Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 166 (JHR)

Aasif Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2023-02-13

AMBUJ NATH, RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P. 2. Since all these appeals are directed against a common judgment, hence they are being disposed of by this common order. So far as the appellant no. 2 in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.313 of 2014 is concerned, he has died during the pendency of the appeal and therefore the appeal preferred by him has abated. 3. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2014 and order of sentence dated 1.3.2014, passed by Shri Ram Babu Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2012/S.T. Case No. 135 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302/120B and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-each for the offence punishable under sections 302/120B IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each for the offence punishable under section 379 IPC and in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. 4. A written report was submitted by Nurul Hoda Ansari on 20.7.2011, in which it has been stated that the marriage of his son Gulab Nabi Ansari was solemnized with Reshma Khatoon, daughter of Mohiuddin Ansari. Mohiuddin Ansari lives with his family in Garhwa Dakbunglow. Reshma Khatoon was also staying with her father. It has been stated that on 16.7.2011, Reshma Khatoon had called Gulab Nabi Ansari to Garhwa Dakbunglow but due to rains Gulab Nabi Ansari could not visit the said place. On 19.7.2011, Reshma Khatoon had once again called the son of the informant to her parents’ place and on repeated insistence of Reshma Khatoon, the son of the informant along with his brother Kausar Ansari went to Garhwa Dakbunglow. On 19.7.2011, Reshma Khatoon had once again called the son of the informant to her parents’ place and on repeated insistence of Reshma Khatoon, the son of the informant along with his brother Kausar Ansari went to Garhwa Dakbunglow. Kausar Ansari after leaving Gulab Nabi Ansari at Garhwa Dakbunglow came back to his house in the evening and disclosed that Gulab Nabi on the advice of his brother in law Aasif Ansari, his wife and his parents in law had left on a vehicle to Sidhe, the reason being to purchase some articles needed for the Bidai of the bride. It has been alleged that when in the morning, the informant went in search of his son to Garhwa Dakbunglow, Mohiuddin Ansari stated that his son is missing since night. Later on, the informant came to know that a dead body is lying in Sidhe and when he went he recognized the dead body as that of his son Gulab Nabi Ansari. He suspected that Reshma Khatoon, her parents, Aasif Ansari and Sharafat Ansari had committed the murder of his son. 5. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Garhwa P.S. Case No. 256 of 2011 was instituted for the offence punishable under sections 302/34 IPC against Reshma Khatoon, Mohiuddin Ansari, the wife of Mohiuddin Ansari, Aasif Ansari and Sharafat Ansari. On completion of investigation, chargesheets were submitted against the named accused persons and after cognizance was taken, the cases were committed to the court of sessions where they were registered separately as S.T. No. 53/2012 and S.T. No. 135/2012. On their amalgamation vide order dated 19.03.2012, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 302/120B and 379 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case. P.W-1-Khushdil Ansari has stated that the incident had taken place nine months back. He had gone to his inlaws place along with his wife Jaibun Bibi and at night, his brother Nurul Hoda had called up his brother in law and informed him that Gulam has gone to his inlaws place at Garhwa to bring some provisions along with his brother in law Aasif Ansari. The mobile of Gulam Nabi was switched off. It was informed that he had not returned. The mobile of Gulam Nabi was switched off. It was informed that he had not returned. He had started searching for Gulam Nabi and at 3 A.M. he saw a Marshal Jeep going and at Naujwan Chowk, seven persons had got down from the Marshal Jeep, which included Aasif Ansari, Sharafat Ansari, Mohiuddin Ansari, Reshma Bibi, Amna Bibi, Sonu and Mehdi Hasan, who were taking out Gulam Nabi. He and his wife were in the motorcycle. They saw Aasif Ansari firing at Gulam Nabi, at which he fell