Salil Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3573 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Salil Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 August, 2025

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Rajesh Kumar

                                                2025:JHHC:23938-DB




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

                    Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 638 of 2013

    1. Salil Ansari, S/o Late Rahman Mian
    2. Sabina Bibi, W/o Salil Ansari
       Both resident of Chegauna PO & PS: Chhattarpur, District: Ranchi.
                                                         ... Appellants
                                -Versus-
    The State of Jharkhand                                ...Respondent

    CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

    For the Appellants       : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
    For the State           : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, A.P.P.
                                         ...

    20/18.08.2025
Per, R.Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.04.2013 and the order of sentence dated 17.04.2013, passed by Shri Vijay Kumar No.1, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 43/2010, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo RI for life along with a fine of Rs.5000/- each.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Vakil Ahmad recorded on 30.11.2008 in which it has been stated that on the same day at 06:30 a.m. his grandmother-in-law had informed him that his mother-in-law has been assaulted with an axe on head by Salil Ansari and Sabina Bibi. At this information the informant had gone to visit his mother-in-law who was found in an unconscious position and was grievously injured. With the help of the villagers who had gathered the informant had taken his mother-in-law to Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj where in course of treatment she died. The persons in the locality had disclosed that on 29.11.2008 there was an 1 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 638 of 2013 altercation between the mother-in-law of the informant and Sabina Bibi and at 06:00 a.m. on the next day when she was basking by the fire in front of a door Salil Ansari and Sabina Bibi had come with axes in their hand and committed assault on the head of the mother-in-law of the informant.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Chhattarpur PS Case No. 210 of 2008 was instituted under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 Sessions Trial No. 43/2010. Charge was framed against the accused under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code 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 eleven witnesses in support of its case.

5. PW-1 Sobro Bibi has stated that it was 08:00 a.m. and she was warming herself by the fire and along with her were Sairun Bibi, father-in-law Jamaluddin Mian and her son. At that point of time Salil and Sabina came and Salil Ansari assaulted Sahma Bibi with an axe 5-6 times on the back of the head. She was also assaulted on the leg. Sahma Bibi was taken to the hospital where she was declared dead.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that Vakil Ahmad is her son-in- law. The deceased Sahma Bibi was her sister-in-law. She cannot say as to what was the cause of dispute between the accused and the deceased. She is an aged person and her eye sight is weak. Due to the commotion she fell down and became unconscious. When she regained consciousness she was told that the accused had committed the assault.

6. PW-2 Sairun Bibi has stated that she was sitting by the fire along with Sahma Bibi when Salil and Sabina had come and assaulted Sahma Bibi with an axe in her presence. Sahma Bibi was taken to the hospital where she was declared dead.

In cross-examination she has deposed that the deceased was her daughter-in-law. It was dark at the time of the incident. She had cataract in her eyes. The assault was committed from the back on the head, back and leg of the deceased. There was a dispute between both the sides prior to the incident. The partition of the land had already taken place.

7. PW-3 Asgar Ali has stated that he was in Mumbai and he was telephonically informed about the assault committed upon his wife by Salil 2 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 638 of 2013 Ansari and Sabina Bibi. He had reached his house after 36 hours and had seen the marks of violence on the dead body of his wife.

In cross-examination he has deposed that he had stated before the police that he had come to know about the incident from Sairun Bibi, Sohra Bibi and Tahira Bibi.

8. PW-4 Kalim Ansari has stated that he was in his house when Salil had assaulted Sahma Bibi with an axe 3-4 times. After the assault when Salil Ansari left he had taken Sahma Bibi to Sadar Hospital where he came to know that she has died. The police had recovered a blood-stained axe from the house of Salil Ansari in his presence. He has identified his signature in the photocopy of the seizure list which has been marked as 'X'.

In cross-examination he has deposed that he had reached the place of occurrence after 5-10 minutes of the occurrence.

9. PW-5 Md. Niazuddin Ansari has stated that he was in his house when he saw Salil Ansari and Sabina Bibi assaulting Sahma Bibi on her head with an axe. On an alarm being raised he had gone to the place of occurrence and had taken Sahma Bibi to Sadar Hospital where she was declared dead.

