Salma Khatoon @ Salina Bibi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4514 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Salma Khatoon @ Salina Bibi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 April, 2025

                                                                2025:JHHC:10479



               Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 966 of 2006
                                          ......
   [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2006 and Order of
   sentence dated 01.07.2006, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions
   Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.237 of 2000 (44 of 2005)]
                                          ......
   Salma Khatoon @ Salina Bibi, Wife of Late Sahid Mian, Resident of
   Village: Pitari, P.S.: Narayanpur and District: Jamtara.
                                                   ...     Appellant

                                       Versus
   The State of Jharkhand
                                                        ...    Respondent
                                         ......
   For the Appellants           : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Adv.
   For the State                : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra Addl. P.P.

                                         ......
                     PRESENT
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                         ......
                                  JUDGMENT

C.A.V. on 06.01.2025 Pronounced on 03.04.2025

1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by

Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant

as well as Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, learned Addl. P.P.

appearing for the State.

2. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the

judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

28.06.2006 and 01.07.2006 passed by learned 1st Additional

Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.237 of 2000 (44 of

2005) arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No.11 of 2000

(corresponding to G.R. Case No.57 of 2000) whereby and

Cr.A(SJ) No.966 of 2006 Page | 1 2025:JHHC:10479

whereunder, the sole appellant has been held guilty for the

offences under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the

offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. and R.I.

for three years for the offence punishable under Section

498(A) of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default

stipulation.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that

informant's daughter Nazma Khatoon (since deceased) was

married with one Jahangir Ansari according to muslim rights

and customs. It is alleged that since from the very inception

of the marriage, the husband and in-laws of the deceased

were not satisfied with the dowry presented at the time of

marriage. It is alleged that just after two months of the

marriage additional demand of Rs. 40,000/- cash was raised

by husband and father-in-law of the deceased which could

not be fulfilled due to poverty of the informant. It is further

alleged that due to non-fulfillment of above demand, the

deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture at the hands of

her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law (appellant)

Salma Khatoon. It is further alleged that just before 20 days of

the occurrence, daughter of informant all of a sudden

returned to her parental home and narrated about the ill-

2025:JHHC:10479

treatment and torture meted with her due to non-fulfillment

of aforesaid demand by her father. Anyhow, she managed to

flee away from the matrimonial home. It is alleged that

thereafter, husband and father-in-law of the deceased arrived

at parental home of the deceased and requested her father to

send back the deceased to her matrimonial home on

assurance that they will keep her properly and will not repeat

the aforesaid demand in future. Upon above assurance, the

deceased was again sent to her matrimonial home but just

after one day of the occurrence, the informant came to know

from his nephew that the deceased has complained about

further ill-treatment and torture and apprehending her death

at the instance of accused persons. Then informant was

thinking to go to the matrimonial home of his daughter but

he came to know from one Chirauddin Mian that his

daughter has been killed in her matrimonial home. The

informant along with others went there and saw the dead

body of his daughter and ligature mark on the neck. The

informant also inquired with the local villagers and came to

know that Jahangir Ansari (husband), Sayeed Ansari (father-

in-law) and present appellant (mother-in-law) have

committed murder of the deceased by giving knot of rope

and tightening the neck. It is further alleged that such attempt

Cr.A(SJ) No.966 of 2006 Page | 3 2025:JHHC:10479

was also made by the husband prior to one year of this

occurrence with one Iqbal Ansari.

On the basis of written report of the informant (father of

the deceased), F.I.R. was instituted as Narayanpur P.S. Case

No.11 of 2000 for the offence under Section 304(B) read with

Section 34 of the I.P.C.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was

submitted against the appellant for the offence under Section

304(B) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

Initially charges were framed against all the three

accused persons but during the trial of the case, accused

Sayeed Ansari died on 11.05.2003. Subsequently, the co-

accused Jahangir Ansari absconded from the jail custody,

therefore, process for his arrest was taken and ultimately, he

was declared as absconder and permanent warrant of arrest

was also issued against him. The case of present appellant

was split up for trial.

5. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and

order has been passed against the appellant which has been

assailed in this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that

appellant Salma Khatoon is mother-in-law of the deceased

who has no concern with the family affairs between deceased,

2025:JHHC:10479

her husband and father-in-law. There is no specific allegation

against the appellant as to when she has asked additional

dowry in the shape of Rs.40,000/- cash and in what manner

she was subjecting the deceased to cruelty. No specific day

and date of any event as alleged against her has been

mentioned that when the demand was raised by the

appellant and what type of cruelty was extended to the

deceased at the hands of present appellant. Therefore, the

basic ingredients of Sections 304(B) and 498(A) of the I.P.C. is

not proved by the prosecution. The appellant is a household

lady and old person now about 87 years' age. The

prosecution has miserably failed to prove any of the charges

levelled against her beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore,

conviction and sentence of the appellant is absolutely illegal

and not justified under law and liable to be set aside.

In the alternative, it is argued that the appellant has

remained in custody for more than seven months the

imprisonment awarded to her. The appellant has maintained

peace and harmony in the society and not indulged in any

other criminal activity since her release on bail by this

Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the substantive sentence of

imprisonment awarded to the appellant may be reduced to

the period already undergone.

2025:JHHC:10479

7. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. for the State

defending the impugned judgment and order of conviction

and sentence of the appellant has contended that the learned

trial court has very wisely and aptly analyzed, scanned and

appreciated the prosecution evidence in a threat bare manner

and arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the appellant.

The prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the

appellant beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt, therefore,

there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment

and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant and

there is no merit in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed.

8. Perused the case record along with impugned judgment

and order in light of contentions raised on behalf of both side.

9. It appears that in order to substantiate the charges

levelled against accused person altogether 11 witnesses were

examined by the prosecution.

10. The most important witness in this case is the informant

Gafar Mian himself, father of the deceased, who has been

examined as P.W.8. He has proved the contents of his written

report and testified that his daughter was killed in her sasural

by the accused persons by tightening the rope in the neck. He

has further deposed that his daughter was married with

accused Jahangir of Village Pitari. He further states that in the

2025:JHHC:10479

marriage of his daughter, he has presented the articles worth

Rs.40,000/- along with some cash and after the marriage,

there was additional demand of Rs.40,000/- and due to non-

fulfillment of which, the accused persons committed murder

of his daughter by tightening the rope in the neck of the

deceased. He has further deposed that some day before the

occurrence, his daughter has come to his parental home and

disclosed that she was being beaten by the accused persons.

He has further deposed that after arrival of the girl, the

accused Jahangir (husband) and Sayeed (father-in-law) also

came in his house along with some persons and a Panchayati

was also convened with regard to sending back the daughter

of the informant to her sasural, i.e., to the house of her

husband. He has further deposed that just before one day of

this fatal occurrence, when the nephew of the informant

Usman Mian was coming home through Village Pitari, he

met with the daughter of the informant, who told him that

accused persons were assaulting her in sasural and she also

asked him to carry her to her Naihar. After getting the

information about his daughter, the informant was preparing

to go to the matrimonial house of the deceased, he came to

know through one Chirauddin Mian that her daughter has

been killed by accused Jahangir, Sayeed and Salima Khatoon.

2025:JHHC:10479

Thereafter, this witnesses along with others proceeded to

matrimonial home at Village Pitari of her daughter and saw

her dead body lying on a cot and the pieces of broken bangles

which was worn by the deceased was scattered in the room

and saw that there was black rope mark around the neck of

the deceased.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that at the time

of marriage, the paper upon which the articles and dowry

what was given and taken was made but he refused to show

that paper. He denied the suggestion of the defence that he

has sent his daughter to her matrimonial home against her

will and due to which, she has committed suicide.

P.W.7 Jarina Khatoon @ Jarina Bibi who is mother of

the deceased, has deposed that her daughter died in her

sasural by the accused persons by tightening the rope in the

neck. She has further deposed that her daughter was married

with accused Jahangir of Village Pitari. She further states that

her daughter lived quite well for some time in her sasural,

thereafter, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law

started assaulting and torturing her about additional dowry

and raised demand of Rs.40,000/- due to non-fulfillment of

which, the accused persons committed murder of her

daughter by tightening the rope in the neck of the deceased.

2025:JHHC:10479

She has further deposed that some day before the occurrence,

her daughter came to her parental home and disclosed that

she was beaten by the accused persons. She has further

deposed that after arrival of the girl, the accused Jahangir

(husband) and Sayeed (father-in-law) also came at her house

along with some persons and a Panchayati was also

convened with regard to sending back the daughter of the

informant to her sasural, i.e., to the house of her husband. She

has further deposed that just before one day of this fatal

occurrence, when the nephew of the informant Usman Mian

was coming home through Village Pitari, he met with the

daughter of the informant, she told him that accused persons

were assaulting her in sasural and she also asked him to take

back her to her Naihar. She has further deposed that after

inquiring about her daughter, she suddenly came to know

through one Chirauddin Mian that her daughter has been

killed by accused Jahangir, Sayeed and Salima Khatoon.