down. They were threatened by Sonu and Mehdi Hasan that they would be done to death if they raised alarm. Thereafter all the persons left in their vehicle. This witness and his wife had seen Gulam Nabi succumbing to his injuries. It has been stated that they were returning home to give information about the incident when his motorcycle developed some mechanical snags. He informed his brother but his brother had already informed the police. In cross-examination on behalf of the accused except Sonu, he had deposed that on the date of occurrence, his brother inlaw had fallen ill and he had stayed in the night at his inlaws place. He had left at around 2.30-3 A.M.. His parents in law did not stop him. He had reached the chowk at 3 A.M. It was not lonely at Naujawan Chowk. The accused persons were at a distance of about 50 ft. from the chowk. He had not raised any alarm. He and his wife had gone near the jeep but the accused after threatening them had left with the vehicle. He has stated that he did not return back to his inlaws place. After the accused persons fled away, he did not raise any alarm. He had met his brother Nurul Hoda at Sidhe Chowk where he had disclosed about the incident to his brother. He had also disclosed to him the name of the accused persons. Thereafter, they had come to Garhwa P.S. and he cannot say as to whether the statement of his brother was recorded or not. The police had recorded the statement of this witness on the next day. The statement of his wife was recorded at the police station. In cross-examination on behalf of Sonu, he has deposed that he was standing at a distance of 10 ft. from the place of occurrence. The police had recorded the statement of this witness on the next day. The statement of his wife was recorded at the police station. In cross-examination on behalf of Sonu, he has deposed that he was standing at a distance of 10 ft. from the place of occurrence. He had not tried to explore any other mode through which the police could be informed. He had not made any attempts to inform the relatives. He has stated that Naujawan Chowk is on main road and at 2-3 A.M, there was a movement of vehicles from all places. After the incident, he had conversed with Nurul Hoda at 7 A.M. and he had disclosed to him about the incident. The statement of Nurul Hoda was not recorded in his presence. He had spent the period from 3 A.M. to 7 A.M. on the road but he had not met anyone. P.W-2-Jokhu Ansari has stated that the incident is of 10 months back at 3 A.M. and he was returning from Garhwa road after dropping his son in the station and when he reached Sidhe Chowk, he saw a Bolero standing in an open space near the diversion. He saw from the headlight of his vehicle a person being dragged out from a vehicle. He could identify Mohiuddin Ansari, Sharafat Ansari, Aasif Ansari, Reshma Khatoon and Amna Bibi. After dragging the person out, he was shot at by Aasif. When two persons rushed towards him, he fled away with his vehicle and went home. In the morning, he came to know that Gulab Nabi has been murdered at Sidhe Chowk. He disclosed in his statement everything to the police. In cross-examination on behalf of all the accused person except Sonu, he has deposed that in his statement before the police, he had stated about Aasif firing at the deceased. He had gone to Rehla station to drop Firoz Ansari. His house and the house of Gulam Nabi are in the same village though one kilometer apart. He had not stated about his witnessing the incident on the date of incident to his co-villagers, his relatives or to the family members of Gulam Nabi. He had disclosed about the incident to Nurul Hoda at 10 A.M. on the next day. He has stated that on the fateful night, he could not recognize anyone from his village. He had not stated about his witnessing the incident on the date of incident to his co-villagers, his relatives or to the family members of Gulam Nabi. He had disclosed about the incident to Nurul Hoda at 10 A.M. on the next day. He has stated that on the fateful night, he could not recognize anyone from his village. He had seen a male and a female on a motorcycle at a distance of 50 ft. though the said two persons had not seen him. He had also never tried to approach them. He had deposed that only one shot was fired and the deceased was not assaulted with any other weapons. P.W-3-Kaushar Ansari is the brother of the deceased, who