In cross-examination he has deposed that the deceased was his mother. He had heard that his mother was having an illicit relationship with another person and this mentally troubled him. He thereafter states that Sabina Bibi had an illicit relationship and not his mother. He has deposed that Kalim Ansari, Sairun Bibi and Tahira Bibi had reached the place of occurrence after him.

10. PW-6 Vakil Ahmad is the informant who has stated that he was in his house when there was a cry of alarm that his mother-in-law Sahma Bibi has been assaulted. He rushed to the place of occurrence where he saw Sahma Bibi in an unconscious state. He had picked up his mother-in-law in a Commander Jeep for taking her to Sadar Hospital where after ten minutes she died. He had come to know that Salil Ansari had committed the murder of his mother-in-law. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.1.

In cross-examination he has deposed that when he had reached the place of occurrence the persons present had not disclosed the name of anybody. All sorts of discussions were going on and some were saying that the murder had taken place in the night itself.

11. PW-7 Tahiro Bibi has stated that on the date of occurrence at 06:00 a.m. she, Sairun Bibi, Sohra Bibi and Sahma Bibi were sitting in the warmth of 3 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 638 of 2013 fire when Salil Mian and Sabina Bibi had come and assaulted Sahma Bibi with axe. The reason of the incident is that in the previous evening there was an altercation between Sahma Bibi and Salil Ansari as well as Sabina Bibi. Sahma Bibi died at Sadar Hospital.

In cross-examination she has deposed that except the names of the women she has taken there were no other females present. She had disclosed about the incident to the police on the third day of the occurrence. She had disclosed about the incident to the neighbours after they had come. The deceased was her sister-in-law. The dispute was with respect to sprinkling of water from the pump.

12. PW-8 Murtza Ali has stated that he was in his house when he saw Salil Ansari and Sabina Bibi come with an axe and committed assault upon Sahma Bibi. When an alarm was raised he rushed to the place of occurrence and took Sahma Bibi to the Hospital where she died. The reasons for the occurrence is that Sabina Bibi had an illicit relationship with Nabi Mian and for which in the evening there was an altercation between Salil Ansari and Sahma Bibi.

In cross-examination he has deposed that there are ten houses in between his house and the place of occurrence. He had reached the place of occurrence within a minute or two. He had reached after 5-6 axe blows had rained upon Sahma Bibi.

13. PW-9 Maqbool Ansari has stated that Salil Ansari and Sabina Bibi had committed assault with axe upon Sahma Bibi which resulted in her death in the Hospital. Before such incident an altercation had taken place between both the sides.

In cross-examination he has deposed that at the time of the incident he was in his house along with his family members basking in the warmth of fire. There was a commotion that Salil Ansari and Sabina Bibi had murdered Sahma Bibi and when Murtza had called him he had rushed to the place of occurrence. His statement was recorded by the police on the next day of the occurrence.

14. PW-10 Bhim Mahto had taken over investigation of the case on 27.02.2009. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.2. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Ext.3. The seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext.4. On completion of investigation he had submitted charge-sheet.

In cross-examination he has deposed that he had submitted charge- sheet on the basis of the investigation carried out by the earlier Investigating 4 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 638 of 2013 Officer.

15. PW-11 Dr. Sanjay Kumar was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Palamau and on 30.11.2008 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sahma Bibi and had found the following:

"i) Mouth was semi open, bleeding from left nostril, right black eye,

ii) Incised wound 5 inch x 4 inch cranium deep with fracture of skull bone at right parietal bone,

iii) Brain matters lacerates and coming out from the wounds,

iv) Incised wound 2 inch x 1 inch cranial deep above right ear with fracture of parietal bone and lacerated brain matters oozing out from the wounds".

This witness had further found the following injuries: laceration of brain matters and hematoma scattered and further stated that both chambers of heart were partially filled, no abnormality found in lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys, intestine and uterus. Stomach contains gastric juice.

The cause of death has been opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the above-noted injuries. The post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Ext.5.

16. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the commission of murder of Sahma Bibi.

