Jharkhand High Court
Maksud @ Maksud Ansari @ Maqsood Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 November, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1077 of 2024
With
I.A. No.9594 of 2025
-----
Maksud @ Maksud Ansari @ Maqsood Ansari, aged about 45
years, son of Late Nabi Mian, resident of Village-Lahangia,
P.O. Chunglo, P.S. Jamua, District-Giridih.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.
------
I.A. No.9594 of 2025
C.A.V. on 17.11.2025 Pronounced on 25/11/2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in
connection with the judgment of conviction dated
12.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 21.06.2024 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 69 of 2021 arising out of Dhanwar P.S.
Case No. 282 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 144 of 2021,
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted
for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.30,000/- under
Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution story, in brief, requires to be referred
herein which read as under:
The present case arises out of Dhanwar P. S. Case
No.282/2020 registered on the basis of fardbeyan of
Chawkidar Shiv Narayan Verma wherein the Informant has
stated that in the morning at around 10:00 a.m. he got
information that at Jamuniatand within village-Parsan on
the eastern side besides the paddy field, a beheaded body of
a man is lying. He passed over the information to the officer-
in-charge and on getting instruction he proceeded towards
place of occurrence and saw that a headless dead body of a
man aged about 25 to 30 years was lying there. The deceased
was wearing a striped full shirt and brown colour full pant
with white sandow ganji of Lux make and a Maroon colour
underwear of GNX Company. The deceased was also having
a "Janeu, i.e. auspicious thread, and was wearing blue
colour socks. In the finger, there was a ring and over the
right shoulder, there was injury mark by sharp edged
weapon. None could identify the dead body and despite
search, the head was not found and after making
Panchnama, the dead body was sent for Post-Mortem
examination to Giridih.
3. In course of investigation the decapitated head was
also found and its post-mortem examination was also
conducted. The case was registered against unknown.
4. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet
against five persons namely Md. Ibrahim Ansari, Md.
Maqsood Ansari (present appellant/applicant), Nabi Mian,
Khalil Mian, Hajarat Ansari and Nijam Ansari for the offence
u/s 302/201/34 of I. P. C.
5. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken and
consequently, the case was committed the record to the
Court of Sessions and subsequent to commitment S.T
No.69/2021 was registered. Accordingly, charges were
framed against the accused persons stating that the accused
persons with common intention committed the murder by
intentionally causing the death of Sateyendra Nath Mishra
(deceased) and further the charges were framed for the
purpose of screening evidence the accused persons after
committing the murder of Sateyendra Nath Mishra @ Dablu
tried to hide the dead body and the head for screening
themselves from legal punishment.
6. Accordingly, the trial proceeded and the present
applicant was found guilty by the learned trial court and
accordingly, convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34
and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of
Rs.30,000/- under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. The present application has been filed on behalf of
applicant for suspension of sentence during pendency of the
instant appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the Applicant:
8. Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, learned counsel for the
appellant, at the outset, has submitted that this is the
second application for suspension of sentence. Earlier also
application for suspension of sentence, being I.A. No.8160 of
2024, was filed but was not pressed.
9. Learned counsel has further submitted by referring
to the prosecution version as available on record that the
conviction is based upon the circumstantial evidence on the
basis of the last seen theory.
10. He has further submitted that there is no eyewitness
to the occurrence and the entire case is based on
circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has proceeded
on imaginary theory of having last seen the accused with the
deceased and existence of financial transaction between the
accused and the deceased.
11. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the
cases of the circumstantial evidence the court is required to
be more circumspect to see and ensure that there is no
missing link in the chain of circumstances to come to a
conclusion of guilt of the accused but in the facts of the
present case, there is no chain of the circumstance, to point
out the guilt of the appellant rather there is not a single
circumstance to point out the guilt of the appellant.
12. It has been contended that the applicability of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, so far as the present
appellant is concerned, is not applicable reason being that
the appellant had been arrested on 19.09.2020 as per the
arrest memo and thereafter his statement was recorded but
it is also evident from the prosecution version that the
recovery of two knives and burned clothes has been made on
the disclosure made by the co-convict, namely, Ibrahim
Ansari and based upon that the seizure memo was prepared
on 12.09.2020.
13. He has further submitted that if the confessional
statement will be looked into, there is statement by accused
that the deceased had established an illicit relationship with
the wife of the accused and therefore, the incident was given
effect to, but no investigation on these lines has been done
by the police rather the prosecution has come up with a case
that in order to avoid the liability of payment of the dues
amount of Rs.3.5 or 4 lakhs, the accused persons had
committed the murder of the deceased.
