Jharkhand High Court
Jamruddin Khan vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 10 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:28314-DB )
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 227 of 1997 (R)
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
06.10.1997 passed by Shri Lakhan Kumar Sahay, learned Sessions
Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 144/1996]
---------
1. Jamruddin Khan, S/o Khadim Khan
2. Khadim Khan, S/o Late Amarali Mian
3. Matim Khatoon, W/o Khadim Khan
4. Safru Khan @ Safruddin Khan, S/o Khadim Khan
5. Tajim Khan, S/o Khadim Khan
6. Afroda Khan, S/o Khadim Khan
All are residents of Village- Jagmai, P.S. Chainpur, District-
Gumla. ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
---------
PRESENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Shubham Sinha, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
---------
C.A.V. ORDER
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Shubham Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae
for the appellants and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P.
for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 06.10.1997 passed by
Shri Lakhan Kumar Sahay, learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in
S.T. No. 144/1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellant
no. 1 has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s
304(B) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life u/s 304(B) of
the IPC and R.I. for 2 years u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
while the rest of the appellants have been convicted for the
offences u/s 498(A) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and have been sentenced to R.I. for 2 years for
the offence u/s 498A of the IPC and R.I. for 2 years for the
offence u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of a complaint
case lodged by Md. Ayub Khan, in which, it has been stated
that the sister of the complainant namely, Reshma Khatoon
was married to Jamruddin Khan in the year 1993 and at the
time of marriage there was a demand of a Rajdoot motorcycle
and Television but the complainant and his family members
expressed their inability to accede to such demand because of
financial constrains. When the sister of the complainant went
to her matrimonial house the demand was once again made
and when approached the father and the brother of Reshma
Khatoon once again expressed their inability to meet such
demand as they were poor persons. The sister of the
complainant was taken back to her matrimonial house where
she was abused, assaulted and tortured. In the meantime, a
son was born to Reshma Khatoon who was separated from
his mother and she was threatened that till the dowry
demand is not fulfilled she will not have any respite from the
torture. It has been stated that recently Jamruddin Khan had
taken Reshma Khatoon to village Choriya where he had asked
the cousin brother of Reshma Khatoon as to why despite
three years of marriage the demand was not fulfilled, at
which, Jamruddin Khan was told of the troubles been faced
by the family and in course of time everything will be settled.
It has been alleged that on 26.01.1996 at 6:00 P.M., an
information was received that Reshma Khatoon is sick, at
which, the complainant and some family members had gone
to the matrimonial house of Reshma Khatoon where her dead
body was found lying in the courtyard. The accused persons
had disclosed that Reshma Khatoon had set her ablaze and
her child and the information was furnished to the Police
station and postmortem had also been done. The complainant
came to know from the persons of the locality that Reshma
Khatoon used to be regularly tortured and she was murdered.
The complaint was sent to the Police u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C. where it was registered as Chainpur P.S. Case No.
9/96. 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. 144/1996. Charge was framed against the accused
Jamruddin Khan u/s 304(B) of the IPC and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, while against the rest accused persons
u/s 304(B)/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act 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
seventeen witnesses in support of its case.
5. P.W.1 (Nasim Khan) has been tendered by the
prosecution.
6. P.W.2 (Makbul Khan), P.W.3 (Seikh Idwa), P.W.4
(Saira Khatoon), P.W.5 (Gulshan Bibi), P.W.6 (Sarfulla Khan),
P.W.7 (Imtiyaj Khan), P.W.8 (Nur Mohammad) and P.W.9
(Pyaran Bibi) did not support the case of the prosecution and
were declared hostile by the prosecution.
7. P.W.10 (Sharif Khan) is the father of the deceased
Reshma Khatoon who has stated that the marriage of his
daughter was solemnized with Jamruddin Khan on
26.01.1993. Jamruddin already had a wife prior to his
marriage with Reshma Khatoon. His daughter used to be
tortured by Jamruddin Khan and this was disclosed by his
daughter whenever he went to meet her. After marriage, his
son-in-law used to demand a motorcycle and a colour T.V.
