Jharkhand High Court
Satyanarayan Sahu @ Satya vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 May, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Rajesh Kumar
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 723 of 2014
(Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 31.07.2014 (sentence passed on 04.08.2014) passed by
Sri Manoj Prasad, learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in
Sessions Trial No. 490/2011.)
Satyanarayan Sahu @ Satya, S/o Mahendra Sahu, R/o
Vill- Pithia Toli, Hatia, P.O.- Hatia, P.S.- Jagarnathpur,
Ranchi. ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 719 of 2014
Sabina Praveen, W/o Late Afroz Khan, R/o Vill- Chachkopi,
P.O. Bero, P.S. Bero, Dist.- Ranchi.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
In. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 723 of 2014.
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
In. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 719 of 2014.
For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
----
CAV JUDGMENT
Dated : 05/05/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 723 of 2014, Mr. Anil Kr.
Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 719 of 2014 and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P.
as well as Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State
2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment,
they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
of conviction and sentence dated 31-07-2014 (sentence passed
on 04-08-2014) passed by Sri Manoj Prasad, learned Judicial
Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in S.T. No. 490/2011 whereby and
whereunder, the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 723/2014 has
been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302
IPC and Section 27 Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and
rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable
under Section 27 Arms Act and a fine of Rs 50,000/-, while the
appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 719/2014 has been convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 302/120B IPC and has
been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine
of Rs. 50,000/-.
4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Ramjan
Khan recorded on 24-03-2011 in which it has been stated that
the marriage of his son Afroz Khan was solemnized with Sabina
Praveen on 05.03.2011 as per Muslim rites and customs. Sabina
Praveen, after being brought by the informant to Raidih village,
was not happy and she always used to take the name of
Satyanarayan Sahu and she used to profess her love for Satya.
It has been alleged that the daughter-in-law of the informant had
a love affair with Satyanarayan Sahu from before. The friend of
Satyanarayan Sahu, namely, Laxman Nayak used to come and
converse with Sabina Praveen. The daughter-in-law of the
informant, without any prior permission, had left for Hatia to
meet Satyanarayan Sahu. On 23-03-2011 at 11:30pm,
Satyanarayan Sahu and Laxman Nayak came on a motorcycle to
the house of the informant and tried to open the door. When the
door was not opened, they broke open the door and
Satyanarayan Sahu, who had a revolver in his hand, had fired
at the temple of Afroz Khan. The daughter-in-law of the
informant, Satyanarayan Sahu and Laxman Nayak had, under a
2|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
conspiracy, committed the murder of the son of the informant.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Dhurwa P.S. Case No.
59/2011 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. 490/2011. Charge was framed against the accused
Satyanarayan Sahu under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27
Arms Act and against the accused Sabina Praveen under Section
302/120B IPC which were read over and explained to the
accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses
in support of its case:
P.W.1 Fatma Khatoon has stated that the marriage of her
nephew Afroz Khan was solemnized with Sabina Khatoon and
after marriage, Satyanarayan Sahu and Laxman Nayak used to
come to meet Sabina Khatoon and also used to talk over phone.
Her nephew had come home after doing his work and without
having dinner, went to sleep. At about 11:00-11:30pm, there was
an alarm raised by the mother of Afroz that he has been
murdered. She had heard the sound of firing. She had gone to
the place of occurrence on hearing such cry of alarm. When she
reached, she saw Satyanarayan Sahu and Laxman Nayak coming
out of the house and fleeing away on a vehicle.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she did not
know Satyanarayan Sahu and Laxman Nayak from before but
came to know about them after the marriage. She and Afroz used
to live in separate houses. The Police had recorded her statement
in the morning. There are 10-12 houses besides the house of
Ramjan. She and her husband had rushed to the place of
occurrence at the same time. She has denied that there is a
brother-sister relationship between Satyanarayan Sahu and
3|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
Sabina Khatoon.
P.W.2 Mehrun Khatoon has stated that on the 18th day of
marriage of Sabina Khatoon with Afroz Khan, Satyanarayan
Sahu, Laxman Nayak and Sabina Khatoon had come to her place
and disclosed that they are having a love affair. Sabina was
married to her son Afroz. On the date of occurrence at 10:00-
11:00pm, Satyanarayan Sahu and Laxman Nayak had broken
open the door and fired at the temple of Afroz Khan. When she,
on hearing a cry of distress of her son, had rushed to his room,
she kept silent as she was threatened by Satyanarayan Sahu.
