Sadaqat @ Azul Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3575 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sadaqat @ Azul Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 August, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                                      Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23968-DB )

                                      Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 366 of 2002

                        Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
                  dated 22.06.2002 (sentence passed on 26.06.2002) passed by Sri R.G.
                  Singh Nagesh, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I,
                  Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 180 of 1995

                  Sadaqat @ Azul Mian, son of Sifarat Mian, resident of Village Dihi-
                  Newari, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District Latehar

                                                                    ...   Appellant
                                           Versus
                  The State of Jharkhand                            ...     Respondent
                                           ----

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate Mr. T. Kabiraj, , Advocate Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate For the Respondent (State): Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.

CAV on 24.07.2025 Delivered on 18.08.2025

----

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.06.2002(sentence passed on 26.06.2002) passed by Sri R.G. Singh Nagesh, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 180 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence u/s 302 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable u/s Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

1|Page

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Abdul Gani recorded on 05.12.1994 in which it has been stated that on the same day at 10 a.m., the mother of the informant Chamo Bibi along with Sajrul Khatoon and Gulabi Bibi had gone to Purnapani jungle for grazing goats. At 12 noon Gulabi Bibi came running and disclosed that Azul @ Sadaqat Mian has shot at the mother of the informant. At this information, the informant along with others had rushed to the place of occurrence where he had seen his mother writhing. The informant and others were taking his mother to his house and on the way she died. The reason for the occurrence is that the accused had got a land transferred in his name by impersonating a woman, as the mother of the informant and a case was also filed regarding such act.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Latehar P.S. Case No. 100/1994 was instituted against Sadaqat @ Azul Mian. On completion of the 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. 180 of 1995. Charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 Arms Act which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as seven (07) witnesses in support of its case.

P.W. 1-Abdul Gani is the informant who has stated that on the date of occurrence, his mother Chamo Bibi had gone to the jungle to graze goats at 10 a.m. and Sajrul Khatoon and Gulabi Bibi had accompanied her. He was in his house, when at 12 noon Sajrul Khatoon and Gulabi had come and disclosed that Azul @ Sadaqat Mian has fired at Chamo Bibi. At this information he, his brothers and father went to Purnapani jungle and saw Chamo Devi lying injured. He and others were taking Chamo Bibi to the hospital where on the way she died. The police was informed who came and his Fardbeyan was recorded. He has proved his signature on his Fardbeyan

2|Page which has been marked as Ext. 1. There was a dispute between the accused and Chamo Bibi with respect to a land for which a case was also lodged.

In cross examination he has deposed that the deed is dated 03.08.1994 on which date he was in his house, but he had not seen any body executing the deed.

P.W. 2 Sajrul Khatoon has stated that Azul had shot at her grandmother. She had come home and disclosed about the incident to her father and uncle.

In cross examination she has deposed that her father had told her to say about the assault on her grandmother and the fleeing away of Azul. She has said everything which has been taught by her father. She heard the sound of firing, but she was not frightened. She had run on hearing the sound of firing and had seen her grandmother writhing in pain.

P.W. 3 Gulabi has stated that she had gone to graze goats along with Sazrul Khatoon and Chamo when Chumni died while running. She does not know as to with what weapon she was assaulted and the person who had committed the assault. Sajrul Khatoon had told her that her grandmother has died, but she does not remember the name of the assailant. She had not stated to the police that Azul @ Sadaqat Mian had shot at Chamo Bibi.

In cross examination she has deposed that she does not know the name of the assailant. She does not have any knowledge of who had committed the murder and in what manner the said murder was committed.

P.W. 4 Muslim Sah has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 5 Abdul Gani did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W. 6 Sri Sidharth was posted as a General Assistant Surgeon at Sub Divisional Hospital, Latehar and on 06.12.1994 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chamo Bibi and had found the following:

3|Page On external examination the height of the deceased was 4'6", complexion dark, hair black, right eye destroyed by fire arm shot, clothes of the deceased were as follows:

blood spotted red Saree, blood spotted blouse with one big hole also present by multiple small hole of the left side of back. Rigor mortis was present over all the four extremities. On internal examination of the thoracic and chest plura was punctured and lacerated by penetration of fire arm shot from left back to right front larynges are trachea contained aspirated blood. Lungs was punctured and lacerated by fire arm shot. Pericardium was also punctured. Heart was punctured and empty.

