[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Amir Mian Son Of Late Bechan Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 March, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1286 of 2004
......
[Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
09.07.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Sessions Trial
No.25 of 2003 and against the judgment of conviction dated 24.03.2006
and order of sentence dated 27.03.2006 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Latehar in Sessions Case No.96 of
2005. Both the Sessions case arise out of Manika P.S. Case No.20 of
2002]
......
1. Amir Mian Son of Late Bechan Mian
2. Md. Mazid Mian Son of Amir Mian
Resident of Chankia, P.S. Manika, District Latehar (Jharkhand)
.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... Respondent
WITH
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 507 of 2006
......
1. Shamim Mian S/o Md. Jahenullah
2. Rashida Bibi W/o Shamim Mian
Both Residents of Village - Karkat, P.S. Latehar District -
Latehar.
3. Sakuran Bibi W/o Amir Mian
Resident of Village - Chaukiya, P.S. Manika, District - Latehar
.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 1 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Senior Adv.
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
[Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1286 of 2004]
Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.
[Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 507 of 2006]
......
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 05.02.2026 Pronounced on 24.03.2026
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel
for the appellants and Mr. Tarun Kumar and Mr. V.S. Sahay,
learned A.P.P.s appearing for the State.
2. Instant Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1286 2004 is directed against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
09.07.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Latehar in S.T.
No.25 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been
held guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life. The other co-accused Mahboob Ansari has
been acquitted.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 2 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
3. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.507 of 2006 is directed against the
judgment of conviction dated 24.03.2006 and order of sentence
dated 27.03.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court Latehar in Sessions Case No.96 of 2005,
whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for
the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along
with fine of Rs.5000/- each with default stipulation.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is that informant Md.
Hadish Ansari got married his daughter Shairun Bibi with Md.
Mazid Mian about 7-8 years back. It is alleged that out of their
wedlock, two daughters were begotten due to that reason Shairun
Bibi was abused and assaulted by her husband as she could not
delivered a male child and her husband was insisting upon her that
he will solemnize second marriage. It is alleged that in or about in
the month of February 2002, the informant's daughter was driven
out from her matrimonial home by her husband and in-laws and
left at the house of her parents. It is further alleged that few days
ago, Amir Ansari (father-in-law) of Shairun Bibi got vidai and
brought to her matrimonial home to attend the marriage ceremony
of sister-in-law of Shairun Bibi scheduled to be held on
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 3 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
11.05.2002. It is alleged that the informant also went to attend the
said marriage and return back on 12.05.2002. It is further alleged
that on 15.05.2002, informant's son-in-law along with one Soyeeb
Mian came at his house and informed that Shairun Bibi had gone
anywhere on previous day. Since, the informant's daughter had
not reached his house then he started searching his daughter and
was proceeding to her sasural but in the way at Chaukia (a place
nearby to the matrimonial home of Shairun Bibi), the informant
saw that his daughter was lying under a tree tied with clothe
around her neck in sitting condition. It was suspected by the
informant that his son-in-law with association of any other person,
has killed his daughter on 14.05.2002 and thereafter, informed to
him that informant's daughter had gone to anywhere.
On the basis of above information, Manika P.S. Case No.20
of 2002 was registered on 15.05.2002 for the offence under
Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against accused Mazid Ansari and
other unknown accused persons.
5. In the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found
complicity of accused Mahboob Alam, Amir Mian and other
family members on the basis of confessional statement of
Mahboob Alam @ Jumma.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 4 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
6. After investigation, first Charge-sheet No.35 of 2002 was
submitted on 13.08.2002 against the present appellants along with
one Mahboob Ansari continuing investigation against accused
Shamim Mian, Rashida Bibi (sister-in-law) and Sakuran Bibi
(mother-in-law) of the deceased.
7. Later on, accused Shamim Mian, Rashida Bibi and Sakuran Bibi
were charge-sheeted vide Charge-sheet No. 17 of 2005 dated
30.05.2005 above three accused persons were also charge-sheeted
for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and have faced
separate trial vide Sessions Case No. 96 of 2005, which was also
decided vide judgment of conviction dated 24.03.2006 and order
of sentence dated 27.03.2006, whereby and whereunder the above
three appellants have also been held guilty and sentenced for the
charge under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and directed to undergo
imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5000/- each with
default stipulation.
