Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1142 (JHR)

Abdul Rauf v. State of Jharkhand

2022-09-12

AMBUJ NATH, RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2016 (Sentence passed on 29.09.2016), passed by Sri Manish Ranjan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, IX, Palamau at Daltonganj, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2011, arising out of Bishrampur P.S. Case No.10 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No.150 of 2010, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge IX, Palamau at Daltonganj held the appellant, Abdul Rauf, guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing murder of his mother-in-law, Husn Ara and thereby, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The appellant was also directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- to the dependents of the deceased Husn Ara and in default of payment of compensation he was further sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for six months. 3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Istiyak Ansari alleging therein that on 01.02.2010 at about 07:35 P.M., the appellant demanded Rs.2 Lakhs from his mother-in-law, namely, Husn Ara, when his mother-in-law expressed her inability to acquiesce to his wishes he gave a “Gainta” blow on her neck due to which she succumbed to her injuries. On hulla by the informant and his family members people of the locality assembled there and the appellant was apprehended at the place of occurrence. It is further alleged that the appellant also assaulted the informant when he tried to apprehend him. 4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences under sections 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 15.01.2011, as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. 5. Charge was framed against the appellant on 09.09.2011, under Sections 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. 5. Charge was framed against the appellant on 09.09.2011, under Sections 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. 7. Istiyak Ansari (P.W.1) is the informant of this case. He has supported the prosecution case as narrated in his fardbeyan. He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan which is Ext.-1. Mehboob Alam (P.W.2) is a hearsay witness. He has stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, he saw that the villagers had apprehended the appellant. Police recovered a “Gainta” in his presence. He has identified his signature on the seizure list which is Ext.-2. Rehana Khatoon (P.W.3) is Sister-in-Law of the appellant. She is an eye witness and has supported the prosecution case. Md. Tabib (P.W.4) is also a hearsay witness. He has stated that on hulla when he went to the place of occurrence he saw dead body of the deceased. He has stated that the appellant was apprehended by the villagers. Police recovered a “Gainta” in his presence. He had identified his signature on the seizure list which is Ext.-2/1. Sultan Ansari (P.W.5) is a material witness. He has stated that on Hulla he went to the house of the informant he saw that the appellant was fleeing from there. He caught hold of him. He further raised “hulla” and villagers came and they all apprehended the appellant. Guddu Ansari (P.W.6), is another hearsay witness. He has stated that on hulla he went to the house of the informant and saw the dead body of the deceased. Farzana Khatoon @ Ruby (P.W.7) is the wife of the appellant, she has supported the prosecution case and has stated that when her mother expressed her inability to fulfill the demand of Rs.200,000 made by the appellant, he gave "Gainta" blows to her mother due to which she succumbed to her injuries. Md. Tanvir Ansari (P.W.8), Khurshid Alam (P.W.9) and Anwar Ansari (P.W.10) all are hearsay witnesses who reached at the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased. They have stated that the appellant was apprehended and confined at the place of occurrence by the villagers. Dr. Md. Tanvir Ansari (P.W.8), Khurshid Alam (P.W.9) and Anwar Ansari (P.W.10) all are hearsay witnesses who reached at the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased. They have stated that the appellant was apprehended and confined at the place of occurrence by the villagers. Dr. Ajay Kumar Pathak (P.W.11) has performed the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Husn Ara. He has proved the post-mortem report which is Ext-4. Dinesh Toppo (P.W.12) is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has proved the place of occurrence which happens to be the courtyard of the house of the informant. He has also proved the inquest report which is Ext.- 3/1 and formal F.I.R. which is Ext-5. 8. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication. 9. On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge IX, Palamau at Daltonganj held the appellant, Abdul Rauf, guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. Learned court below acquitted the appellant for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is vital contradiction in the statement of the witness on the point of manner of occurrence. It was also submitted that all the eye witnesses being the family members of the deceased are highly interested witness. Accordingly, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charge. 11. Mr. Saket Kumar, learned counsel for the State has submitted that all the prosecution witnesses including the wife of the appellant have supported the prosecution case and they have corroborated each other on the point of manner of occurrence. It was further submitted that the oral testimony of the witnesses is corroborated in material particulars by the medical evidence. Accordingly, it was prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 12. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. 13. In order to come to the aforesaid finding, it has to be ascertained:- (i) Whether the deceased Husn Ara died a homicidal death? Accordingly, it was prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 12. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. 13. In order to come to the aforesaid finding, it has to be ascertained:- (i) Whether the deceased Husn Ara died a homicidal death? (ii) Whether the appellant Abdul Rauf caused homicidal death of the deceased? (iii) Whether there is a material contradiction in the statement of witnesses on the point of manner of occurrence? 14. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Husn Ara died a homicidal death. Mehboob Alam (P.W.2), Sultan Ansari (P.W.5), Guddu Ansari (P.W.6), Md. Tanvir Ansari (P.W.8), Khurshid Alam (P.W.9) and Anwar Ansari (P.W.10) have stated about four and a half years ago at about 7.30 to 08:00 P.M., on “hulla” they went to the house of the informant and saw the dead body of the deceased Husn Ara, which was drenched in blood. From the perusal of the inquest report which is Ext.