His daughter had disclosed that she was subjected to assault
for non-fulfillment of the said demand. His daughter had
come to his house about 2-2½ months prior to the
occurrence. At that point, of time his son Ayub Khan used to
stay at Bijupara. He had told his daughter to go to Bijupara
and disclosed about the demand to her brother. After three
days, Jamruddin had come and since Reshma Khatoon was
at Bijupara he also had left for Bijupara from where he took
Reshma to his house. He has stated that on 26.01.1996 at
1:30 P.M. Afroj and the cousin brother of Afroj had come to
his house on a motorcycle and disclosed that Reshma and her
son are suffering from diarrhea and that their condition is
precarious. He had gone to Jamgai where he had found a
truck standing in front of the matrimonial house of his
daughter. The brother of Jamruddin had disclosed that his
daughter and grandson are serious and they are being taken
to Chainpur for treatment. The brother of Jamruddin namely,
Tajim had assured him that after Roza he would take him to
Chainpur but he did not follow his assurance and he
remained at night in the matrimonial house of his daughter.
On the next day at 11:00 A.M., the truck came and from it,
the dead body of his daughter and grandson were taken out.
He had become unconscious and later on, he saw the dead
bodies, which were in a burnt condition.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the
mother of Jamruddin had disclosed that the first wife of
Jamruddin used to remain sick and she had also not given
birth to a child because of which she was given Talak by
Jamruddin. Jamruddin after his marriage used to stay
separate from his brother and father.
8. P.W.11 (Yaseen Khan) has stated that Reshma
Khatoon was his niece. On 26.01.1996 at 5:00 P.M., a person
had come from the house of Jamruddin who had disclosed
that Reshma is suffering from diarrhea. On 27.01.1996 at
12:00 P.M., he had reached Jamgai and at 1:00 P.M., a truck
came where the brunt dead bodies of Reshma and her son
were lying. Jamruddin and his brother evaded questions as to
how the deceased had suffered such injuries. He could find
from the ambiance that both were burnt to death in the house
itself.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that it is his
personal belief that the incident had taken place inside the
house.
9. P.W.12 (Murtaza Khan) is the cousin brother of
Reshma who has stated that on 26.01.1996 he had come to
know about the incident of 25.01.1996. He had gone to
Jamgai on 27.01.1996, where he had seen the bodies after
being bathed were covered with cloths. He had removed the
cloths and from the face, he could find out that the bodies
have been badly burnt. Md. Tajim and Sarfu had disclosed
that if the demand of motorcycle and T.V. were fulfilled the
incident would not have happened. He had thereafter left with
the others to cremate the dead bodies. Jamruddin and Tajim
had disclosed that Reshma had sprinkled kerosene oil upon
her and set herself ablaze. About 15/20 days prior to the
occurrence, Jamruddin and Reshma had come to his house
and demand was made of motorcycle and T.V.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had
not gone to Jamgai earlier. He does not know as to why
Jamruddin had given Talak to his first wife. By the time he
and Tabaraq had reached Jamgai the mother, brother and
sister of Reshma were already found present. He had later on
come to know that Jamruddin had earlier solemnized a
marriage and he had also given Talak to his first wife. He and
his family members had assured after marriage that a T.V.
and a motorcycle will be given to Jamruddin.
10. P.W.13 (Tabaraq Khan) has been tendered by the
prosecution.
11. P.W.14 (Dr. Rajesh Kr. Gupta) was posted as a
Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on
27.01.1996 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of
Reshma Bibi and had found the following:
"The whole body was in pugilistic attitude, smell of
kerosene and burnt tissues present. Ruptured blisters
with reddish base and margin present all over the
body, slight distinction present in abdomen.
Dermoepidermal burn of whole body except waistline
area, front and back i.e. the burn was 95%. Scalp,
hairs back burnt and smegma and fallen out. Lower
part of both legs deeply burnt with charring of soft
tissues, muscles and bones; carbon porthole found all
over body. Larynx and trachea, lungs and stomach,
cherry red blood present in all four chambers of heart.