has stated that on 19.7.2011, he had gone to drop his brother in the evening to his inlaws place at Garhwa Dakbunglow. There were five persons sitting in the Dakbunglow, which included Sharafat Ansari, Mohiuddin Ansari, Amna Bibi, Reshma Khatoon and Aasif Ansari. He had snacks and thereafter Mohiuddin disclosed that some articles have been left at Sidhe and he asked Aasif and Gulam Nabi to bring those articles. They had left on a Bolero while this witness returned back home. In the morning, he came to know that the dead body of Gulam Nabi is lying at Sidhe more. He went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body. The police had recorded his statement. In the hospital, Khusdil Ansari disclosed that Aasif Ansari, Mohiuddin Ansari, Sharafat Ansari, Amna Bibi, Reshma Khatoon, Chandu and Sonu had committed the murder. In cross-examination on behalf of all the accused persons except Chandu and Sonu, he has deposed that at 7 A.M. he had reached Sidhe where he had met his father and co-villagers. The dead body was lying in a field near Sidhe More. It is not a fact that he had stated before the police what had been disclosed by his uncle Khusdil Ansari regarding the persons committing the murder of Gulam Nabi. His brother did not have any dispute with anyone. P.W-4-Shamim Ansari has stated that on 20.07.2011 at 3 A.M., he was returning home on his motorcycle when he saw a crowd having gathered at Sidhe more. On hearing a shot, he did not stop but went away. His brother did not have any dispute with anyone. P.W-4-Shamim Ansari has stated that on 20.07.2011 at 3 A.M., he was returning home on his motorcycle when he saw a crowd having gathered at Sidhe more. On hearing a shot, he did not stop but went away. In the morning, he could come to know that Gulam Nabi Ansari has been murdered at Sidhe more. He went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of Gulab Nabi Ansari. He later on came to know that Aasif Ansari, Mohiuddin Ansari and Reshma Khatoon had committed the murder. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on the date of the incident. P.W-5-Ajma Bibi has stated that the incident is of 13 months back and she was in her house. Her son Gulam Nabi had gone to his inlaws place and Kausar Ansari had dropped him and had come back home. Kausar Ansari had disclosed that Gulab Nabi had gone to Sidhe along with Aasif. She has stated that Gulab Nabi was murdered and she came to know that Aasif had committed the murder. In cross examination, she has deposed that her brother in law Khusdil Ansari had stated on the next day the murder committed by Aasif Ansari. P.W-6-Afsana Khatoon did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W-7-Jaibun Bibi has stated that the incident is of 13 months back at night. She had gone to visit her parents place at Sidhe. Her brother Ayub was ill and therefore she had gone to Sidhe. The father of Gulab Nabi had called her brother and informed him over mobile that Gulab Nabi has gone to his inlaws place and he asked him to trace the whereabouts of Gulab Nabi. Ayub told her about the said fact who in turn told her husband. When another call came, she and her husband went to the inlaws place of Gulab Nabi. They went to Sidhe more where from the headlamp of the motorcycle she had seen a Bolero coming from Garhwa. About 10-15 ft. ahead of them, the vehicle stopped and Gulab Nabi was dragged out from the Bolero and shot at. There were seven persons present including Mohiuddin Ansari, Sharafat, Aashif, Mehandi Hasan, Sonu, Reshma and Amna. They went to Sidhe more where from the headlamp of the motorcycle she had seen a Bolero coming from Garhwa. About 10-15 ft. ahead of them, the vehicle stopped and Gulab Nabi was dragged out from the Bolero and shot at. There were seven persons present including Mohiuddin Ansari, Sharafat, Aashif, Mehandi Hasan, Sonu, Reshma and Amna. Aashif had shot at the deceased and the others had caught hold of Gulab Nabi. Mehandi Hasan and Sonu had threatened this witness and her husband. The accused persons went away with their vehicle towards Garhwa. This witness and her husband out of fear took the road towards the hill and came to Pindra. On the way, the motorcycle developed mechanical snags. When they came home, only female members were present to whom they had disclosed about the incident. Her husband thereafter went to Garhwa. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had disclosed everything to the police. She cannot say for how long the incident had taken place. When the accused persons had left on their Bolero while they deboarded from their motorcycle and went near the dead body. She did not raise any alarm nor did she stop anyone to inform that her nephew had been murdered. There were vehicles running on the road. They did not stop after seeing the dead body. Her parents place is near to the place of occurrence and takes about five minutes. She did not go to her parents place to inform about the incident. She does not remember as to when the motorcycle had a break down. After coming out from the hills, which was densely populated, there were several houses on both sides of the road but no one was informed. She did not raise any alarm after reaching her house. After seeing the incident, she did not try to flee away nor did she raise any alarm or try to save the deceased. P.W-8-Jatuna Bibi has stated that about one year back, Gulab Nabi was murdered. Gulab Nabi was the nephew of her son inlaw. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had not told the police that she had come to know that Aasif Ansari had committed the murder. She had reached the place of occurrence at 7 A.M.. P.W-9-Nurul Hoda Ansari is the informant and father of the deceased. Gulab Nabi was the nephew of her son inlaw. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had not told the police that she had come to know that Aasif Ansari had committed the murder. She had reached the place of occurrence at 7 A.M.. P.W-9-Nurul Hoda Ansari is the informant and father of the deceased. The incident is of 20.7.2011 at 3 A.M. He was in his house. He had solemnized the marriage of his son with Reshma Khatoon who had stayed in her matrimonial house for one month and thereafter had left for her parents place. On 16.7.2011, Reshma had called Gulam to Dakbunglow but due to the rains, Gulam Nabi could not go to the said place. On the next day, he had gone to Dakbunglow to discuss about the Bidai of Reshma Khatoon. Mohiuddin Ansari had stated that his daughter does not want to go back to her matrimonial house because it is a village area. This witness had stated that his daughter in law has to stay in her matrimonial house. After having a discussion, Mohiuddin Ansari relented and asked him to send Gulam Nabi for Bidai. Thereafter, the auspicious time of Bidai was fixed for 20.7.2011 at 8 A.M. and accordingly, this witness had given permission to his son to visit his inlaws house. Gulab Nabi thereafter went with his brother Kausar and after dropping him at Dakbunglow, Kausar returned to Pindra. Kausar had disclosed that Gulab Nabi along with his brother inlaw Aasif Ansari had gone to Sidhe to purchase the articles needed for Bidai. He had tried to contact Gulab Nabi but had failed. He thereafter rang up Ayub Ansari in Sidhe to find out the whereabouts of Gulab Nabi. Till 2-2.30 A.M.no information could be received. He thereafter had a discussion with his uncle and brother and by 4 A.M., he had left in search of his son. He came to Garhwa Dakbunglow and asked Mohiuddin Ansari who stated that Gulab Nabi is traceless from the night itself. When the reply was not satisfactory, he left for Sidhe and on reaching Naujawan Chowk, he found the dead body of his son lying in the ground. After leaving his brother at the said place, he came to Garhwa P.S. with his uncle. Some people of the village had already started gathering. When the reply was not satisfactory, he left for Sidhe and on reaching Naujawan Chowk, he found the dead body of his son lying in the ground. After leaving his brother at the said place, he came to Garhwa P.S. with his uncle. Some people of the village had already started gathering. He had given a written report in the P.S., which has been marked as Ext-1.They thereafter returned to where the dead body was kept, where he met his brother-Khusdil Ansari. After coming to know about the incident, he had given another written application to the Inspector, who kept it and assured that the said contents shall be reflected in the restatement of this witness. He has identified his signature and signature of Akbar Ali Ansari, which has been marked as Ext-2 and 2/1 respectively. Khusdil Ansari had disclosed that Gulab Nabi was murdered by Aashif Ansari, Sarafat Ansari, Mohiuddin Ansari, Amna Bibi, Reshma Khatoon, Sonu Khan and