8. Since, both the above captioned appeals arising out of the same
F.I.R. and same occurrence, although, decided separately are taken
together for hearing.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants, Amir Mian and Md. Mazid in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1286 of 2004, assailing the impugned
judgment has contended that the appellant No.1 has been
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 5 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
implicated in this case simply on suspicion, assumptions and
presumptions because he brought the deceased from her paternal
home to attend the marriage ceremony of her daughter scheduled
to be held on 11.05.2002. There is no iota of evidence against
appellant No.1 that in any manner, he was instrumental in abusing
or assaulting the deceased for birth of two female children. There
is also no allegation that appellant No.1 was ever instrumental to
solemnize marriage of his son Md. Mazid (appellant No.2). No
role or specific overt act of any kind has been attributed against
the appellant No.1 nor it is alleged by the prosecution witnesses
including the informant that there was any previous threatening
given to the deceased by the appellant No.1 for any reason
whatsoever. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of appellant
No.1 is absolutely based beyond the evidence available on record.
So far as appellant No.2 Md. Mazid Mian is concerned, he
has simply informed to his father-in-law (informant) that his wife
has proceeded to her parental home on one day ago. The deceased
was died in the way under unnatural circumstances for which no
material has been brought on record to establish that the appellant
No.2 was responsible to cause murder of his own wife. It is not
the case of prosecution that the deceased died an unnatural death
in her matrimonial home while in her custody of her husband and
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 6 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
in-laws rather she was found dead at a considerable distance from
the house of appellants. Therefore, the principle of Section 106 of
the Evidence Act also cannot be invoked in this case against the
appellants. The informant in his fardbeyan has specifically raised
doubt about commission of offence of murder of his daughter by
the appellant No.2 and his associates. The suspicion raised by
informant never culminated into legal proof beyond all reasonable
doubt. Therefore, conviction and sentence of appellants suffers
from serious error of law and non-consideration of evidence
available on record, which is liable to be set aside and this appeal
may be allowed.
10. In connection with Cr. Appeal (DB) No.507 of 2006, learned
counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are
mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased.
Admittedly, there is no whisper in the F.I.R. about their
involvement in the occurrence. No previous conduct of these
appellants with the deceased has been brought on record showing
any inimical terms or existing disputes of any kind with the
deceased furnishing a motive to commit murder.
The learned Trial Court has miserably failed to properly
appreciate the evidence available on record and dragged these
appellants in commission of the offence of murder of the deceased
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 7 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
simply because they are relatives of the husband of the deceased.
Therefore, conviction and sentence of these appellants is also
based upon conjecture and surmises and beyond the weight of
evidence available on record which is liable to be set aside and
appellants deserve acquittal.
11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P.s appearing for the State
controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the
appellants has submitted that under a nefarious plan, the deceased
was tortured with physical and mental trauma/harassment due to
birth of two female children. The husband and other family
members started taunting her and advising her husband to
solemnize second marriage for male issue. She was assaulted and
driven away from her matrimonial home. It was the father-in-law
Amir Mian of the deceased who brought her just few days prior to
occurrence on the occasion of marriage of his daughter scheduled
to be held on 11.05.2002. The informant also attended the
marriage but returned on 12.05.2002 to his own home. Thereafter,
under a concerted manner, the deceased was brought near a tree at
some distance of her matrimonial home and tied with a clothe on
her neck in sitting condition and left there due to which she died.
If the deceased had proceeded previous day to her matrimonial
home alone then it might have been communicated on the same
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 8 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
day to the father of the deceased. It is not a case of commission of
suicide and the manner in which the deceased was found dead,
does not indicate that she has committed suicide by hanging. The
Post-mortem Report of the deceased also confirms the
commission of homicidal death. The accused persons have also
confessed their guilt stating the manner how they have assaulted
the deceased and done to death which also finds corroboration
from the Post-mortem Report, wherein it is opined that cause of
death was asphyxia due to throttling. The learned Trial Court has
taken into consideration the entire circumstances under which the
deceased has been died and the specific role of the appellants in
commission of the murder just adjacent to their village. There is
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the appellants and no merits in this
appeal which is fit to be dismissed.
12. We have gone through the impugned judgment in the light of
contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the
record.
13. The only point for determination in this appeal is that as to
whether impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of
appellants suffers from any error of law calling for any
interference by way of this appeal or not ?
