Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 78 (JHR)

Hasina Bibi v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2012-01-13

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
Judgment The instant appeal arises out of the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.07.1991, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 423 of 1990 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 12.04.1990, the informant who happens to be the brother of Bibi Fatima (deceased), lodged Fardbayan that on the preceding day, he got information through Mandhan Mian that his sister had died. On enquiry, he learnt that there was quarrel between the deceased and the appellant who happened to be her step-mother-in-law due to which, his sister has committed suicide by hanging herself. The informant also learnt that there used to be quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. The informant further alleged that the husband of the deceased and her father-in-law were in the house but they did not give suitable reply. He also alleged that it did not appear to be a case of suicide. 3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the only material against the appellant is that there had been quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and except this, there is nothing against her. He further submitted that Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 292 of 1991 there were other persons also in the house and the occurrence is said to have taken place in the day hours between 11–12 noon and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the appellant has strangulated the deceased. He also submitted that now the appellant is more than 65 years old. 4. The State counsel supported the impugned Judgment and submitted that the Doctor has opined that the death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation. One abrasion on the abdomen was also found. 5. Admittedly the other family members were also present in the house. The occurrence occurred in the day time. Only because there has been quarrel and there was quarrel on the alleged day of occurrence between the appellant and her daughter-in-law, it cannot be presumed that the appellant has killed her daughter-in-law. Mandhan Mian, through whom the informant got the information, has not been examined. There is no eye witness in this case. Only because there has been quarrel and there was quarrel on the alleged day of occurrence between the appellant and her daughter-in-law, it cannot be presumed that the appellant has killed her daughter-in-law. Mandhan Mian, through whom the informant got the information, has not been examined. There is no eye witness in this case. There are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and the chain of circumstances is also not complete. After carefully going through the records and hearing the parties, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellant. 6. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.07.1991, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 423 of 1990, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing her R.I. for life, is hereby set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges and is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.