When she asked her son about the happenings, he had disclosed
that Sabina had got him killed. In the meantime, both the
accused persons fled away. Sabina was inside the house.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that there are two
doors in the house. One in the room of Afroz, while the other
connects three rooms. After marriage, Sabina had stayed at her
house for three days and thereafter, left for her parents' place
where she stayed for five days and Afroz had also stayed with her
at his in-laws' place. She has later on stated that Afroz used to
come back home. Afroz had brought Sabina back to his house
after getting her bidai done and after 3-4 days, Sabina had gone
to her parents' place with Afroz and her daughter had also
accompanied her. She has deposed that one day prior to the
occurrence, Afroz had brought back Sabina to his house. There
are about 5-7 houses in the vicinity of her house. On hearing the
commotion, all the persons from the nearby locality had
assembled. On the date of occurrence, Afroz had gone to sleep
alone. Both Afroz and Sabina had solemnised marriage on their
mutual liking for each other. Sabina had not disclosed to her
anything after the marriage. When she had reached near Afroz,
on hearing the sound of her firing, she had seen the accused
persons fleeing away on a motorcycle. Afroz had become
4|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
unconscious, as such he could not disclose anything to the
villagers. She had got up from her sleep after hearing the sound
of firing. She had seen the assailants for the first time on the date
of occurrence. She had disclosed before the Police that
Satyanarayan Sahu, Laxman Nayak and Sabina had come to her
house and disclosed that they are lovers.
P.W.3 Ramjan Khan is the informant and the father of the
deceased who has stated that he had solemnized the marriage of
his son Afroz with Sabina Khatoon about 18 days prior to the
date of occurrence. It was 11:30pm, when Satyanarayan Sahu
and Laxman Nayak had come to his house on a motorcycle. His
son had returned from work and had gone to sleep. The accused
persons had knocked at the door, but it was not opened by him
at which, the door was broken open and Satyanarayan Sahu fired
at the temple of his son. Sabina was standing there. When his
son raised a cry of alarm, he, his wife and children rushed to the
room of Afroz, where a pool of blood was found lying.
Satyanarayan had threatened of committing their murders if they
raised an alarm at which, all of them kept silent. After
committing the murders, both the accused persons fled away on
a motorcycle. The reason for the incident is that Sabina had
disclosed that Satyanarayan Sahu is her lover and this led to
elimination of Afroz. When the murders had taken place at
11:30p.m. two Police vehicles had come which also had come in
the day time when he had instituted the case.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the house in
Raidih in which he stays, belongs to his brother-in-law, Mustafa
Khan. The door of the room of Afroz opens on the western side,
while the door of his room opens on the eastern side. Nobody
could enter the room of Afroz from other rooms because it had a
separate door. At the time of the incident, there was wheat field
all around the house. He has deposed that Sabina had also gone
5|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
to sleep with Afroz. On hearing the sound of firing, they got up
and went together. He, his wife and children had gone to the
room of Afroz. When the accused person started fleeing away, he
had given them a chase. On his raising an alarm, several persons
had assembled. It was a dark night. The Police had taken away
Afroz in the morning for his treatment. In the morning after the
incident, when the room was being cleaned, a cartridge was
found on the ground which had gone through the bed and the
bed sheet. He had not seen the firing made.
P.W.4 Samim Khan has stated that he was in his house
when at around 11:30p.m., he had heard a sound of firing at
which he came out of his house and so did some villagers. He
saw Satyanarayan Sahu and Laxman Nayak going away on a
motorcycle. When he and the others tried to catch hold of them,
they issued a threatening that Afroz has been murdered and they
will face the same fate. When they rushed to the house of Afroz,
they found Afroz wriggling and Sabina Praveen standing in her
room. Afroz was being taken to the hospital and on the way, he
died. The reason for the occurrence is that Satyanarayan Sahu
had a love affair with Sabina Praveen. The incident occurred
within 16-17 days of the marriage of Afroz with Sabina Praveen.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the deceased
Afroz was his cousin brother. He does not know anyone in Hatia,
except the father-in-law of Afroz. Most of the persons on hearing
the commotion had reached the place of occurrence at almost the
same time. He had reached later on, since his house is at a
distance from the place of occurrence. He had not disclosed to
the Police about the threatening given by Satyanarayan Sahu
and Laxman Nayak when they were fleeing away. He had also not
stated that Satya had brandished a pistol. He had not seen the
firing.