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 9 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
14. Before imparting our verdict on the above point, we have to
appraise ourselves with the evidence adduced in this case before
the Trial Court.
15. It appears that in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1286 of 2004 which is
arisen out of S.T. Case No.25 of 2003, altogether 9 witnesses were
examined by the prosecution including the Medical Officer and
Investigating Officer.
Apart from oral testimony, the prosecution has also adduced
following documentary evidence :-
Exhibit 1 : Post-Mortem Report
Exhibit 2 : Fardbeyan of the Informant
Exhibit 3 : Formal F.I.R.
16. On the other hand, the case of defence is total denial from charge
and false implication.
The specific plea of defence is that the deceased was not
having a good mental status and she had committed suicide.
17. Out of 9 witnesses examined in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1286 of 2004
by the prosecution, P.W.1 Md. Uddin Ansari and P.W.2 Jakir
Mian, who are witnesses of inquest report, have been turned
hostile.
P.W.3 Md. Alim Ansari is the brother of deceased.
According to his evidence, his sister Shairun Bibi (deceased) was
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 10 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
married with Mazid Mian about 7-8 years ago and was blessed
with two children. One child has been died. It is further alleged
that his sister was frequently beaten by her husband and driven
away from matrimonial home about three months prior to
occurrence. Thereafter, in the first week of May, his sister went to
her matrimonial home along with her father-in-law Amir Mian. In
the meantime, Mazid Mian came to the house of this witness and
asked Rs.10,000/- in connection with marriage of his own sister
which could not be paid due to paucity of fund thereupon Mazid
Mian got enraged and went away to his home. He has further
deposed that after commission of murder of his sister, Mazid Mian
informed that Shairun Bibi has proceeded to her paternal home
one day ago but on search, it was found that the accused persons
have killed his sister whose dead body was lying under the tree at
some distance of her matrimonial home.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that in
connection with incident of assault with the deceased by her
husband, no information was given to the police but matter was
placed before Anjuman committee. He has denied the suggestion
of defence that due to depression, his sister went away from her
matrimonial home alone and committed suicide and to take
revenge with her husband Mazid Mian, this false case was lodged.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 11 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
P.W.4 Junab Ansari is also brother of the deceased. He has
also corroborated the contents of F.I.R., further submitted that his
sister (deceased) was driven away from her matrimonial home by
her husband and on the occasion of marriage of his sister, Mazid
Mian along with his brother-in-law Shamim Mian came to his
home and asked money in connection with marriage of his own
sister and also asked for vidai of Shairun Bibi. Initially, this
witness and family members were not convinced but after
assuring that the accused Mazid Mian will not ask further money
and keep his wife very well then, she, Shairun bibi, was allowed
to go her in-laws home but again after two days of marriage of his
sister Mazid Mian and Shamim Mian came to his house. Mazid
Mian again came and asked money for marriage of his sister
which was not given then he got enraged and went away to his
own home and after two days of his marriage of his sister Mazid
Mian and Shamim Mian came to the house of this witness and
asked as to whether his sister has arrived at his home then this
witness along with his parents started searching his sister and got
information that his sister has been tied with dupatta under a tree
at some distance of the house of accused person. He also came to
know that all the accused persons have killed his sister by
throttling.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 12 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that the incident
of assault met with the deceased at the hands of her husband, was
complained before Anjuman committee. He also admits that he
had not gone to attend the marriage of sister of Mazid Mian. His
sister never used to come at her paternal home alone rather always
her husband used to come along with her.
P.W.5 Shabir Ansari is also brother of the deceased who has
also deposed in the same line as P.W.3 and P.W.4. According to
him also, the accused was asking Rs.10,000/- for expenses of
marriage of his sister due to non-fulfillment of which, he got
enraged and went away to his own house. Later on, accused
Mazid Mian gave false information that the sister of this witness
has returned to her parental home, although, she was killed and
her dead body was tied with tree after strangulation. There is
nothing in her cross-examination to discredit his aforesaid
testimony.
P.W.7 Jhalo Bibi is mother of the deceased. She has also
deposed that her daughter was married with Md. Mazid about 7-8
years ago. She was also blessed with two children. She has also
deposed that on the occasion of marriage ceremony of sister of
Md. Mazid, he was asking Rs.10,000/- due to non-fulfillment of
which, he was very much annoyed. She has also deposed that her
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 13 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
daughter was being frequently assaulted by her husband who was
adamant to solemnize second marriage. Her husband has also
attended a marriage ceremony on 11.05.2002 and returned on
12.05.2002. After two days, Mazid and Shamim came to her
house and told that her daughter has been fled away leaving the
children at home. Thereafter, on search, the dead body of her
daughter was found tied with dupatta around a neck under a tree.