-3, it appears that the Investigating Officer had found injuries on the neck and right rib cage of the deceased. Dr. Ajay Kumar Pathak (P.W.11) have stated that he had performed the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :- (i) Fracture of right clavicle, medial 1/3rd part. (ii) Lacerated wound, 4cm x 0.5cm x 7.5cm, deep over right neck area near medial 1/3 of the clavicle. (iii) On dissection there was laceration of carotid artery and vein, Juglar artery and vein and lacerated and ecchymosed surrounding muscle. Thoracic cavity was full of blood. (iv) Stomach contains undigested food material, bladder empty, uterus normal size. He has opined that the cause of death was due to above injuries leading to haemorrhage and shock, caused by hard and blunt object. The oral testimony of this witness regarding the injuries found on the person of the deceased and her cause of death is corroborated by his findings in the post-mortem report (Ext.4). In view of the aforesaid evidence, both oral and documentary that several injuries were found on the person of the deceased, which resulted in her death, we come to a finding that the deceased Husn Ara died a homicidal death. 15. In view of the aforesaid evidence, both oral and documentary that several injuries were found on the person of the deceased, which resulted in her death, we come to a finding that the deceased Husn Ara died a homicidal death. 15. It is further the case of the prosecution that the appellant Abdul Rauf was demanding Rs. 2 Lakhs from his mother-in-law and when she expressed her inability to meet his demand the appellant gave a "Gainta" blow on her neck due to which she succumbed to her injuries. Istiyak Ansari (P.W.1) is the informant of this case and has stated that about three years ago at about 07:30 P.M., he was present in his house. The appellant who is brother-in-law demanded Rs.2 lakhs from his mother and when she expressed her inability, he picked up a "Gainta" and assaulted her due to which she succumbed to her injuries. On his hulla, villagers came and apprehended the appellant. He has been cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination he has stated that the appellant and his sister Farzana had came to his house just a day prior to the occurrence. He has further stated that he was in the same room when the occurrence took place. Rehana Khatoon (P.W.3) is another eye witness. She has stated that the occurrence took place about three years ago at about 07:30 P.M. (her statement was recorded on 07.02.2013). Appellant had demanded Rs. 2 lakhs from the deceased, when the deceased expressed her inability, the appellant assaulted her by "Gainta" due to which she succumbed to her injuries. The appellant tried to escape but he was apprehended by the villagers. In her cross-examination she has stated that the appellant has also assaulted her brother Istiyak due to which he sustained head injury. 16. Farzana Khatoon @ Ruby (P.W.7) is the wife of the appellant. She has stated that the occurrence is of the year 2010 at about 07:00 P.M., she was in her maike. Her husband murdered her mother by assaulting her with “Gainta”. He had also assaulted his younger brother Istiyak Ansari due to which he sustained head injury. On hulla villagers gathered there and apprehended the appellant. She has further stated that her husband had demanded Rs. 2 lakhs from her mother. When she expressed her inability to fulfill his demand, appellant out of anger committed the occurrence. He had also assaulted his younger brother Istiyak Ansari due to which he sustained head injury. On hulla villagers gathered there and apprehended the appellant. She has further stated that her husband had demanded Rs. 2 lakhs from her mother. When she expressed her inability to fulfill his demand, appellant out of anger committed the occurrence. In her cross-examination she has stated that the appellant had not demanded money from her mother in her presence. She has further stated that her mother has sustained injuries on her neck. She has stated that she has seen the appellant assaulting her mother. All these three eye witnesses have corroborated each other on the point that the appellant had demanded two lakh rupees from the deceased Husn Ara. They have also corroborated that when the deceased expressed her inability to fulfill his demand, he assaulted her by a "Gainta" due to which she succumbed to her injuries. All the prosecution witnesses have corroborated that the appellant was apprehended at the place of occurrence, just after the occurrence. The oral testimony of these witnesses is corroborated by the findings of Dr. Ajay Kumar Pathak (P.W.11). According to him, the deceased died of injuries which can be caused by "Gainta". Dinesh Toppo (P.W.12) is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has proved the seizure list of "Gainta" (Ext 2/2) which was recovered at the place of occurrence. Mehboob Alam (P.W.2) and Md. Tabib (P.W.4) are seizure witnesses. They have corroborated the fact that the I.O. had seized a blood stained "Gainta" from the place of occurrence in their presence. 17. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that all the eye witnesses are family members of the deceased. They are highly interested witnesses, as such their evidence could not be relied upon. It was further argued that their was contradiction in their statement on the point of manner of occurrence. Dinesh Toppo (P.W.12), the Investigating Officer of this case has given the description of the place of occurrence at paragraph 3 of his deposition. According to him, occurrence took place inside a room adjacent to the courtyard inside the house of the informant. Where the occurrence has taken place inside the house of the informant, prosecution cannot be expected to produce independent witnesses to prove its case. Istiyak Ansari (P.W.1) is son of the deceased. According to him, occurrence took place inside a room adjacent to the courtyard inside the house of the informant. Where the occurrence has taken place inside the house of the informant, prosecution cannot be expected to produce independent witnesses to prove its case. Istiyak Ansari (P.W.1) is son of the deceased. Rehana Khatoon (P.W.3) and Farzana Khatoon @ Ruby (P.W.7) are daughters of the deceased. They are natural witnesses, who were present at the place of occurrence. Farzana Khatoon @ Ruby (P.W.7) is wife off the appellant. It cannot be conjured that a wife will falsely implicate her husband. They have corroborated each other on the point that the appellant had demanded two lakh rupees from the deceased Husn Ara. When the deceased expressed her inability to fulfill his demand, he assaulted her by a "Gainta" due to which she succumbed to her injuries. Appellant was apprehended at the place of occurrence which is the house of the informant. Blood stained “Gainta” was also recovered from there. They have withstood the test of cross examination. There is nothing in their cross examination to doubt their veracity. 18. From the aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly come to the finding that the appellant has caused the homicidal death of the deceased Husn Ara. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not require any interference. 19. This appeal is dismissed. 20. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.