14. It has further been contended that the seizure list
which is dated 11.09.2020 which is marked as Ext P-9 where
the knife and other incriminating articles are said to have
been recovered but it is prior to recording the confessional
statement of Ibrahim Ansari which was recorded on
12.09.2020 and as such, it cannot be disputed that the co-
convict, namely, Ibrahim Ansari, had been arrested prior to
12.09.2020.
15. It has been contended that another confessional
statement of accused Maqsood Ansari/appellant was
recorded on 19.09.2020 while seizure from the house of the
accused Maqsood Ansari, Hazrat Ansari, Nijam Ansari and
Nabi Mian are dated 18.09.2020 i.e. before recording of
confessional statement and hence, it cannot be considered
to be confession leading to discovery of incriminating
material and hence, both the seizure lists cannot be relied
upon.
16. Learned counsel has further submitted that DNA
profile could not be generated from the knife which is stated
to be recovered on the basis of confessional statement of the
accused. The Inquest Report or post-mortem report is also of
no help for coming conclusion of the guilt of the accused.
17. Learned counsel has submitted that PW 4, PW 5, PW
6 and PW 7 are all relatives of the said deceased and actually
there is no eyewitness on the point of last seen.
18. Learned counsel further submits that the
prosecution has a case that the deceased was found missing
but no missing report has been proved or exhibited in the
present case.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid
premise, has submitted that the present interlocutory
application deserves to be allowed by keeping the sentence
in abeyance.
Submission of the learned APP for the state
20. While on the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State of Jharkhand, has vehemently opposed
the prayer made in the present interlocutory application filed
for keeping the sentence in abeyance by referring to
impugned judgment of conviction and various paragraphs of
the trial court record.
21. It has been submitted that on the disclosure made in
the confessional statement of Ibrahim Ansari, co-convict, two
knives used in the said crime and burned clothes have been
recovered and he has also taken the name of the present
appellant involved in the commission of crime.
22. The Learned APP while referring the testimony of
PW-5 who is the brother of Sateyendar Nath Mishra
(deceased) wherein PW-5 has categorically stated that the
deceased accompanied the accused Ibrahim Ansari and
Maqsood Ansari on a vehicle bearing Registration No.UP-
66Z-3139 and mobile phone of the victim as well as the
accused, was switched off, and has contended that there is
no dispute that deceased was last accompanied with the
present applicant and Ibrahim Ansari and further this fact
has also been substantiated by the testimony of P.W.6.
23. It has also been disclosed in the confessional
statement of Ibrahim Ansari that the deceased, namely,
Sateyendra Nath Mishra was having illicit relationship with
the wife of the present appellant, as such, it cannot be said
that the present appellant was not having any motive for the
commission of crime.
24. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent-State of Jharkhand, based upon the
aforesaid premise has submitted that the present
interlocutory application is fit to be rejected.
Analysis
25. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
appreciated the submission made on behalf of both the
parties and has also gone through the material available on
record including the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence.
26. Further, since it is case under Section 302 IPC and
present appellant/applicant has been convicted for offence
of murder, therefore, at this juncture it requires to refer
herein the settled position of law that in cases involving
conviction under Section 302 IPC, it is only in exceptional
cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be
granted, reference in this regard be made to the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, (2023) 6
SCC 123, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the
aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as under:
"31. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra [Vijay Kumar v.
Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1195] and
Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal [Ramji Prasad v.
Rattan Kumar Jaiswal, (2002) 9 SCC 366 : 2003 SCC
(Cri) 1197] , it was held by this Court that in cases
involving conviction under Section 302IPC, it is only in
exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of
sentence can be granted. In Vijay Kumar [Vijay Kumar
v. Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1195] ,
it was held that in considering the prayer for bail in a
case involving a serious offence like murder punishable
under Section 302IPC, the court should consider the
relevant factors like the nature of accusation made
against the accused, the manner in which the crime is
alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the
offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on
bail after they have been convicted for committing the
serious offence of murder.
33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the
endeavour on the part of the court, therefore, should be
to see as to whether the case presented by the
prosecution and accepted by the trial court can be said
to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for
fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the abovesaid
question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary
corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately the
convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the
hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the
bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the
appeal, which usually takes very long for decision and
disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to
ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of
acquittal, what is to be looked into is something
palpable. To put it in other words, something which is
very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the
basis of which, the court can arrive at a prima facie
satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable.
The appellate court should not reappreciate the
evidence at the stage of Section 389 CrPC and try to pick
up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case
of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct
approach."