P.W.5 Mustafa Khan alias Mustafa Mallick is the uncle of
6|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
the deceased, who has stated that the marriage of his nephew
was solemnized with Sabina Praveen. After the marriage,
Satyanarayan Sahu and Laxman Nayak had come to meet
Sabina for a day and this was protested and a complaint was also
made to the father of Sabina. Sabina had stated that since
Satyanarayan is his lover, he comes to her house. Sabina
Praveen thereafter, went to her parents' place and when Afroz
went to bring her back, she refused to return. Satyanarayan
Sahu had called Afroz to Hatia and both had a quarrel in the
presence of the brother-in-law of Afroz. On 23-03-2011
Satyanarayan Sahu and Laxman Nayak had come at around
11:00-11:30 pm and committed the murder of Afroz.
Satyanarayan Sahu had got the door opened and fired at Afroz.
The villagers came out on hearing the sound of firing. He had
also come out. The villagers chased Satyanarayan Sahu, but he
could not be apprehended. He and the others after returning
back, had taken Afroz to Narayan Hospital at Birsa Chowk, where
Afroz died. He had signed on the fardbeyan of Ramjan Khan
which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is the
brother-in-law of the informant. At the time of the incident, he
was at home. The distance between his house and the house of
the deceased is about 500 meters. Several persons had already
reached the place of occurrence prior to his arrival. When the
incident had occurred, he was sleeping. His sister while crying
had covered about half the distance between his house and the
house of his sister. He had reached the place of occurrence at the
request of his sister. He does not have any dispute with the
informant. His two brothers and his father had rushed to the
place of occurrence after him. Afroz was taken to the hospital
after 30-40 minutes from the time of occurrence.
P.W.6 Nageshwar Rajak was the Officer-in-charge of
7|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
Tupudana O.P. On 24-03-2011 at 6:30am, Ramjan Khan had
brought the dead body of his son Afroz Khan in a vehicle. He had
recorded the fardbeyan of Ramjan Khan who had put his thumb
impression on the fardbeyan, while Mustaq Khan had signed on
it. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as
Exhibit-2. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as
Exhibit-3, while the inquest report has been marked as Exhibit-
4. He had recorded the restatement of Ramjan Khan and the
statements of Mustaq Khan, Mehrun Khatoon and Samim Khan.
Satyanarayan Sahu was arrested and from his possession, a
pistol and two live cartridges were recovered and seized and the
seizure was sent to Jagarnathpur P.S. in which a separate case
in Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 63/11 was instituted. He has
stated that Satya had confessed that he has a love affair with
Sabina and that he had committed the murder. He had inspected
the place of occurrence at village Raidih in the house of Afroz
Khan which consists of five rooms. The door of the room was
found in a damaged state. There was a pool of blood below the
bed. He had recorded the statements of Aslam Khan and Fatima
Khatoon. He had arrested Sabina Praveen and her confessional
statement was recorded. He had also seized a mobile for which a
seizure list was prepared which has been proved and marked as
Exhibit-5. The brother of Satyanarayan Sahu had produced a
mobile which was seized and a seizure list was prepared which
has been marked as Exhibit-6. He had given an application to
the Sr. Superintendent of Police for obtaining the call details of
Satyanarayan Sahu and Sabina Praveen. The call details were
received from which it appears that from 17-03-2011 to 22-03-
2011, there were 111 conversations between them. The
computer-generated Call Detail Report has been proved and
marked as Exhibit-7 with objection. He had received the report
with respect to the seized pistol and cartridges. On the direction
8|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
of the Sr. Superintendent of Police, he had submitted charge
sheet.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had received
the information about the incident on 24-03-2011 at 6:30am.
The Police did not have any information about the incident prior
to 6:30am on 24-03-2011. The Police had reached the place of
occurrence for the first time on 24-03-2011 at 1:45pm. There was
no sign of a bullet in either the bed sheet or the bed. The bullet
was not recovered from the place of occurrence. The witness
Aslam, in his statement, had stated that several villagers had
assembled on hearing the sound of firing and ran towards the
house of Afroz when some persons were seen fleeing away on
motorcycle. In course of investigation, he has come to know that
there are 10-12 houses in the vicinity of the house of Ramjan
Khan. At the time of the incident, Afroz and his wife were staying
in the same room. The pistol and cartridges were not sent to the
FSL for examination. The wife of Ramjan Khan, Mehrun Nisa had
not stated that after the incident she had rushed to call her
brother Mustafa. It has not been noted in the diary about any
witnesses stating about possession of light. Nobody had stated
that it was a moonlit night. He had not seized torch, etc., which
provides light. He could not gather any information about the
motorcycle used in the commission of murder. Fatima, in his
statement, had not stated that both the accused used to talk to
each other over phone. She had also not stated about hearing the
sound of firing and that when she reached the place of
occurrence, the accused persons were fleeing away. The witness
Mehrun Nisa had not stated that the accused persons had
entered the room after breaking open the door and had fired at
the temple of Afroz. She had also not stated that when Afroz cried
in distress, she had reached but kept silent since the accused
persons had threatened of firing at her. She had not stated that
9|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
Afroz had confided in her that Sabina had got him killed. This
witness had not stated that Sabina had disclosed that
Satyanarayan Sahu and Laxman Nayak are her lovers, due to
which they had come to the house.