Tongue swollen, blackish and protruded out of mouth.
The burn was antemortem and was grievous in
nature, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death."
The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due
to burn. The postmortem report has been proved and marked
as Exhibit-2.
12. P.W.15 (Md. Ayub Khan) is the informant who has
stated that the marriage of his sister Reshma Khatoon was
solemnized with Jamruddin Khan in the year 1993. At the
time when the marriage discussions were going on Jamruddin
had demanded a Rajdoot motorcycle and a Television. Despite
being said that in their religion there is no concept of dowry
and they are also not financially capable to meet such
demand Jamruddin and his brother Nasim and mother used
to come to his house and expressed their intention to get the
marriage solemnized and they will not demand anything.
Believing in their words the marriage was got solemnized.
After his sister had gone to her matrimonial house at Jamgai
her husband and in-laws started taunting her and demanded
a T.V. and a motorcycle. When his sister came to Kairo she
had disclosed about the demand to him. When after marriage
Jamruddin and Reshma had come to Kairo Jamruddin had
once again made a demand of a T.V. and a motorcycle. He
was somehow pacified by making a promise to fulfill the
demand when the financial condition improves. Whenever
Reshma came from her matrimonial house, she used to
complain that she was abused and assaulted by her in-laws.
The accused persons had tortured her since their demand
was not fulfilled. On 26.01.1996, he had received an
information from his brother Nasim that on the same day the
brother of Jamruddin and another person had come and
informed that Reshma is vomiting and she is having loose
motion. On 27.01.1996, he had gone to Jamgai from Bijupara
where he had seen burnt dead bodies of his sister and her son
lying in the courtyard of Jamruddin. He had met his parents
there who had disclosed that when they reached Jamgai on
26.01.1996 in the evening they had seen a truck standing
and it was disclosed that Reshma was being taken to a
hospital. When he had asked about the incident to Tajim it
was disclosed that the incident would not have happened had
the demand been fulfilled. From the neighbors he could learnt
that his sister was frequently assaulted and she was burnt to
death. He had thereafter gone to Chainpur P.S. where it was
disclosed that investigation is going on. Since he felt that the
Police were hand in gloves with the accused, they had
instituted a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate. He has proved his signature on the complaint,
which has been marked as Exhibit-3.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he
knew that Jamruddin was already married and that he had a
daughter from the said marriage. He had stated before the
Police that when Reshma and Jamruddin had come to his
house Jamruddin had demanded a T.V. and a motorcycle
otherwise he would keep Reshma at her parents' house and
leave. He and his parents and brother had never witnessed
any torture committed upon Reshma. He had gone to Jamgai
only once when he had put up in the house of his sister and
brother-in-law. There are twenty family members in the house
of the in-laws of Reshma. He had stated before the Police that
Jamruddin had disclosed that he had made a minor assault
upon Reshma regarding planting of garlic.
13. P.W.16 (Sharefan Bibi) is the mother of the
deceased Reshma who has stated that Afroj had come to her
house along with his cousin brother at 12:00 Noon and
disclosed that Reshma and her son are suffering from
diarrhea and asked her to go and see Reshma. Her husband
on hearing such news left for Jamgai with Afroj on the same
motorcycle. She had gone on the next day to Jamgai with
Ayub. When she had reached, they had found a truck
standing and the dead body of Reshma and her son were
being brought down from the truck. Both the bodies were in a
burnt condition. When she asked as to how they suffered
burn injuries, she was reprimanded by Sarfu and Najeeb. Her
daughter when she came to her house for the first time after
marriage was not willing to return back to her matrimonial
house on the ground that Jamruddin constantly demands
T.V. and motorcycle and commits physical assault upon her.
