that she would leave her matrimonial home after

taking Rs. 2, 87,000/- which was interpolated as Rs.1,19,000/-.

44. Thus, there was no evidence before the trial court below that Nikahnama was prepared as the translated copy of the Nikahnama does not show any date of Nikah.

45. It also appears that even the Petitioner No. 1 was of tender age and was studying when the Nikah was said to have been performed which was not proved before the learned court below.

46. The learned Appellate Court, though has discussed the entire witnesses but has held that Nikahnama was marked as an evidence with objection on 21.2.2017.

47. This Court is of the view that the learned Appellate Court below has committed illegality by placing reliance upon the Nikahnama, marked as exhibit-2(with objection) before the learned Appellate Court below as the persons signing the Nikahnama and the Kaji who performed the Nikah had not been examined and they have not proved the same. Mere presentation of Nikahnama is not sufficient to prove the marriage unless the same is validly and properly proved by the witnesses, who has prepared the Nikahnama and who have signed as the witnesses. Even the father of the informant-O.P. No. 2, who was examined as P.W. 2, has admitted in Para 12 of his cross examination that he does not know the name of the Kaji who had performed the Nikah between the O.P. No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1.

48. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that the evidence against the petitioner no. 1, namely Md. Khairul Ansari @ Khairul Ansari is not sufficient to convict him under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. and Petitioner No. 1 is not liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C.

49. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case and in view of the above discussions, the Judgment dated 18.4.2018, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Latehar in Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2016 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 13.6.2016, passed by Md. Taufique Ahmed, learned C.J.M., Latehar in G.R. Case No.810/13/Tr.No. 277/16 are set aside and the Petitioner No. 1, namely Md. Khairul Ansari @ Khairul Ansari is acquitted from the charge under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and the Petitioner No. 2, namely Md. Atik Ansari @ Atik Ansari is acquitted from the charge under Section 354 A of the I.P.C. and they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.

50. Thus, this Criminal Revision Application is allowed.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m.