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently on 09th April,
2025, in the case of Janardan Ray Vs. The State of Bihar
& Anr. ETC. (Cr. Appeal Nos. 1892-1893 of 2025 arising
out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 18326-18327 of 2024) while placing
reliance upon decision rendered in the case of Om Prakash
Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr., (supra) has
observed in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under:
"6. In our opinion, the decision of this Court in the case of Om
Prakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr. (2023) 6
SCC 123 clinches the issue involved in the present appeals. It
has been observed while considering the scope of Section 389
of Cr.P.C as under.:-
"30. In Kishori Lal v. Rupa [Kishori Lal v. Rupa, (2004)
7 SCC 638], this Court has indicated the factors that
require to be considered by the courts while granting
benefit under Section 389 CrPC in cases involving
serious offences like murder, etc. Thus, it is useful to
refer to the observations made therein, which are as
follows : (SCC pp. 639-40, paras 4-6)
4. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of
execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of
the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail
and suspension of sentence. One of the essential
ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the
appellate court to record reasons in writing for ordering
suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed
against. If he is in confinement, the said court can direct
that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The
requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly
indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the
relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of
sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a
matter of routine.
5. The appellate court is duty-bound to objectively assess
the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that
the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence
and grant of bail. In the instant case, the only factor
which seems to have weighed with the High Court for
directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the
absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the
earlier period when the accused-respondents were on
bail.
6. The mere fact that during the trial, they were granted
bail and there was no allegation of misuse of liberty, is
really not of much significance. The effect of bail granted
during trial loses significance when on completion of trial,
the accused persons have been found guilty. The mere
fact that during the period when the accused persons
were on bail during trial there was no misuse of liberties,
does not per se warrant suspension of execution of
sentence and grant of bail. What really was necessary to
be considered by the High Court is whether reasons
existed to suspend the execution of sentence and
thereafter grant bail. The High Court does not seem to
have kept the in view.
------
7. Having regard to the aforestated settled legal position, we
are of the opinion that the High Court has committed gross
error in appreciating the evidence already appreciated by the
Trial Court at the time of considering the applications seeking
suspension of sentence pending the appeal. Since this was a
case of conviction under Section 302 IPC, the initial
presumption available to the accused before conviction, would
not be available to him. The High Court could not have
suspended the sentence, reappreciating the evidence at the
stage of Section 389 and trying to pick up a few lacunae or
loopholes here or there in the case of prosecution. The
consideration of High Court to the submission made on behalf
of the accused that he had not misused the liberty during the
trial or that the appeal was not likely to be heard in near
future, could not be said to be the proper consideration for
suspending the sentence of the accused, who have been
convicted for the serious offence under Section 302, IPC. It is
only in rare and exceptional circumstances, the benefit of
suspension of sentence should be granted by the appellate
court to the accused convicted for the serious offence under
Section 302, IPC."
28. Thus, it is evident from perusal of the relevant
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment that while considering
the bail in considering the prayer for bail, in a case involving
a serious offence like murder punishable under Section
302 IPC, the Court should consider the relevant factors like
the nature of accusation made against the accused, the
manner in which the crime is alleged to have been
committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of
releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted
for committing the serious offence of murder.
29. It is further evident from perusal of the relevant
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment that the appellate
court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage
of consideration of suspension of sentence and try to pick up
a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of the
prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach and at
this stage Court is only to see the prima facie case for its
satisfaction.
30. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preet
Pal Singh vs. State of U.P., (2020) 8 SCC 645 has observed
that there is difference between grant of bail in case of pre-
trial arrest and suspension of sentence, post- conviction. In
the earlier case, there may be presumption of innocence,
which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence,
and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case, however, in case of post-
conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence,
there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of
innocence does not arise. For ready reference the relevant
paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as
under:
"35. There is a difference between grant of bail
under Section 439 CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and
suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC and
grant of bail, post conviction. In the earlier case, there
may be presumption of innocence, which is a
fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and
the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is
the rule and jail is an exception, as held by this Court
in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [Dataram Singh v.
State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 675]
However, in case of post-conviction bail, by suspension
of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt
and the question of presumption of innocence does not
arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail
an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon
trial. Rather, the court considering an application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider
the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other
factors. There should be strong compelling reasons for
grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by
suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling
reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as
mandated in Section 389(1) CrPC."
31. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment, that
while considering suspension of sentence which is the post-
conviction stage, the presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused cannot be available and at this stage, the Court's
only duty is to see that the prima-facie case is made out or
not and as such the detailed appreciation of evidence is not
required at this stage.
32. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the Hon'ble
Apex Court has categorically observed that since after
conviction, the initial presumption available to the accused
before conviction, would not be available to him, therefore
the High Court could not have suspended the sentence,
reappreciating the evidence at the stage of Section 389 and
trying to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in
the case of prosecution.
33. It has further been observed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court that the consideration of High Court to the submission
made on behalf of the accused that he had not misused the
liberty during the trial or that the appeal was not likely to be
heard in near future, could not be said to be the proper
consideration for suspending the sentence of the accused,
who has been convicted for the serious offence under Section
302, IPC and it is only in rare and exceptional
circumstances, the benefit of suspension of sentence should
be granted by the appellate court to the accused convicted
for the serious offence under Section 302, IPC.
34. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition
of law, this Court is now adverting to the factual aspect of
the case as well as the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant in order to find out that whether the prayer of
the applicant/appellant for suspension of sentence is fit to
be allowed or not.
35. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has
contended that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and
the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and that
the prosecution has proceeded on imaginary theory of having
last seen the accused with the deceased and existence of
financial transaction between the accused and the deceased,
therefore , it is fit case where prayer for suspension of
sentence of the applicant/appellant may be allowed.
36. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence and has contended that
PW-5 who is the brother of Sateyendar Nath Mishra
(deceased) had categorically stated that the deceased
accompanied the accused Ibrahim Ansari and Maqsood
Ansari (present appellant) on a vehicle bearing Registration
No.UP-66Z-3139 and mobile phone of the victim as well as
the accused, was switched off, and as such, there is no
dispute that deceased was last accompanied with the
present applicant and Ibrahim Ansari and this fact has also
been substantiated by the testimony of P.W.6. therefore, the
theory of last seen has fully been established along with the
other complete chain of circumstances which are sufficient
to prove the guilt of present appellant.
37. In the aforesaid context there is no dispute about the
settled position of law that the conviction on the basis of last
seen theory, the proper consideration is to be there by the
learned trial court on the basis of principle of completion of
chain and the moment the chain will break, there cannot be
conviction on the basis of last seen, since, it is based upon
circumstantial evidence.
38. It requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the year 1952, in the judgment rendered in
Hanumant Son of Govind Nargundkar vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343] has laid down the
parameters under which, the case of circumstantial evidence
is to be evaluated, which suggests that - "It is well to
remember that in cases where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance
be fully established, and all the facts so established should
be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude
every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other
words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused. ......"
39. Further, a theory of "accused last seen in the
company of the deceased" is a strong circumstance against
the accused while appreciating the circumstantial evidence.
In such cases, unless the accused is able to explain properly
the material circumstances appearing against him, he can
be held guilty for commission of offence for which he is
charged.
40. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satpal v. State
of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 610 has observed that when
there is no eyewitness to the occurrence but only
circumstances coupled with the fact of the deceased having
been last seen with the appellant, the Criminal
jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave
little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for
invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial
evidence.
41. It has further been observed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the aforesaid judgment that "last seen" may be a
weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the
same singularly. But when it is coupled with other
circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last
seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being
in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an
explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with
regard to the circumstances under which death may have
taken place. If the accused offers no explanation, or
furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is
established, and there is corroborative evidence available
inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain
of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the
accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of
innocence, conviction can be based on the same.
42. In the instant case PW-5 is Harendra Nath Mishra
(brother of Sateyendra Nath Mishra, the deceased) had
specifically stated that on 30th August, 2020 between 06:00
to 07:00 a.m. Maqsood Ansari (present applicant) and
Ibrahim Ansari had taken his brother Sateyendra Nath
Mishra on a Honda Shine motor-cycle green in colour
bearing Registration No.UP-66Z-3139 where the accused
persons brought the victim to Jharkhand on the assurance
to repay the dues amount. He has further stated that the
mobile phone of Ibrahim Ansari and Maqsood Ansari was
also found switched. In the cross-examination at para 16, he
stated that the deceased had accompanied Maqsood on the
motor-cycle of Maqsood Ansari.
43. PW-6 Atul Kumar Mishra had stated that on 30th of
August, 2020 in his presence and before his eyes he saw
Ibrahim Ansari and Maqsood Ansari (present applicant) had
accompanied Sateyendra Nath Mishra(deceased) from
Gopiganj to Jharkhand for payment of money and for about
couple of days when no information was received then he
tried to contact the accused as also the deceased but all the
mobiles were switched off. This witness had identified the
accused Ibrahim Ansari and Maqsood Ansari.
