Jharkhand High Court
Murshid Ansari @ Rajan Son Of Reyasat ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1240 of 2016
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 29.09.2016 and order of sentence
dated 03.10.2016 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V,
Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 217 of 2014]
Murshid Ansari @ Rajan son of Reyasat Ansari, resident of Jari Basti, P.O.
Ratu, P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi .... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 30.09.2024 Pronounced On: 16.10.2024
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Informant is the cousin brother of the deceased.
As per the FIR, on 05.08.2009, he received information that his cousin sister
Sama Parween had been hacked to death with Tangi in front of the gate of the
house of Rameshwar Sahu. When he reached there, he found her lying dead
with a Tangi embedded in right ear. There were marks of profuse bleeding at
the place of occurrence and the villagers had gathered there. On enquiry, it was
informed by Sabnam Aara, Anita Devi and Rameshwar Sahu that appellant-
Murshid Ansari had chased and indiscriminately assaulted the deceased with
Tangi.
2. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Ratu P.S. Case No.160/2009 was registered
under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant. Police on investigation
found the case true and submitted charge sheet and the appellant was put on trial
for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there
was vital contradiction in the testimony of witnesses. Rameshwar Sahu was not
an independent witness and he was in litigating term with the father of the
appellant as has been deposed by D.W. 2 and D.W. 1. P.W. 2 has admitted that
she has not seen the actual incidence and when she came to the place of
occurrence, a large crowd had gathered there. By the time, she went there, the
incidence has already taken place. In the absence of any direct eye witness and
the testimony of P.W. 1, who was a highly interested witness, the judgment of
conviction is fit to be set aside.
4. FIR has been lodged on the same day of incidence without any delay and
was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the next date which is evident
from the endorsement dated 06.08.2009. As per the fardbeyan, the definite case
of prosecution is that the incidence took place in front of the door of the house
of Rameshwar Sahu. All the witnesses have consistently stated that place of
occurrence was in front of the house of Rameshwar Sahu. This is corroborated
by the testimony of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10), who has given the
description of place of occurrence to be the verandah of Rameshwar Sahu where
the blood stain marks were found.
5. Since the incidence took place just in front of the house of Rameshwar
Sahu (P.W.1), he becomes the natural witness to the incidence. He has deposed
that the deceased was struck with the Tangi on her head as a result, she fell
down. He also gave some water to her and she breathed her last. Although it has
come in defence evidence that he had earlier some litigation with the father of
the appellant, but this cannot by itself be a ground to brush aside his testimony
which has been corroborated by P.W. 2. She has deposed that she was breaking
coal in front of her house when the appellant came and took a Tangi from her
on the pretext of cutting bamboo. She heard sound of commotion and when she
went there, she found the very same Tangi which was taken by the appellant to
be stuck in the head of the deceased- Sama Parween. She has admitted that she
had not actually the seen the occurrence taking place. This will not denude her
credibility, rather goes to show that she did not make any attempt exaggerate
her account and project herself as a direct witness to the occurrence. Her
testimony is an evidence of the part of the transaction wherein the appellant had
gone and taken the weapon of offence from her, and immediately thereafter, was
used to commit the offence. This will be relevant under Section 8 of the
Evidence Act. Testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is further corroborated by the
post-mortem examination report (Exhibit 3) which has been proved by P.W. 9.
As per the post-mortem examination report, the following injuries were found:-
i. 7 cm x 2 cm x soft tissue on front of left arm middle part situated
obliquely.
ii. 5 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue on right side back of neck upper part.
iii. The weapon axe is situated in situ in right temporal region of head. After
removing the weapon, an incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on
right temporal region of head, cutting the upper portion of right pinna.
iv. 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on left parietal region of head.
v. 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on left parietal region of head cutting the
underlying bone.
The Doctor opined that the injuries were ante-mortem caused by heavy
sharp cutting weapon and death was due to above noted injuries.
6. On the face of the direct oral evidence supported by medical evidence,
appellant has not offered any plausible explanation to differ with the finding of
guilt by the learned trial Court. There is no material to suggest that it was not
the appellant, but someone else who had committed the cold-blooded murder of
the girl.
7. I find that there is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence
under Section 302 of the IPC which is accordingly, affirmed.
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along
with a copy of this judgment.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Ananda Sen, J. I agree.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 16th October, 2024
AFR/Anit