Thereafter, this witnesses along with others proceeded to

matrimonial home at Village Pitari of her daughter and saw

her dead body lying on a cot and the pieces of broken bangles

which was worn by the deceased was broken and scattered in

the room and saw that there was black rope mark around the

neck of the deceased.

2025:JHHC:10479

In her cross-examination, this witness admits that after

the marriage, her daughter used to visit her parental home at

the interval of three to four months but her son-in-law did

not come to her house. Her daughter was being brought by

her son. She further deposed that due to quarrel sometime

her daughter did not want to go to her in-laws house. She

remained intact that her daughter was killed due to non-

fulfillment of dowry of Rs.40,000/- but she has stated that the

amount of Rs.40,000/- was being asked by the husband of the

deceased for doing business. She has denied the suggestion

that her daughter does not want to go to her matrimonial

home due to illegal affairs in her village and she has also

denied the suggestion that her daughter has committed

suicide.

P.W.1 Usman Ansari is the cousin of the deceased who

visited the house of the informant's daughter one day before

the tragic incident. While returning home from Dhanbad, he

stopped at the house of the informant's daughter, located in

Village Pitari. He has further deposed that during this visit,

the informant's daughter informed him that her husband and

in-laws were demanding Rs. 40,000/-. She further revealed

that they had threatened to kill her if the demanded amount

was not paid. He further testified that the informant's

2025:JHHC:10479

daughter requested him to take her back to her Naihar

(maternal home) due to her distress. Upon returning home,

he informed the informant and other family members about

her ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons. He has

further deposed that the next day, while the informant and

others were preparing to visit daughter's marital home, they

were informed by Chirauddin Mian (P.W.2) that the

informant's daughter had been murdered. On receiving this

information, he along with others rushed to the house of the

accused. Upon arrival, he found the deceased lying on a cot

with a black mark around her neck, indicating possible

strangulation. Additionally, her broken bangles were

scattered across the room, and her ribbon and lachha (hair

accessories) were also found thrown around the room,

suggesting signs of a struggle.

In his cross-examination, he has deposed that one day

prior to occurrence i.e. on 23.02.2000, he has gone to his sister

house. He has again visited to his sister house on the date of

incident i.e. on 24.02.2000 at 12:00 p.m. and stayed there till

06:00 p.m. He has further deposed that he has seen the dead

body of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he has

not visited the house of deceased and has given false

evidence.

                  Cr.A(SJ) No.966 of 2006                  Page | 11
                                                  2025:JHHC:10479

P.W.2 Chirauddin Ansari is the co-villager of the

deceased who is a crucial witness who first informed the

informant about the tragic murder of the informant's

daughter. In his testimony, he has deposed that while he was

out for selling vegetables and had reached the village

Chainpur, he came to know from the local people that

Jahangir (the accused) had murdered his wife. He has further

deposed that upon returning to his own village, he

immediately informed the informant and others about the

incident. At the request of the informant and other villagers,

he also went to see the daughter of the informant. Upon

arrival, he observed that the informant's daughter was lying

dead on a cot. He has further deposed that the room was in

disarray; the ribbon and lachha (hair accessories) of the

deceased were scattered in the room, her bangles were

broken and the bedding was also disturbed and there was a

black mark around the neck of the deceased, suggesting

possible strangulation.

In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he is a

vegetable vendor and during course of selling vegetable, he

has heard the message of death of the deceased. He has

further deposed that he has gone to the house of deceased

2025:JHHC:10479

and seen the dead body. He has denied the suggestion of the

defence for giving false evidence.

P.W.3 Mukhtar Ansari, P.W.4 Gulmohammad, P.W.5

Abdul Latif, P.W.6 Md. Israuddin and P.W.9 Abdul Hamid.

These five witnesses are hearsay witnesses and none of them

have seen the incident. All of them have deposed that when

they came to know about the murder of the informant's

daughter in her sasural, they visited the house of the accused

Jahangir along with the informant and other family members,

wherein they found that the deceased was lying dead inside

the house of the accused. They have further deposed that the

bangles (churi) worn by the deceased were broken and

scattered in the room. The ribbon and lachha (hair

accessories) of the deceased were also scattered in the room.