The above testimony has not been controverted in her cross-
examination.
P.W.8 Md. Hadish is the informant-cum-father of the
deceased. He has also corroborated his fardbeyan and deposed
that after his daughter was married with Md. Mazid about 8 years
ago, Md. Mazid always used to ask Rs.10,000/- from him which
could not be given due to paucity of fund then Mazid Mian his
father Amir Mian, brother-in-law Jumma Mian, Shamim and other
family members started threatening to his daughter Shairun Bibi
and also driven away from her matrimonial home. On the
occasion of marriage ceremony of sister-in-law of the deceased,
her father-in-law came to his house for vidaigiri upon which this
witness complained that you people always used to ill-treat and
torture his daughter and drive away from matrimonial home,
hence, she will not allow to go. Thereafter, accused persons with
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 14 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
folded hand replied that in future they will not repeat such torture
and brought his daughter Shairun Bibi to her matrimonial home
just few days of the occurrence. He has further deposed that just
after 2-3 days of the marriage of sister-in-law of the deceased, she
was again brought to the place of occurrence and killed by the
accused persons and therefore, he was informed by her husband
Mazid and Shamim (brother-in-law) that Shairun Bibi had
proceeded to her parental home alone. On search, it was found
that the deceased was killed and her dead body was tied with a
tree rapping her dupatta around the neck. Police also came at the
place of occurrence. Dead body was brought to police station and
his fardbeyan was recorded. Thereafter, dead body was sent for
Post-Mortem and after conducting Post-Mortem, dead body was
handed over to this witness for cremation.
This witness has been cross-examined at length but so far his
core testimony as stated above has not been rebutted and
controverted in any manner.
P.W.6 Dr. Ravindra Narayan had conducted autopsy on
16.05.2002 on the dead body of the deceased Shairun Bibi @
Samina and found following :-
(i) Ante-mortem injuries - a mark of ligature around the
middle of the neck. Bruise around and over the neck present.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 15 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
(ii) A lacerated wound 3"x 1" x ½" extending from the upper
boarder of the vaginal orifice directing upwards.
(iii) On dissection blood under the skin in the neck region was
present. Hyoid bone was fractured. Both lungs were congested.
Stomach was full of food. Large intestine gas and fecal
matter. Uterus was non gravid.
Rigor Mortis was present in both upper and lower limbs.
Body was decomposed. Blebs were present all over the body.
Bleeding was present in both nostrils. Tongue was protruded and
bleeding from the mouth.
(iv) Cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling. Time since
death 48 to 76 hours.
The Post-Mortem Report is proved to be Ext.1.
In his cross-examination, this witness states that
decomposition of body starts after 24 hours in normal condition.
The above injuries cannot be caused by hanging or falling and
dragging.
P.W.9 S.I. Ashok Kumar is the Investigating Officer of this
case. According to his evidence on 15.05.2002, he was posted as
S.I. at Manika Police Station. On that day, he recorded fardbeyan
of one Hadish Ansari and the endorsement of fardbeyan is in the
handwriting of then Officer-In-Charge Sanoj Kumar. He has
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 16 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
proved the entire fardbeyan as Ext.2 and Formal F.I.R. as Ext.3.
He got charge of investigation of this case. This witness
proceeded for inspection of place of occurrence which was
identified by the informant. The place of occurrence of this case is
situated about 9 k.m. away from the village Chaukia, the village
of accused persons where a Chilbil tree is standing and the dead
body of Shairun Bibi was found on this tree. It appeared to this
witness that the deceased was first murdered, thereafter, her dead
body was tied with Chilbil tree. Both legs were touching the earth
and deceased was found in a sitting condition. He has recorded
restatement of the informant. Inquest report was also prepared by
the Officer-In-Charge, which was sent to hospital along with dead
body challan for Post-Mortem. He also recorded the statement of
other witnesses arrested, the accused Amir Mian and Mahboob
Alam @ Jumma, who has given his confessional statement. After
completion of investigation, he found sufficient evidence against
accused persons Amir Mian, Mazid Mian and Mahboob Mian,
hence, charge-sheet was submitted against them continuing
investigation against other three accused persons.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that the dead
body was found in a dense forest area. He has denied the
suggestion of defence that since the dead body was hanging on
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 17 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
tree, therefore, no wild animals could attempt to harm the dead
body. He has denied the suggestion of defence that the
investigation is defective.