The witness Ramjan Khan had not stated that his son had
gone to sleep after coming from work and when the door was
knocked by the accused, it was not opened which resulted in
their breaking the door and Satyanarayan Sahu had fired at the
temple of his son. He had also not stated that when his son
shouted, he had rushed inside and saw a pool of blood and
Satyanarayan Sahu had issued a threat of committing his
murder. He had not stated that Satyanarayan Sahu and Laxman
Nayak, by brandishing a pistol, had fled away on a motorcycle.
He had also not stated that Sabina had disclosed that
Satyanarayan Sahu is her lover. He had also recorded the
statement of Samim, who had stated that when he had chased
Satya and Laxman, they had not disclosed about committing the
murder of Afroz. He had not stated that Satyanarayan had
brandished a pistol. The witness Mustafa Khan had not disclosed
that Sabina had confided that Satyanarayan and Laxman are her
friends. None of the witnesses had disclosed about any source of
light in their possession. They had also not disclosed about using
a torch or lantern to go to the house of the deceased.
P.W.7 Dr. Reema K. Khalkho was posted as a Junior
Resident, Department of Anatomy, RIMS, Ranchi and on 24-03-
2011, she had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Afroz Khan
and had found the following:
Fire arm injury no. 1- wound of entrance
size 4 cm x 2 cm over left mastoid region with
laceration would of left pinna and
surrounded by tattooing in an area of 15 cm
x 10 cm over left side of face. The projectile
10 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
passes through soft tissue, breaks the left
temporal bone then passes through dura
matter, brain matter and breaks the right
frontal bone and makes an exit would 4 cm
x 2 cm on the right frontal region of the head
8 cm above the eyebrow. The crack fracture
20cm long of left temporal frontal bone. The
tract of the wound is contused and lacerated
with presence of blood and blood clot in the
cranial cavity.
The cause of death was opined to be due to head injury as
a result of the above noted firearm injury. The post-mortem
report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that the injury is
sufficient to cause instantaneous death.
6. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the
murder of Afroz Khan.
7. It has been submitted by Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned
counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 723/2014 that
there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence. It was a dark night
when the incident of murder had taken place and the prosecution
has failed to testify through any witness about any source of light
which would have enabled them to identify the assailants. The
evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.6) reveals that in their
statement before the Police, they have categorically denied about
the presence of the appellant Satyanarayan Sahu in the room
where the murder had taken place. In fact, the testimonies of the
witnesses would indicate that the appellant Satyanarayan Sahu
was not identified by any of the witnesses in view of the inherent
contradictions appearing in their evidence. The prosecution has
also failed to ascertain that the firearm recovered from the
11 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
appellant Satyanarayan Sahu was used in the murder of Afroz
Khan. P.W.6 has categorically stated that no cartridge was found
at the place of occurrence.
8. So far as the appellant Sabina Praveen in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No. 719/2014 is concerned, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned
counsel for the appellant has submitted that she has been
convicted under section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 120B IPC
and her implication primarily stems from the call details in which
she appears to have conversed with Satyanarayan Sahu on
innumerable occasions. It has been submitted that if at all there
was an angle of conspiracy, the appellant Sabina Parveen could
have easily opened the door when the accused had knocked
instead of letting them break open the door and committing the
murder of her husband.
9. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. and Mrs. Priya
Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. have submitted that the appellants
were instrumental in committing the murder of Afroz Khan and
several witnesses including the inmates of the house have stated
so. It also appears to be an admitted fact that the appellant
Satyanarayan Sahu had a love affair with the appellant Sabina
Praveen which can be gathered from the call details and both had
hatched a conspiracy to eliminate Afroz Khan which was
executed within 18 days of the marriage of Afroz Khan with
Sabina Praveen.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and have also perused the trial court records.
