Jharkhand High Court
Kabulan Khatoon Wife Of Hakim Ansari vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 8 April, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11758-DB )
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 298 of 1999 (R)
Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
14.06.1999 passed by Shri Anant Vijay Singh, learned 3rd Additional
Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S. T. No. 385 of 1997.
---
1. Kabulan Khatoon wife of Hakim Ansari, resident of Dhaudha Toli,
P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi
2. Hakim Ansari son of Ahmad Ansari, resident of Kumba Toli, P.S.
Mandar, District Ranchi ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
2. Hayatula S/o Yakub Mian resident of Dakra, Khelari, P.S. Khelari,
District Ranchi ... ... Respondents
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent - State: Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Special P.P.
---
Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---
C.A.V. on - 10.12.2024 Pronounced on - 08.04.2025
Per, R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants
and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Special P. P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 14.06.1999 passed by Shri Anant Vijay
Singh, learned 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S. T. No.
385 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and have been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fard beyan of
Hayatula Ansari recorded on 04.05.1997 in which it has been stated that
the sister of the informant was married to Hakim Ansari about 9 years
back, but after the marriage, she was subjected to torture for non-
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11758-DB )
fulfillment of demand of cash and a Sewing machine. A decision was
taken in the Panchayat on 13.08.1991 to the effect that Hakim Ansari will
be given Rs. 1,000/- in cash and a Sewing machine and the directions of
Panchayat were fulfilled. It has been alleged that in the month of
October 1995, Hakim Ansari after deserting his first wife married
Kabulan Khatoon and also stopped giving maintenance to his first wife.
It has been alleged that on 03.05.1997, the sister of the informant had
approached Hakim Ansari for maintenance, but she was administered
poison and in order to save themselves, got her admitted in Mandar
hospital. On information, when the informant came to Mandar hospital,
he found his sister dead.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Mandar P. S. Case No. 31 of
1997 was instituted. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the
court of Sessions where it was registered as S. T. No. 385 of 1997. Charge
was framed against the accused persons under Section 302/34 of I.P.C.
which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses in
support of its case.
5. P.W. 1 - Dr. Ram Sevak Sahu was posted as a Medical
Officer in the Department of Forensic Medicine, RMCH, Ranchi and on
05.05.1997, he had conducted an autopsy on the dead body of Najma
Khatoon and had found the following;
"The lady was of average built. Rigors mortis was present in
the lower limbs abdomen was not distended, nail were showing.
There was no evidence of any mechanical injury either external or
internal. There was no evidence of any pressure on nose, mouth,
neck or chest. The internal regions were congested. The stomach
contained yellowish fluid 50 ml. The mucosa membrane of stomach
was congested. Viscera was preserved. Chemical analysis by
forensic science laboratory."
The opinion regarding cause of death was kept pending
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11758-DB )
awaiting chemical examination of viscera. He has proved the post
mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit 1.
6. P.W. 2 - Md. Yakub Mian is the father of the deceased, who
has stated that he had solemnized the marriage of his daughter with
Hakim Ansari in the year 1989. The relationship was cordial for a year
after which Hakim Ansari started demanding money. A Panchayati was
held in which a decision was taken that Hakim Ansari will be given Rs.
1,000/- in cash and a Sewing machine. After a month, he had complied
with the directions of the panchayat. He has proved the Panchayat
document and the signature of Hakim Ansari over the same which has
been marked as Exhibit 2 and 2/1 respectively with objection. His
daughter was kept well by Hakim for a year, but his demand for money
resurfaced once again, but he could not fulfill such demand. He has
deposed that Hakim Ansari had solemnized a second marriage with
Kabulan Khatoon. When his daughter had gone to Hakim Ansari for
demanding maintenance, the accused persons had poisoned her and had
taken her to Sadar hospital where she died.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is a poor person and
so is Hakim Ansari. He and his daughter had never lodged any case
against Hakim Ansari.