17. It has been submitted by Mr. Gautam Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of the witnesses revealed major contradictions and in fact none of the witnesses can be said to be an eye-witness to the incident. It has been submitted that the motive for committing the assault has not been established by the prosecution. Most the prosecution witnesses have not disclosed the presence of other persons which furthermore eliminates any role played by the appellants in the murder.

18. Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, the learned A.P.P. has submitted that the evidence of the eye-witnesses are cogent and convincing barring some minor contradictions which the learned trial Court has considered in its proper perspective.

19. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial Court records.

20. The appellants are said to have committed indiscriminate assault upon the mother-in-law of the informant which resulted in her death. Though several witnesses have claimed themselves to have witnessed the incident but we have to make a threadbare analysis to ascertain as to whether such 5 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 638 of 2013 evidence can be categorized as "eye-witness account".

21. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 have stated that they were keeping themselves warm besides the fire since it was a wintry morning when the appellants had arrived surreptitiously and struck axe blows upon Sahma Bibi. So far as PW- 1 is concerned, she has mentioned about her presence and the presence of Sairun Bibi, father-in-law Jamaluddin Mian and her son besides the fire. She has not named the deceased Sahma Bibi. Even if we discount her failure to name Sahma Bibi the evidence of PW-2 demonstrates that only the deceased and PW-2 were present. The evidence of PW-7 has not mentioned about the presence of Jamaluddin Mian and the son of PW-1. All these three witnesses have claimed to have seen the incident but there is total inconsistency with respect to the persons who were present with them at the time of the incident. PW-1 had a weak eye sight and she had become unconscious at the time of the incident and when she regained consciousness she was told about the assault committed by the appellants which would rule out PW-1 as an eye- witness. The assault as per PW-2 was done from the back and though it was early morning it was dark. PW-2 was aged 65 years and she had cataract in her eyes. In such scenario it would be unreliable and unsafe to bank upon the evidence of PW-2 as an eye-witness to the occurrence to secure the conviction of the appellants. PW-2 in her cross-examination has deposed that PW-8 was in Varanasi at the time of the incident and PW-3 and PW-7 were also not present. PW-3 has himself admitted that he was in Mumbai when he was telephonically informed about the assault committed upon his wife. PW-7 claimed herself to be an eye-witness but her presence has been discounted by PW-2 and there is inconsistency as well, as pointed out earlier with respect to the persons present vis-à-vis the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-5 is another eye-witness who in her cross-examination has deposed that PW-2, PW-4 and PW-7 had reached the place of occurrence after him. PW-5 is the son of the deceased who seems to have rushed to the place of occurrence after hearing the cry of alarm and had taken his mother to the Hospital. In fact, PW-4, PW- 5, PW-6 and PW-9 have all stated about rushing to the place of occurrence and taking Sahma Bibi to the Hospital. None have noted the presence of each other at the time when they had gone to the place of occurrence. This part of their evidence reflects a consistent pattern and such consistent contradiction has given their evidence a different hue diluting the case of the prosecution in general and the evidence of PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 in particular.

22. Since we have come to a conclusion that there are no eye-witnesses to 6 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 638 of 2013 the occurrence we also have considered the fact as to whether there is any circumstantial evidence or any motive for committing the murder. So far as the motive is concerned, different versions have been rendered without any corroboration by any witness ranging from a dispute regarding sprinkling of water from the pump in the field to the illicit relationship that Sabina Bibi was having with one Nabi Mian. Blood stained dauli was said to have been recovered from the house of the appellants but in absence of any FSL report it cannot be ascertained that the said dauli was used in the commission of murder. The prosecution has therefore been unable to prove any motive and there is absence of any strong circumstantial evidence to arrive at a conclusion regarding the culpability of the appellants in committing the murder of Sahma Bibi.

23. We therefore on the basis of the discussions made herein above, set aside the judgment of conviction dated 15.04.2013 and the order of sentence dated 17.04.2013, passed by Shri Vijay Kumar No.1, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 43/2010.

24. This appeal is allowed.

25. Pending IA, if any, stands closed.

26. Since the appellant no.1 is in custody, he is directed to be released immediately and forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

27. So far as the appellant no.2 is concerned, since she is on bail she is discharged from the liability of her bail bond.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

(RAJESH KUMAR, J.)

S.B.

7 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 638 of 2013