Quamuddin @ Quamuddin Siddiqui vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9978 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Quamuddin @ Quamuddin Siddiqui vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1746 of 2017
                                       ------
         (Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 05.07.2016
         and order of sentence dated 08.07.2016 passed by Learned
         Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, in Sessions Trial
         No.209 of 2014)
                                       ------
         Quamuddin @ Quamuddin Siddiqui, son of late Aainul Hak
         Siddiqui, resident of Village Nanabazar, P.O. Telhari, P.S.
         Bishrampur, District Palamau.                 ... ... ... Appellant
                                        Versus
         The State of Jharkhand.                     ... ... ... Respondent
                                       ------
                    PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                                 : SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
                                       ------
         For the Appellant     :    Ms. Renu Bala, Advocate
         For the State         :    Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
                                       ------

                                    JUDGMENT

By Court, :

16th October, 2024

This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 05.07.2016 and order of sentence dated 08.07.2016 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, in Sessions Trial No.209 of 2014, whereby and wherein the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 I.P.C.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State and perused the materials available on record.

3. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that there is no independent witness to the said occurrence. All the witnesses are close relative being brother, sister-in-law, sister and father and mother of the deceased. The Mukhiya who is an independent witness had stated that they kept the appellant confined at the place of occurrence, which itself suggests that the appellant is innocent as he did not have any intention to flee from the place of occurrence. She submits that the Doctor who had

conducted the post-mortem examination in cross-examination has stated that there are other conditions which may cause this type of death which would suggest that the manner suggested by the prosecution about the death of the deceased is doubtful. She further submits that the room where appellant and the deceased were sleeping did not have any door thus, there is high probability that some other person may have entered and committed the murder. She lastly submits that there is doubt about involvement of this appellant in this case as the motive has also not been proved by the prosecution.

4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State submits that there are eye witnesses to the said occurrence. When there are eye witnesses to the occurrence of murder, the motive loses its relevance. Further, she submits that the incident occurred at the dead of the night, in the house of the informant, where the appellant and the deceased were also residing. Considering the aforesaid situation, it is but natural that only the family members will be present and they only will be the natural witnesses. The ocular evidence has been corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus, there is no ground to allow this appeal, rather the conviction is justified and needs to be sustained.

5. The F.I.R. is at the instance of P.W.2 who is the brother of the deceased. He stated in the F.I.R. that his sister along with the brother in law, who is the appellant herein, were residing in the house of the informant and on the fateful night, when he went to sleep he heard scream of his sister. On hearing such scream, he went in the next room where his sister and appellant were sleeping. He saw that the appellant was pressing the neck of his sister and has committed her murder. He also had seen blood oozing out from the nose of the deceased. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the F.I.R. being Herhanj P.S. Case No.08/14, has been lodged for offences under Section 302 IPC. The charge- sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

6. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 28.08.2014 from where the case was transferred to the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, for trial and disposal.

7. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 11 witnesses are examined, names of whom are here under:-

           i.     P.W.-1 :-    Naima Bibi
          ii.     P.W.-2 :-    Abdul Siddiqui
         iii.     P.W.-3 :-    Jamila Bibi
         iv.      P.W.-4 :-    Uddin Miyan
          v.      P.W.-5 :-    Ashiya Bibi
         vi.      P.W.-6 :-    Kanti Kumari Lakra
        vii.      P.W.-7 :-    Mohammad Jalal
        viii.     P.W.-8 :-    Yunus Miyan
         ix.      P.W.-9 :-    Najmul Miyan
          x.      P.W.-10 :-   Dr. Haren Chandra Mahto
         xi.      P.W.-11 :-   Walter Kujur

8. Several documents were also exhibited, which are:-

i. Ext.-1 :- signature of Abdul Siddiqui on written report ii. Ext.-1/1 :- endorsement of O.C. in-charge on written report iii. Ext.2 :- signature of Yunus Ansari on carbon copy of inquest report iv. Ext.3 :- post-mortem report v. Ext.4 :- inquest report vi. Ext.5 :- formal F.I.R.

9. From the F.I.R., which is marked as Ext.5, we find that the occurrence had taken place at the dead of the night and the place of occurrence is house of this informant. The fact that the place of occurrence is the house of the informant is established from the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 and also from the evidence of Investigating Officer as the dead body was recovered from the house.

10. So far as the death is concerned, the Doctor (P.W.-10) had found the following injuries:-

"Antemortem injuries:-

1. Ligature mark (throttling mark) over interior of neck half circle 1/2 " width. Patechial haemorrhage below skin present.

2. Bleeding from both nostril.

3. Congestion over face & neck above the ligature.

4. Hyoid bone fracture present. On Dissection

1. Patechial haemorrhage below skin of throttling mark.

2. Brain & meninges congestion present.

3. Respiratory tract oedematous & congested"

11. The post-mortem report has been proved by the Doctor which is marked as Ext.3. From the post-mortem report and the evidence of the Doctor, we find that the Doctor has opined that the death was due to throttling. There was throttling mark found and there was bleeding from the nostrils also. The hyoid bone was fractured. This clearly suggests that the deceased was done to death and the death is homicidal. The presence of this appellant at the place of occurrence has been substantiated and has been proved by P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5. They are none but the sister-in-law, informant, sister of the deceased, father and mother respectively.

12. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place at the dead of the night in the house of this informant. It is but natural that only the inmates of the house will see the occurrence. These inmates are the natural witnesses. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have stated that this deceased was sleeping with this appellant when at night this appellant has throttled the deceased by pressing her neck.

13. P.W.-1 namely Naima Bibi categorically stated that she woke up at night and went to ease herself, when she saw the aforesaid incident. She saw that blood was oozing out from the nose of the deceased. She also stated that she heard scream and saw the appellant throttling the deceased to death.

The other witnesses P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 who are the eye witnesses and the elder sister, father and mother had also stated the similar line. The appellant was also arrested from the spot which proves his presence at the place of occurrence. The medical evidence also corroborates the ocular evidence. There is nothing in the cross-examination which can force us to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.-1 to P.W.-5.

14. The Trial Court had considered all these aspects and had arrived at the only logical conclusion, that this appellant had committed murder of the deceased. We do not find any material to differ with the finding of the Trial Court.

15. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this

Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 05.07.2016 and order of sentence dated 08.07.2016 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, in Sessions Trial No.209 of 2014, are hereby affirmed.

16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

17. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court concerned.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Dated:- 16/10/2024 NAFR / Prashant