7. P.W. 3 - Sattar Ansari is the uncle of the deceased who has
stated that after one year of marriage, his niece used to confide in him
about the torture committed upon her by her husband for not meeting
the dowry demand. He had attended the Panchayati in which a
document was prepared. He has proved his signature on the said
document which has been marked as Exhibit 2/2. It was decided in the
Panchayat that Hakim Ansari will be provided with help since he was
financially weak and that Hakim Ansari will properly keep his wife.
After the Panchayati was held on 22.09.1991, Hakim was given cash and
a Sewing machine. After keeping his wife properly for 2-4 months,
Hakim Ansari reverted back to his old self by committing torture upon
his wife and demanding money. He has stated that in the year 1995,
Hakim Ansari had solemnized a second marriage and after the said
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11758-DB )
marriage, he started residing at his wife's house. On 04.05.1997, he
received an information that his niece was admitted in Mandar hospital
and on reaching the hospital, it was disclosed that she had died due to
poisoning.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that police has not recorded
his statement and no case was instituted when his niece had complained
of being subjected to torture.
8. P.W. 4 - Kurban Ansari had received an information that
Najma Khatoon had died at Mandar hospital at which he and his
brother-in-law Hakim Ansari had gone to the hospital and had seen the
dead body. The doctor has disclosed that the death had occurred due to
poisoning. After marriage Najma Khatoon was kept properly for some
time after which a demand of Rs. 5,000/- and a Sewing machine was
made. A Panchayati was held in 1991 regarding the said demand and it
was decided that Hakim Ansari will be given Rs. 1,000/- in cash and a
Sewing machine. The same was fulfilled after one month. Najma
Khatoon was kept well for some time and she also gave birth to a
daughter. He had stated that Hakim Ansari once again started
committing torture upon Najma Khatoon and in the year 1995 had
solemnized a second marriage. Najma Khatoon had gone to Hakim
Ansari about 2-3 days prior to the incident, when Hakim Ansari and his
second wife administered poison upon her.
In cross-examination, he deposed that Najma Khatoon had
confided him that Hakim Ansari used to demand dowry and also used to
commit torture upon her.
9. P.W. 5 - Kadam Rasul has proved his signature on the
Panchayati document which has been marked as Exhibit 3/3. He has
stated that Hakim Ansari treated Najma Khatoon properly for 1-1 ½
years after which he had once again started demanding money and in
1995 had solemnized a second marriage and started residing at the
residence of his parents-in-law. Najma Khatoon used to go to Hakim
Ansari for maintenance. He had heard that Najma Khatoon died due to
poisoning.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11758-DB )
In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was not
recorded by the police. At the time of the incident, he was at Dakra.
10. P.W. 6 - Hayatullah Ansari is the informant and the brother
of the deceased - Najma Khatoon who has stated that after marriage, his
sister was kept well for some time, after which she was subjected to
torture. His sister has disclosed that Hakim Ansari was demanding cash
and a Sewing machine for which a Panchayati was held and it was
decided that Hakim Ansari shall be given cash and Sewing machine. The
said decision was complied with after which her sister was kept properly
for a few days, but once again he started torturing for demand of money
and in the year 1995 had solemnized a second marriage. On 03.05.1997
his sister had gone to Hakim Ansari for taking maintenance and on
04.05.1997 he came to know that his sister is admitted in Mandar
hospital. When he reached Mandar hospital, it was disclosed by the
doctor that his sister has been poisoned. He has proved his thumb
impression on the FIR which has been marked as Exhibit X.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he used to assist
Hakim Ansari financially due to his poor condition. No case of demand
of dowry or maintenance has been filed against Hakim Ansari.
11. P.W. 7 - Jalil Ansari has proved his signature on the inquest
report which has been marked as Exhibit 3.
12. P.W. 8 - Jhulfan Ansari has proved his signature on the
inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit 3/1.