Her daughter had also disclosed that she would be sent to
jungle to graze cattle and would also be abused. About 20-22
days prior to the incident Reshma had come to her house and
then also she did not want to go back to her matrimonial
house. The parents and brother of Jamruddin used to
instigate Jamruddin to commit torture upon Reshma.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that prior
to the marriage of her daughter with Jamruddin she knew
that Jamruddin was earlier married but a Talak had been
given to his first wife. She had not disclosed to any of the
villagers the reluctance on the part of Reshma to go back to
her matrimonial house since she was assaulted for non-
fulfillment of the demand of a motorcycle and T.V. Reshma
had come to her house twenty-two days prior to the incident
and Jamruddin had also accompanied her who had stayed for
a day.
14. P.W.17 (Shanker Ram) was posted at Chainpur
P.S. and on 17.02.1996, a complaint was received from the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla being C19/96 on the basis
of which Chainpur P.S. Case No. 9/1996 was instituted. He
has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-
4. He has proved the handwriting and signature of the Officer-
in-Charge of Chainpur P.S. on the complaint which has been
marked as Exhibit-3/1. He was handed over the investigation
of the case. Before lodging the FIR, a case being U.D. Case No.
2/1996 was instituted in which the inquest report, seizure
etc. were attached. He had inspected the place of occurrence,
which is the residential house of Jamruddin Khan situated at
village Jamgai. The room on the northern side is the place of
occurrence. A half-burnt bed was found along with burnt
mattress and cloths. Some of the portion of the wall had
become black. He had recorded the restatement of the
informant and the statement of the witnesses. He had
perused the postmortem report, U.D. Case Diary and on
completion of investigation had submitted charge-sheet. He
had recorded the statement of Maqbool Khan who had stated
that two days prior to the occurrence Jamruddin had
committed assault upon Reshma Khatoon. He had also
recorded the statement of Seikh Idwa who had stated that
Jamruddin used to regularly commit assault upon his wife
and on 24.01.1996 assault was also committed. The
witnesses Saira Khatoon, Gulshan Bibi, Sarfullah Khan,
Imtiaz Khan, Noor Mohammed and Pyaran Bibi have all
stated about quarrel between Jamruddin and his wife and the
assault committed upon her by Jamruddin Khan.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that with
respect to demand of dowry and torture no Panchayati was
ever held. The witness Afroj Khan had not disclosed that
Najeem had asked Reshma Khan to bring a T.V. and a
motorcycle from her parents.
In examination on recall, he has proved the
seizure list, which has been marked as Exhibit-5. The inquest
reports have been proved and marked as Exhibits- 6 and 7.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the
seizure list and the inquest report were not prepared in his
presence.
15. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s
313 Cr.P.C., in which, they have denied their complicity in
the commission of the offence.
16. The defence has examined two witnesses in
support of its case.
17. D.W.1 (Joakim Xalxo) has stated that an incident
of fire had taken place on 25.01.1996 in the house of
Jamruddin and due to which his wife and children had died.
He had searched for Jamruddin in the market and on finding
him had disclosed about the incident to him. Jamruddin used
to stay separate from his parents.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that before
he had left for the market the house of Jamruddin was
already on fire.
18. D.W.2 (Md. Sahadat Khan) has stated that before
solemnization of the marriage of Reshma Khatoon with
Jamruddin several prospective bribe grooms had seen
Reshma but none of them agreed to marry her, as she was
mentally ill. After the marriage no demand of dowry was made
by Jamruddin from the parents of Reshma. Reshma had
never made any complaints against her in-laws.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that
Reshma was his niece in relation.
19. It has been submitted by Mr. Shubham Sinha,
learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants that the prosecution
has failed to establish that there was a demand of dowry and
the deceased Reshma Khatoon was subjected to torture. It
has been submitted that most of the witnesses of the
prosecution are related to the deceased hence interested
witnesses. A plausible explanation has been given by D.W.1
regarding a fire which had taken place in the house of
Jamruddin and this fact has been established by the evidence
of P.W.7. All the independent witnesses have been declared
hostile by the prosecution. The incident had occurred due to
an accident which fact has not at all been considered by the
learned trial court.
20. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State
has submitted that the involvement of the appellants is
apparent from the fact that initially a different story was
projected to the effect that Reshma Khatoon and her son were
suffering from diarrhea and subsequently when the parents
and relatives of Reshma Khatoon had reached village Jamgai
they had found the bodies of Reshma Khatoon and her son in
a badly burnt condition and no explanation has been put
forward by the defense as to the reason for suffering such
burn injuries. The incident had taken place in the
matrimonial house of the deceased Reshma Khatoon which
further more strengthens the case of the prosecution.
21. We have heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court
Records.
22. Initially a complaint case was filed by the
complainant Ayub Khan which on being referred to the Police
u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. resulted in institution of Chainpur P.S.
Case No. 9/1996. After the incident had occurred an
unnatural death (U.D.) case being U.D. Case No. 2/1996 was
registered in which the autopsy was done and a seizure list
was also prepared with respect to seizure of some burnt
articles. Though the prosecution has examined as many as
seventeen witnesses but most have not supported the case of
the prosecution and were accordingly declared hostile by the
prosecution. P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.15 and P.W.16 are
the relevant witnesses of the prosecution and all are closely
related to the deceased. The evidence of these witnesses are
primarily centered around the role played by the appellant no.
1 who is the husband of the deceased namely, Jamruddin
Khan. Whenever the deceased Reshma Khatoon used to come
to her parents' place, she had disclosed about the demand of
T.V. and a motorcycle made and she was regularly subjected
to assault by the appellant no. 1. Even a few days prior to the
incident, a demand was made and Reshma Khatoon was
subjected to assault. The role played by the appellant no. 1 in
the entire incident has occupied a predominant place in the
evidence of the witnesses who have been consistent with the
demand of dowry made by the appellant no. 1 and the regular
assault and torture committed upon the deceased Reshma
Khatoon. Though the defense has tried to present a picture
that Reshma Khatoon was mentally ill but no document or
any concrete evidence has been brought on record in support
thereof. The deceased had died at her matrimonial house in
unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and
immediately preceding her death a demand of T.V. and a
motorcycle was made by the appellant no. 1 which
convincingly proves the involvement of the appellant no. 1 in
committing the dowry death of his wife. D.W.1 has stated that
a fire had taken place in the house of the appellant no. 1
leading to the death of Reshma Khatoon and her son but the
evidence of P.W.17 reveals about burnt bed, mattresses and
cloths only found in the room where Reshma Khatoon was
residing and there is nothing to indicate that there were signs
of burns at any other place inside the premises.
23. So far as the rest of the appellants are concerned,
there have been vague insinuation cast against them and
nothing of substance has come in the evidence of P.W.10,
P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.15 and P.W.16 so far as these appellants
are concerned. However, at the same time we must take a
note of the evidence of P.W.10 who in his cross-examination
has stated that Jamruddin after his marriage used to stay
separate from his brother and father. In fact, D.W.1 has
reiterated the said fact of the appellant no. 1 living separately
from the other appellants. The rest of the appellants have
been convicted which primarily stems from the fact that they
all are related to the appellant no. 1.
24. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of conviction so
far as the appellant no. 1 (Jamruddin Khan) is concerned and
as regards the rest appellants the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 06.10.1997 passed by Shri
Lakhan Kumar Sahay, learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T.
No. 144/1996 is hereby set aside. They are discharged from
the liability of their bail bonds.
25. The appellant no. 1 has remained in custody for
more than three years. On consideration of the entire facets of
the case, the period of custody undergone by the appellant
no. 1 as also considering the rigors of the case undergone by
him for about three decades, we modify and reduce the
sentence to R.I. for 10 years.
26. Since the appellant no. 1 is on bail, he is directed
to surrender immediately and forthwith to serve out the rest
part of his sentence.
27. This appeal is partly allowed.
28. Pending I.As., if any, stands closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 10th day of September, 2025.
A. Sanga /-
