Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 240 (JHR)

Lukman Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-02

D.N.UPADHYAY, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2nd November, 2004 and 3rd November, 2004 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Deoghar in connection with Sessions Case No. 150 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 135 of 2004, Karon P.S. Case No. 22 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution as it appear from the written report lodged by Daud Mian at Madhupur Karon Police Station in brief is that on 23.3.2004 the informant received death news of his niece Jhalbano Bibi. It was informed that Jhalbano Bibi has been murdered by her husband Lukman Ansari during previous night. After receiving such information, he went to the house of appellant and found deceased Jhalo lying dead having bleeding injury on her private part, near breast, thigh etc. The informant says that Lukman by means of knife caused injuries to his wife Jhalo and killed her. On the basis of written report lodged by Daud Mian Madhupur Karon P.S. Case No. 22 of 2004 dated 23.3.2004 under section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered. The appellant was apprehended, investigation was carried out and charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 150 of 2004. 3. Charge under section 302 Indian Penal Code was framed, content of the charge were read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge the prosecution has examined altogether 16 witnesses and proved documents like post-mortem report, written report, formal FIR, inquest report etc. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court placing reliance on the evidence and documents available, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced him as indicated above. 5. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that vital contradictions are appearing in the statements of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-11. 5. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that vital contradictions are appearing in the statements of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-11. Shahban Ansari (PW-4) says that after hearing alarm raised by daughter of deceased he went to the room of appellant and knocked the door. After opening of the door he found Jhalo Bibi lying in the room and she was having bleeding injuries. The appellant was standing with a knife in his hand. Sakina Khatoon daughter of deceased was also present in the room and she disclosed that her father Lukman had inflicted knife blow upon her mother Jhalo Bibi. According to statement of Shahban Ansari he was the only person present in that very room at that point of time. Samsul Ansari PW-11 says, when he reached to the place of occurrence the room was closed, he got the door opened and then he saw Lukman Ansari having knife in his hand. There were blood drops in the room and Jhalo Bibi having bleeding injuries was lying there. Thereafter, he returned back and again went to the place of occurrence with some people. PW-4 Shahban Ansari did not speak about the presence of PW-11 and likewise PW-11 did not say that he had seen PW-4 at the place of occurrence. In such situation evidence of these two witnesses cannot be relied upon. The story narrated by Sakina Khatoon does not appear to be convincing. She has admitted that she was not capable of reading watch but she has stated that it was about 1 a.m. when her father lit a wick lamp. In the light of said lamp she had seen her father Lukman Ansari inflicting knife blow to her mother Jhalo. She raised objection but she was scolded by her father. She raised alarm which attracted witnesses and after arrival of those witnesses she has narrated the incident to them. It is submitted that PW-3 had been living under influence and control of PW-4 and PW-4 Shahban Ansari is none else but own brother of appellant. Suggestion by defence counsel have been hurled that Shahban Ansari after killing Jhalo implicated his brother Lukman Ansari to grab the property. Since PW-3 was living under influence and control of PW-4 possibility of tutoring PW-3 cannot be ruled out. Suggestion by defence counsel have been hurled that Shahban Ansari after killing Jhalo implicated his brother Lukman Ansari to grab the property. Since PW-3 was living under influence and control of PW-4 possibility of tutoring PW-3 cannot be ruled out. If this PW-3 who is a child witness would be considered as tutored witness, no reliance could be placed for holding the appellant guilty for the offence of murder. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the informant in his written report has stated that appellant was mentally disturbed. A fortnight prior to the date of incident his behaviour was not normal. Had it been so the prosecution did not get him examined whether the offence was committed under that state of mental disorder. There was no motive to commit murder and relation between the spouse was quite cordial. An inference should also be drawn that relation was cordial from the facts that the appellant was maintaining his family and he had been living peacefully with his wife and children. 7. The learned A.P.P. opposed the arguments and submitted that daughter of appellant is an eye witness and she had narrated the occurrence which she had witnessed during that fateful night. A daughter cannot speak lie against her father. No material contradiction has been taken from her mouth during her cross-examination. 8. The other witnesses are also related either to the deceased or to the appellant and they all have spoken truth before the Court. No reason has been assigned by the appellant as to why they would implicate him falsely. Shahban Ansari PW-4, Samsul Ansari PW-11 had seen the appellant having knife in his hand at the place of occurrence which is bed room of appellant and the deceased. The deceased was seen with bleeding injuries and blood fallen on the floor was also seen by the witnesses. Those witnesses are not in inimical terms with the appellant. The I.O. PW-15 has supported the investigation done by him. Dr. Chitranjan Prasad Sinha PW-16 had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jhalo Bibi and injuries noticed on the person of the deceased by the doctor corroborate the ocular version of the witnesses. 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced from both sides . Perused the evidence and documents available on record and the impugned judgment. Dr. Chitranjan Prasad Sinha PW-16 had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jhalo Bibi and injuries noticed on the person of the deceased by the doctor corroborate the ocular version of the witnesses. 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced from both sides . Perused the evidence and documents available on record and the impugned judgment. Salimuddin Ansari PW-2, Sakina Khatoon PW-3 happens to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. It is a case in which husband is the appellant and wife is the deceased. Sakina Khatoon PW-3 is the unfortunate daughter who had witnessed the occurrence which occurred during that night in the bed room. She had seen her father inflicting knife blows to her mother. She had raised alarm which attracted relatives and nearby people. They came to the place of occurrence and knew about the occurrence. Shahban Ansari PW-4 happens to be brother of the appellant. Samsul Ansari is also some how related to the appellant and both of them had seen the appellant having knife in his hand in his bed room where Jhalo Bibi was lying in a pool of blood having injuries on her private part, below the breast, near thigh. Till these two witnesses could understand the situation, the appellant left the room and fled away. We do not find any material elicited from the mouth of these witnesses in course of their cross-examination and it could be said that stood to the test of cross-examination. Sakina Khatoon had given very precise statement before the Court and also before the witnesses, reached to the place of occurrence just after the incident. Shahban Ansari PW-4 is none else but the uncle of PW-3 and brother of appellant. If the children are living under the guidance of their parents that does not mean that the statement of PW-3 which she had given before the police and also before the Court was tutored one. It is a case in which the husband has killed his wife and the occurrence was witnessed by the children. Motive has nothing to play any role in such cases. Although PW-6 to PW-10 are hearsay witnesses but the factum of occurrence finds support from their deposition. Dr. Chitranjan Prasad Sinha PW-16 has proved the post mortem report which corroborates ocular version of the witnesses. Motive has nothing to play any role in such cases. Although PW-6 to PW-10 are hearsay witnesses but the factum of occurrence finds support from their deposition. Dr. Chitranjan Prasad Sinha PW-16 has proved the post mortem report which corroborates ocular version of the witnesses. Minor contradictions have been taken from the mouth of some of the witnesses but that is not fatal to the prosecution and the same has not caused prejudice to the appellant in any manner. The documents like written report, inquest report, post mortem report have properly been proved by the prosecution. 10. We do not find any material on record to interfere with the findings of the trial court. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and judgment of conviction and 2nd 3rd order of sentence dated November, 2004 and November, 2004 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Deoghar in connection with Sessions Case No. 150 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 135 of 2004, Karon P.S. Case No. 22 of 2004 is hereby upheld.