On examination of abdomen mouth was partially opened. Satallite tattooing around right orbit was present, right eye bowl was lacerated and destroyed due to fire arm shot. Stomach contained semi digested food. Preliminary bladder was empty.

Detailed description of ante mortem injuries was found as follows:

1. Close distance (within 2 ft) fire arm shot over right orbit having cartilages passing obliquely through left occipital part of brain and swell and swell through and through. The wound of exit was averted lacerated and measured around 1 inch in diameter.

Ante mortem charring & tattooing size found around right orbital wound of entry measuring 1/2" in diameter with interted margin. Blood spots over merely area of face and ...inflauatory signs it. Ante mortem signs of injury was present.

2. Ante mortem close distance (within 2 ft) fire arm shot over left side of the back part of chest below scapula causing wound of entry with inverted margin blood spots over adjacent part of the body and blause and clothes. Cartilage passed out through wound of entry to right side of the frontal part of chest. Wound on right side was the wound of exit having averted burated and inflamed and blood spots. The wound of exit measured 3/4th of an inch in diameter.

4|Page Satellite tattooing was present around wound of entry over back part of left side of the chest.

The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the above noted firearm injuries. The postmortem report has been proved and marked as Ext. 2.

P.W. 7 Md. Zakir Hussain has proved his signature on the seizure list of blood-stained earth which has been marked as Ext. 3. He has also identified the signature of Md. Yakub which has been marked as Ext. 3/1. He has proved his signature and the signature of his brother Md. Yakub on the inquest report which have been marked as Ext. 5 and 5/1. He has proved the handwriting and signature of Lalmuni Singh in the inquest report which has been marked as Ext. 6.

5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the commission of the murder of Chamo Bibi.

6. It has been submitted by Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. It has been submitted that as per the Fardbeyan Gulabi Bibi was projected to be the eye witness, but she has not supported the case of the prosecution. So far as PW- 2 is concerned, her evidence is what has been taught to her by her father in order to implicate the appellant with whom a land dispute was already in existence.

7. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.PP has primarily relied upon the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 who were with the deceased when the incident of firing had taken place and therefore the evidence PW-2 is reliable and trustworthy and cannot be brushed aside merely because she is a child witness.

8. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records.

9. In the Fardbeyan It has been specifically stated by the informant that it was Gulabi Bibi who had informed about the firing done by the appellant

5|Page upon Chamo Bibi. Gulabi Bibi has been examined as PW-3 and she has shown ignorance about the incident as well as the identity of the assailant. PW-2 and PW-3 were the persons who had accompanied Chamo Bibi to Purnapani forest for grazing of goats and both these witnesses are best suited to describe the incident. However, as we have noticed above, PW-3 appears to have been totally oblivious to the incident and so far as PW-2 is concerned, she is a child witness and therefore her evidence has to be scrutinized with circumspection being conscious of the fact that a child witness is prone to tutoring. In her cross-examination PW-3 has deposed that on hearing the sound of firing, she had run to her grandmother and had seen her wriggling in pain. This would suggest that she had not witnessed the actual incident of firing. PW-2 has also accepted the fact that whatever had been taught to her by her father has been disclosed in her evidence including the name of the appellant as the assailant. The tenor of the evidence of PW-2 would reveal that she is a tutored witness and even if we assume to the contrary by no stretch of imagination she can be said to be an eye witness. The investigating officer has not been examined and the weapon of assault was also not recovered. The false implication of the appellant gathers strength from the fact that both the sides were on inimical terms on account of the sale of a land allegedly by impersonating the deceased for which a case was also instituted. There has been no semblance of evidence put forward by the prosecution indicating about any role played by the appellant in eliminating Chamo Bibi.

The prosecution has therefore miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt on account of the dearth of any evidence bolstering the case of the prosecution.

We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.06.2002(sentence passed on 26.06.2002) passed by Sri R.G. Singh Nagesh,

6|Page learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 180 of 1995.

11. This appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)

(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 18 th August, 2025 MK/N.A.F.R.

7|Page