18. From discussion of oral testimony of witnesses, there remains no
doubt that there is no eye witness of the occurrence rather
prosecution case hinges only upon circumstantial evidence. It
further appears that the single circumstance against appellant No.1
as per F.I.R. is that in spite of tense relationship between deceased
and her husband (appellant No.2) and the deceased was driven to
her paternal home by her husband about three months ago, the
appellant No.1 came to the house of informant asking vidaigiri of
his daughter-in-law (deceased) to attend the marriage ceremony of
her sister-in-law which was scheduled to be held on 11.05.2002.
Apart from above circumstances, nothing incriminating material is
available against the appellant No.1. It appears that simply
because the appellant No.1 brought the deceased from her parental
home to her matrimonial home to attend the marriage ceremony of
her sister-in-law, he has been attracted in this case and also
convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. The learned Trial
Court has not discussed any of the circumstances which may
indicate that the appellant No.1 has also acted in concerted
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 18 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
manner to finish the life of the deceased either as perpetrator,
abettor or executor.
19. So far as role of appellant No.2 is concerned, there are clinching
circumstances proved by the prosecution showing his motive to
eliminate his wife and also commission of murder by him alone.
The circumstances may be enumerated as under which has been
got explained by under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he has
not offered any reasonable explanation. The circumstances are as
under :-
(i) The marriage of appellant No.2 with the Shairun Bibi
(deceased) was solemnized about 8 years prior to
occurrence and both were blessed with two female child,
one of whom has been died.
(ii) The appellant No.2 was demanding Rs.10,000/- for
solemnizing marriage of his own sister and also scolding,
torturing and harassing the deceased for birth of female
child.
(iii) The appellant No.2 was also threatening to perform second
marriage so, hence, he drove away his wife to paternal
home.
(iv) After arrival of his wife at matrimonial home on the
occasion of his sister's wedding again went to his sasural
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 19 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
prior to the date of marriage and asked Rs.10,000/- in
connection with marriage of his own sister which was not
given due to paucity of fund then he seriously became
annoyed and enraged and returned to his home under
impression of anger.
(v) The appellant No.2 informed to his father-in-law/informant
that his wife has proceeded one day ago for her parental
home, i.e., on 14.05.2002. On search, the dead body of the
deceased was found in a forest area just 9 k.m. away from
the house of appellant No.2 tied in a tree around her neck.
(vi) The Post-Mortem Report of the deceased shows ante-
mortem injuries caused by hard blunt object as well as
fracture of Hyoid bone due to throttling. Therefore, the
death is opined to be homicidal and not suicidal or
accidental.
(vii) The appellant No.2 first time gave information on
15.05.2002 about missing of his wife. On the other hand,
Post-Mortem Report of the deceased conducted on
16.05.2002 shows that death was within 48 to 72 hours
from conducting Post-Mortem which also indicates that
after commission of murder of the deceased, the
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 20 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
information was furnished to his father by the appellant
No2.
(viii) The dead body of deceased was also searched on the basis
of confessional statement of co-accused persons.
Above circumstances unerringly points towards the guilt of
the appellant No.2 for causing murder of his wife. The appellant
No.2 has not offered any explanation or any kind of his own
defence raising any doubt in the commission of incident by any
other person or for any other person.
20. We have also minutely examined the judgment of learned Trial
Court wherein all the circumstances have been discussed in
threadbare manner and properly analyzed and appreciated. But so
far accusation of the appellant No.1 is concerned, there are
contradictory evidence in the F.I.R., it is stated that appellant No.1
went to the house of informant to bring the deceased to attend the
marriage of his daughter but during trial, the informant and his
both sons P.W.3 and P.W.4 and wife P.W.7 have categorically
stated that the appellant No.2 came to their house and took away
his wife on assurance that he will not harass or torture her and
keep properly and also stated that marriage of his sister has been
settled and scheduled to be held on 11.05.2002. No such averment
has been made against appellant No.1.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 21 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
21. In view of above discussion and reasons, we find sufficient
ground for interference in the conviction and sentence of appellant
No.1 but so far conviction and sentence of appellant No.2 is
concerned, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, we set
aside the conviction and sentence of appellant No.1 and upheld
the conviction and sentence of appellant No.2.