44. PW 7 Naman Mishra had stated that he had seen the
deceased accompanying the accused on 30.08.2020. He was
in his in-laws house which is at the distance of 600 to 700
meters from the house of the deceased. He also stated that
he heard that the accused persons talking about some
monitory transaction and on 28th of August, 2020, his
maternal uncle informed him that he would be going to
Giridih and on 29th of August, 2020, the deceased told him
that on 30th of August, 2020, he would be going to Giridih
and on 30th of August, 2020, the deceased alongwith Md.
Maqsood and Ibrahim left Gopiganj on a motor-cycle. He has
also stated about the agreement prepared between the
accused and the deceased bearing signature of Maqsood
Ansari, Sateyendra Nath Mishra and Harendra Nath Mishra.
He identified the signature of Sateyendra Nath Mishra and
Harendra Nath Mishra which is marked as Ext P-3 & Ext P-
3/1.
45. Thus, on the basis of testimony of the aforesaid
witnesses, prima facie it appears that deceased was last seen
in company of the present appellant and co-accused Ibrahim
Ansari. Further it is evident that there was some financial
transaction between the deceased and accused including the
present appellant and the accused/appellant induced the
deceased to come to Jharkhand for getting the said payment.
46. Further, it is evident that there was a previous
acquaintance between the accused and the deceased and
this part of the evidence there is no denial or rebuttal on
behalf of the accused, therefore, the accused was not
unknown to the deceased and that they had previous
business or other linkage is a proven fact and this linkage is
against the accused Ibrahim Ansari and Maqsood Ansari
(present applicant).
47. Further, all the witnesses have stated unequivocally
that Sateyendra Nath Mishra (deceased) was scheduled to go
to Giridih, Jharkhand from his place of residence Gopiganj
within the State of U. P. accompanied by Ibrahim Ansari and
Maqsood Ansari. This part of the evidence has been fully
corroborated by the witnesses PW 4, PW 5, PW 6 and PW 7.
48. Thus, prima facie it appears that the accused
Ibrahim Ansari and Maqsood Ansari (present applicant) were
last seen together with the deceased Sateyendra Nath
Mishra, thus the one of the circumstances of last seen has
been established herein by the prosecution. Therefore, the
contention of learned counsel for the appellant that chain of
circumstances is not completed is not fit be accepted at this
stage.
49. Further, the learned counsel for the applicant has
contended that no discovery was made by Ibrahim Ansari as
he was arrested on 12.09.2020 and his confessional
statement was recorded at 08:10 PM. while the seizure list
shows the date and time to be 11.09.2020 at 11:30 P. M.
50. In the aforesaid context the learned trial court has
observed that on a careful scrutiny of the entre document it
transpires that Column-VIII, the date which is mentioned as
12.09.2020 and the accused Ibrahim Ansari was arrested as
per the arrest memo, on 12.09.2020 and therefore under no
circumstance his signature on the seizure list could have
been taken on 11.09.2020, therefore, the mere mentioning
of the date as 11.09.2020 in Column appears to be a slip of
pen and such error cannot be aggravated to discard the
evidentiary value of Ext P-9 which is also in co-relation of the
discovery of the weapon of crime on the basis of confessional
statement of accused Ibrahim Ansari and therefore, to that
extent the confessional statement is also relevant in terms of
Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
51. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove,
prima facie there is convincing evidence of previous
acquaintance between two accused and the deceased. There
is also clinching evidence that the accused was last seen with
the deceased and thus these circumstances are sufficient to
prima facie establish the role of the present
applicant/appellant with regard to the alleged offence i.e.
the murder of Sateyendra Nath Mishra.
52. This Court, on the basis of discussion made
hereinabove and particularly taking into consideration the
testimony of P.W.4, 5, 6 and 7 as also taking into
consideration the ratio of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Janardan Ray Vs. The
State of Bihar & Anr. ETC (supra) and Preet Pal Singh vs.
State of U.P (supra,) prima-facie, is of the view that the
present interlocutory application is not fit to be allowed.
53. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application
stands dismissed, as such, disposed of.
54. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that
we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on
merits of the matter one way or the other and all the
observations made by us hereinabove should be taken as
confined to dealing with the prayer of the
applicant/appellant under Section 430 of the BNSS 2023. As
and when the main matter i.e. criminal appeal will come up
for hearing, it will be decided on its own merits without being
inhibited or influenced by the observations in this order.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Date: 25th November, 2025
Birendra/
Uploaded on 25.11.2025