There was a visible black mark around the neck of the

deceased, suggesting the possibility of strangulation with a

rope. They have further deposed that bedding in the room

was disturbed and there were broken bricks scattered across

the floor, indicating signs of a scuffle and possible dragging

within the room.

P.W.10 Dr. Ajay Kumar Ghosh is the medical officer

who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the

deceased and has found black ligature mark all around the

2025:JHHC:10479

neck below thyroid cartilage. Most mark right side front and

back 1 c.m. x 33 c.m.

He has also opined that the cause of death was due to

asphyxia caused by strangulation.

P.W.11 Arbind Kumar Sinha is the Investigating

Officer of the case. He has deposed that upon visiting the

scene, he found the dead body of the deceased lying on a cot

inside the room of the accused, where the incident reportedly

took place. He has further deposed that he observed broken

pieces of churi (bangles), which the deceased had been

wearing before her death, scattered across the room. He has

further deposed that he also found pieces of bricks, which

had been placed under the legs of the cot (palank) that were

broken and scattered.

11. At the outset for better appreciation of the case, the

relevant provisions have to be extracted as under:

Section 498A of the I.P.C. reads as follows:

"498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation - For the purpose of this section 'cruelty' means -

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb

Cr.A(SJ) No.966 of 2006 Page | 14 2025:JHHC:10479

or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

The essential ingredients of Section 498A of the I.P.C.

are as under:

"Essentials

(i) That there was a married woman;

(ii) that such woman was subjected to cruelty;

(iii) that such cruelty consisted of any willful conduct of such nature as was likely to drive such woman

- to commit suicide, or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical; harassment of such woman where such harassment was - with a view to coercing such woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, or on account of failure by such woman, or any person related to her to meet the unlawful demand in able and the woman was subjected to such cruelty by - the husband of that woman; or any relative of the husband of that woman."

Section 304B IPC deals with dowry death which reads

as follows:

"304B. Dowry Death - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

                    Cr.A(SJ) No.966 of 2006                  Page | 15
                                                        2025:JHHC:10479

Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section 'dowry' shall have same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

The essential ingredients of the offence of dowry death

as per above Section are as under:

"(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.

(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.

(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.

(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death."

Section 113B of the Evidence Act reads as under:-

113B. Presumption as to dowry death. -- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

12. From the aforesaid discussion of prosecution evidence,

it is crystal clear that no specific overt act has been attributed

against the appellant as to in what manner and on what

occasion, she has subjected the deceased to cruelty. It is

proved case of the prosecution as per testimony of witnesses

Cr.A(SJ) No.966 of 2006 Page | 16 2025:JHHC:10479

that the father-in-law and the husband were quite

instrumental to raise the additional demand of dowry

Rs.40,000/-. It is also stated that when the informant due to

torture meted with her at the hands of her father-in-law and

husband fled away to her paternal home where the husband

and father-in-law approached and assured to keep her

properly and she was requested to be sent back to her

matrimonial home. It further transpires that after the

aforesaid settlement and assurance given by the husband and

father-in-law, there is no allegation against the present

appellant that she was instrumental in subjecting the

deceased to cruelty in any manner and suddenly, she died an

unnatural death at her matrimonial home. There is no doubt

that the deceased has been died within seven years of her

marriage otherwise, than under normal circumstances. It is

also proved by the prosecution that there was additional

demand of dowry and due to non-fulfillment of which the

deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment. But so far

implication and involvement of present appellant as mother-

in-law of the deceased is concerned, there is no concrete

evidence showing any overt act against her either in raising

the demand or subjecting the deceased to cruelty either

mental or physical. There are general and omnibus allegation

Cr.A(SJ) No.966 of 2006 Page | 17 2025:JHHC:10479

against the appellant and she appears to have been roped in

this case merely on the ground that she happens to be

mother-in-law of the deceased.

13. Considering the overall aspects of the case, I do not find

any material to prove the charges levelled against the

appellant beyond all reasonable doubt rather the very

foundational facts for constituting the offence of dowry death

as well as demand of dowry has not been brought home

against the appellant through cogent and reliable evidence.

Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby

set aside and she is acquitted from the charges levelled

against her and this appeal is allowed. Since, the appellant is

on bail, she is discharged from the liability of her bail bond

and sureties are also discharged.

14. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

15. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court

record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for

information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 03/04/2025

Sachin / NAFR