13. P.W. 9 - Chandra Bhan Ram was posted at Mandar Police
Station and on 04.05.1997, he had recorded the fard beyan of Hayatulla
Ansari. He has proved the fard beyan which has been marked as Exhibit
4 and his signature on the fard beyan which has been marked as Exhibit
4/1. He has proved the signature of the Officer Incharge on the fard
beyan which has been marked as Exhibit 4/2. He has proved the inquest
report which has been marked as Exhibit 3/2 and his signature on the
same which has been marked as Exhibit 3/3. In course of investigation,
he had recorded the re-statement of the informant and had inspected the
place of occurrence which is a mud-tiled house of Sultan Ansari at
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11758-DB )
Village Tola Toli. No incriminating article was recovered from the place
of occurrence. In course of investigation, he had recorded the statements
of Yakub Ansari, Kurban Ansari, Sattar Ansari, Kadam Rasul, Aziz
Ansari and others. The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem
examination. Viscera was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for
examination. On completion of investigation, he had submitted the
charge-sheet.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that except Dr. B. K. Prasad,
all the witnesses are close relative of the deceased. The deceased used to
reside at Umba Toli with her father-in-law. There was a black spot on
the face of the deceased. He had not taken the statement of members of
Panchayat or Mukhiya or Sarpanch. The witness Kurban Ansari had not
stated in his statement that Najma Khatoon had disclosed about demand
of dowry and torture committed upon her by Hakim Ansari. The
witness Kurban Ansari had not stated about the doctor mentioning the
cause of death due to poisoning.
14. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in
committing the murder of Najma Khatoon.
15. It has been submitted by Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel
for the appellants that there is neither any circumstantial evidence nor
any other evidence which would indict the appellants of committing the
murder of Najma Khatoon. It has been submitted that the cause of death
could not be ascertained by the doctor conducting autopsy and the
viscera report is also not on record which will further signify the
innocence of the appellants. He has further submitted that all the
witnesses are related to each other and hence are interested witnesses.
Even the Panch members have not been examined by the prosecution
which creates a doubt over the document submitted by the prosecution.
Absence of any criminal case or maintenance case by the deceased or her
family members upon the appellants further erodes the allegation of
demand of dowry and torture purportedly made by the appellant.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11758-DB )
16. Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Special P. P. has
submitted that the chain of circumstances leading to unnatural death of
Najma Khatoon is complete and the involvement of the appellants in her
murder being apparent, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the
appellants under Section 302/34 of I.P.C.
17. We have heard the learned counsels for the respective sides
and have also perused the trial court records.
18. The appellant no. 1 is the second wife of Hakim Ansari, who
is appellant no. 2 in the present appeal. The marital journey between the
appellant no. 2 and Najma Khatoon ended prematurely after about 8-10
years of marriage with the death of Najma Khatoon. The reason for said
death has not been ascertained by P.W. 1, the doctor conducting the
autopsy. The viscera of the deceased was sent for chemical examination,
but no report was received keeping the cause of death in the realm of
obscurity. As per the prosecution, after some days of marriage, demand
of cash and a Sewing machine was made by the appellant no. 2 and
based on the decision of Panchayat, Rs. 1,000/- in cash and a Sewing
machine was directed to be given to appellant no. 2. This pacified the
appellant no. 2 for some time after which, the demand again reared its
head and the situation aggravated due to solemnization of a second
marriage by the appellant no. 2 with the appellant no. 1. The allegation
of demand, holding of a Panchayati and the marriage of appellant no. 2
with the appellant no. 1 are the common thread which binds P.W. 2,
P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. Admittedly, save and except a
complaint made to the Panches, no case was filed either relating to
demand of dowry or maintenance by either the deceased or her family
members. The marriage of the appellant no. 2 was solemnized with the
appellant no. 1 in the year 1995 and the death occurred after about 2
years i.e., on 04.05.1997. So far as the appellant no. 1 is concerned, none
of the witnesses have alleged anything specific against her and the
appellant no. 2 seems to have been implicated primarily on his being an
estranged husband of the deceased. It also seems that the appellants
were instrumental in admitting Najma Khatoon at Mandar hospital
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11758-DB )
where she ultimately died. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) has not
found any incriminating material at the place of occurrence. Though, the
Panchayati document has been exhibited, but absence of Panches or
author of the said document having been examined by the prosecution
puts the same in the realm of indecisiveness.
19. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants in
course of his submission has referred to the case of "Bhupendra Nath
Parsad Vs. State of Bihar" reported in (1992) 2 SCC 547, in which it has
been held as follows:
"4. We find considerable force in this submission. PW 6, the
doctor, in his chief examination itself has stated that the family
members who brought the deceased to the hospital told him that
somebody made him take wine and betel and that since thereafter he
started vomiting and feeling giddiness. In cross-examination PW 6
further admitted that he has written in the bed-ticket that the death
was due to cardio-respiratory failure. It is also elicited from him that
such failure could be due to over-drinking of wine or due to poison.
He also stated that when brought to the hospital, the wine odour was
coming from the mouth of the deceased. So his evidence is not very
helpful as to the cause of death. As already mentioned the doctor who
conducted the post-mortem has not been examined. However, the
post-mortem certificate is on record. It only shows that the viscera
was preserved for chemical analysis and the opinion as to the cause
of death was reserved till the report of the Chemical Examiner
regarding the viscera was received. As already noted no such report
of the Chemical Examiner has been produced nor the doctor who
conducted the post-mortem has given any opinion as to the cause of
death. Therefore we are left with the Chemical Examiner's report
given on the basis of the test examination of the stomach wash and
the vomited substance, said to have been seized by the police and sent
to the Chemical Examiner. PW 6 the doctor does not speak about any
such seizure. PW 1, a compounder in the hospital, however, deposed
that the vomited substance was put in a bottle and sealed but he does
not say that the same was seized. PW 3, however, deposed that the
police officer seized the vomited substance at the house of the
deceased and a seizure report was prepared and he affixed his
signature. PW 12, an Investigating Officer also stated that he seized
the vomited substance. It is needless to say that in a criminal case
the cause of death has to be ascertained conclusively. As already
noted the post-mortem report does not in any manner establish the
same. Even accepting that Nux Vocica was found in the vomited
substance it cannot be concluded that the death was due to poisoning
and particularly when PW 6, the doctor has noted that the death was
due to cardio-respiratory failure either due to taking excess wine or
due to poison. Admittedly the alcoholic smell was coming from the
mouth of the deceased when he was unconscious. Therefore a
reasonable doubt arises about the cause of death. Even otherwise
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11758-DB )
there is no satisfactory evidence in this case that it was the accused
who gave the betel containing poison to the deceased. The wife and
the daughters of the deceased who took the deceased to the hospital
stated before PW 6, the doctor that the deceased told them that
somebody gave him wine and betel and thereafter he became giddy.
These witnesses were cross-examined with their earlier statements
and PW 12, an Investigating Officer admitted that the wife of the
deceased did not state before him that the accused had taken her
husband with him. Thus the evidence regarding the so-called oral
dying declaration is also unsatisfactory and does not inspire
confidence. It is well settled that in a case depending upon
circumstantial evidence all the circumstances should conclusively
point towards the guilt of the accused. In this case even the cause of
death has not been conclusively established. Therefore, we are
constrained to interfere. Accordingly the conviction and sentence
awarded against the appellant are set aside and the appeal is allowed.
He is on bail. His bail bond shall stand cancelled."
20. In view of the fact that the cause of death could not be
established and the other circumstances mooted by the prosecution are
not of such gravity which would endorse the involvement of the
appellants in the murder of Najma Khatoon, we have no hesitation but to
set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
14.06.1999 passed by Shri Anant Vijay Singh, learned 3rd Additional
Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S. T. No. 385 of 1997.
21. This appeal is allowed.
22. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the
liabilities of their bail-bonds.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 8th day of April, 2025
R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3