22. In view of above Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1286 of 2004 is partly
allowed in respect of appellant No.1 and the appeal on behalf
of appellant No.2 is dismissed. The appellant No.1 is on bail, he
is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also
discharged. The appellant No.2 is also on bail, his bail bond is
hereby cancelled and the appellant No.2 is directed to surrender
before the concerned Trial Court within a period of two months
from the date of this judgment to receive the sentence awarded to
him, failing which, the learned Trial Court shall take all coercive
measures for arrest and detention of appellant No.2 to sustain the
remaining sentence awarded to him.
23. So far as conviction and sentence of appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.507 of 2006 is concerned, it appears that almost the same
witnesses have been examined by prosecution who have deposed
in the similar manner as their evidences were recorded in S.T.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 22 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
Case No.25 of 2003 (corresponding to Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1286
of 2004).
24. In Cr. Appeal (DB) No.507 of 2006, following witnesses have
been examined : P.W.1 Alim Ansari, P.W.2 Junab Ansari and
P.W.4 Sabir Ansari are brothers of the deceased. P.W.3 Jhalo Devi
is mother of the deceased and wife of the informant. P.W.5 Md.
Hadish Ansari is the informant. P.W.6 Nityanand Mishra is the
part Investigating Officer, who has proved signature of S.I. Sanoj
Kumar on formal F.I.R. as Ext.1. Endorsement for registration of
case as Ext.2. Inquest report of deceased as Ext.3. Dead body
"Challan" in the handwriting of S.I. Sanoj Kumar as Ext.4. P.W.7
Jakir Mian and P.W.8 Md. Uddin Ansari are witnesses of inquest
report. P.W.9 Ravindra Narayan had conducted autopsy on the
dead body of the deceased. P.W.10 Md. Atim Ansari is an
Advocate Clerk, who has stated that confession of accused
Mahboob Alam @ Jumma is recorded in the handwriting of S.I.
Ashok Kumar which is marked as Ext.8. P.W.11 Ashok Kumar is
the Investigating Officer of this case.
25. On the other hand, the accused persons in their statement under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. have pleaded innocence and false
implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence have been
adduced by defence.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 23 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
26. We have gone through the evidence of witnesses of fact who were
earlier examined in S.T. Case No.25 of 2003 and there is no
material improvement as regards any specific overt act attributed
to the present appellants of Sessions Case No.96 of 2005
(corresponding to Cr. Appeal (DB) No.507 of 2006). There is no
whisper that these appellants ever demanded any money or
subjected the deceased to cruelty. However, this is not the case of
the prosecution registered for the offence under Section 498A of
the I.P.C. rather under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. So far as
offence of murder is concerned, there is no iota of evidence
showing that present appellants have been seen at the place of
occurrence nor there is any evidence that they have acted in
concerted manner in furtherance of common intention to kill the
deceased. No incriminating materials are available against these
appellants in their statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The
Court has put general question that they have caused murder of
the deceased in furtherance of their common intention without
indicating any specific evidence of any witnesses.
27. After meticulous examination of oral and documentary evidence
led by prosecution, we are constrained to hold that the conviction
and sentence of the appellants (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.507 of
2006) is totally based on conjecture and surmises without proper
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 24 |25
2026:JHHC:8293-DB
appreciation of evidence against them and without any material,
simply because they stand relatives of the husband of deceased,
they have been roped in this case and the learned Trial Court in a
routine manner held them guilty, convicted and sentenced.
Therefore, conviction and sentence of present appellants namely
Shamim Mian, Rashida Bibi and Sakuran Bibi (Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.507 of 2006) is hereby set aside and Cr. Appeal (DB) No.507
of 2006 is allowed.
28. The appellants namely Shamim Mian, Rashida Bibi and Sakuran
Bibi are on bail, they are discharged from their respective liability
of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.
29. Pending I.A.s in both these appeals, if any, stand disposed of.
30. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court records of both
trial cases be sent to concerned Trial Court for information and
needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 24/03/2026
Sachin / NAFR
Uploaded on: 25/03/2026
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1286 of 2004 & 507 of 2006 P a g e 25 |25