11. The incident depicted by the informant is of the appellant
Satyanarayan Sahu and his accomplice Laxman Nayak entering
into his house by breaking open the door and by committing the
murder of Afroz Khan and fleeing away on a motorcycle. The
incident had occurred in the dead of night at 11:30pm and it is
said that the sound of firing attracted some villagers as well as
12 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
the relatives of the informant, who had rushed to the place of
occurrence. As per P.W.1, she and her husband (P.W.5) had
reached the house of their deceased nephew at the same time.
P.W.5 has stated that the distance between his house and the
house of the deceased was 500 meters. His sister had come
halfway across to call him and at her request, he had gone to the
place of occurrence. This evidence would reveal that P.W.1 and
P.W.5 did not reach the place of occurrence immediately after the
occurence had taken place and it was at the request of the
mother of the deceased that they had gone. The entire exercise
would have expended a considerable time and would make it an
impossibility for them to have even seen the appellant
Satyanarayan Sahu and this is further fortified by the absence of
any source of light for the purposes of identification. So far as
P.W.2 is concerned, she is the mother of the deceased, who
claims to have reached the place of occurrence on hearing the
sound of firing. At that point of time, she was asleep. She has
stated that the marriage was solemnized between Afroz and
Sabina on account of their mutual liking for each other. The
description of the place of occurrence would reveal that there was
one door in the room of Afroz with no interconnectivity with the
other rooms for which a separate door is in place. This would
mean that none of the family members can enter the room of
Afroz in a split second because of its separate entrance. It also
transpires that P.W.2 and P.W.3 claim themselves to have seen
the actual incident, but their evidence apparently seems to have
been developed and concocted as they have stated about the
arrival of the Police after the occurrence at midnight and seizure
of cartridge which seems to be totally contrary to the evidence of
P.W.6, who has stated that the Police was informed about the
incident in the next morning at 6:30am and that no cartridge was
detected in the room of Afroz. Their evidence, therefore, depicts
13 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
an exaggeration with respect to the appellant Satyanarayan Sahu
being the assailant. So far as P.W.4 is concerned, admittedly, he
had not seen the occurrence and there is a clear doubt of he
having seen both the accused Satyanarayan Sahu and Laxman
Nayak fleeing away on a motorcycle as he has himself admitted
of arriving late at the place of occurrence because of the distance
of his house from the place of occurrence. P.W.4 had also not
stated before the Police that the accused while fleeing away, were
brandishing pistols and were issuing threats. The evidence of
P.W.6 (I.O.) gives a different picture to the effect that none of the
witnesses in their statements before him could be assessed to be
eyewitnesses which is in contrast to their evidence during trial.
Even if we leave aside such contradictions, what has been
demonstrated by us on a dissection of the evidence of the
witnesses is that none of the witnesses can be elevated to the
status of an eyewitness either to the actual incident of firing or
of the appellant Satyanarayan Sahu fleeing away from the place
of occurrence.
12. When we have already come to a conclusion about the non-
involvement of the appellant Satyanarayan Sahu in committing
the murder of Afroz Khan the angle of conspiracy, as alleged
against the appellant Sabina Praveen, also pales into oblivion as
it is the specific case of the prosecution that Sabina Praveen had
a love affair with Satyanarayan Sahu and both conspired and
eliminated Afroz Khan. If at all there was a conspiracy, there was
no necessity for the appellant Satyanarayan Sahu to break open
the door as Sabina Praveen could have easily opened the door
since she was the only person present inside the house with the
deceased and such surreptitious act would have gained time for
the appellant to escape. The call details, as projected by the
prosecution, is a pointer to the illicit relationship between
Satyanarayan Sahu and Sabina Praveen but the same cannot be
14 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13503-DB )
stretched in absence of any corroboration or other circumstantial
evidence to bring within its fold the conspiracy hatched in
committing the murder of Afroz Khan. Conspiracy itself would
require the involvement of more than one person and since we
have come to a conclusion that the case against the appellant
Satyanarayan Sahu has not been proved by the prosecution,
such finding would reflect on the appellant Sabina Praveen as
well.
13. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made
hereinabove, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 31-07-2014 (sentence passed on 04-08-2014)
passed by Sri Manoj Prasad, learned Judicial Commissioner-IV,
Ranchi in S.T. No. 490/2011.
14. Since the appellant Satyanarayan Sahu in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No. 723/2014 is in custody, he is directed to be released
immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
15. So far as the appellant Sabina Praveen in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No. 719/2014 is concerned, since she is on bail, she is
discharged from the liabilities of her bail bonds.
16. Both these appeals are allowed.
17. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(RAJESH KUMAR, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 5th Day of May, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
15 | P a g e