Mehandi Hasan. In cross-examination, he has deposed that Gulab Nabi used to work in Gujrat. The first written application was given on 20.07.2011 at 6 A.M. while the second application was given at 8 A.M. In his statement to the police, he had disclosed in details about the incident. He had seen Khusdil at the place of occurrence but not the wife of Khusdil, his own wife and the wife of Kausar. The marriage of Gulam Nabi was solemnized with Reshma on 29.5.2011. He had not witnessed the incident. He has stated that Gulam Nabi had left for Garhwa at 7.30 P.M. Kausar had returned back at 9 P.M. On the fateful night, he did not have telephonic conversation with Khusdil. From Garhwa Dakbunglow, the distance to Sidhe is 4 kilometers. He had not informed the police about the missing of his son. He discovered the dead body at about 4.45 A.M. There was no one else present near the dead body. He stood near the dead body for about ten minutes. He has also deposed that after seeing the dead body, he had not informed anyone in Sidhe but asked his brother to do so. He had conversed with Khusdil from 7.15 A.M. to 7.45 A.M. He had met the wife of Khusdil on 20.07.2011 but they did not talk. P.W-10-Md. He stood near the dead body for about ten minutes. He has also deposed that after seeing the dead body, he had not informed anyone in Sidhe but asked his brother to do so. He had conversed with Khusdil from 7.15 A.M. to 7.45 A.M. He had met the wife of Khusdil on 20.07.2011 but they did not talk. P.W-10-Md. Shammirul Haque was posted at Sadar Hospital, Garhwa as a Medical Officer, Garhwa and on 20.07.2011, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gulab Nabi Ansari and had found the following:- (i) Lacerated wound ½” diameter with blackened and inverted margin just behind middle of right pinna(ear). (ii) On dissection, there was fracture of temporal bone with presence of blood in cranial cavity and lacerated brain matter-wound of entry. (iii) Lacerated wound size 1”x1/2” in size diameter with averted margin at medial angle of right eye near root of nose underlying maxilliary and frontal bone is fractured, eye bowl mercerated and expelled out-wound of exit. (iv) Lacerated wound ½”x1/2” in diameter near medeal angle of left eye four bruises 4”x3” over the righty fronto temporal right with depressed skin, underlying bone(fronto-temporal) is fractured”. Injury No. (i) and (ii) were caused by fire arm and injury no. (iii) and (iv) were caused by hard and blunt substance. The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage due to the above mentioned injuries. He has proved the postmortem report, which has been marked as Ext-3. P.W-11-Balchand Dubey has stated that the investigation into Garhwa P.S. Case No.257 of 2011 was given to him by the officer in charge Ashok Kumar Sinha. He has proved the signature of Ashok Kumar Sinha in the formal FIR, which has been marked as Ext-4. He has proved the inquest report, which has been marked as Ext-5. In course of investigation, he had inspected the place of occurrence, which is at village-Sidhekhurd More in the metalled road, which goes from Garhwa to Rehla. There is a field at a distance of 500 ft. from Khurd more near Naujawan Chowk. It was in this field, the dead body of Gulab Nabi Ansari was found. About two and half meters south, there are signs of tyres of a small vehicle. There is a field at a distance of 500 ft. from Khurd more near Naujawan Chowk. It was in this field, the dead body of Gulab Nabi Ansari was found. About two and half meters south, there are signs of tyres of a small vehicle. In course of investigation, he had recorded the restatement of Nurul Hodda Ansari and had also recorded the statements of Kaishar Ansari, Ajma Bibi, Afsana Khatoon, Khusdil Ansari, Jainul Bibi, Jatuna Bibi, Islammuddin Ansari, Md. Illiyas Ansari and Mariam Bibi. All had stated about the accused persons committing the murder. He had obtained the postmortem report and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons. In cross-examination, he has deposed that Khusdil Ansari had given his statement that when he was going to his house at 3 A.M., he had seen a Marshal coming from Garhwa and near Naujawan Chowk, Aasif Ansari, Sharafat Ansari, Mohiuddin Ansari, Reshma Bibi, Amna Bibi, Sonu and Mehandi Hasan were taking out Gulam Nabi. Khusdil had not taken the name of Mehandi Hasan and Sonu. He had not stated that Sonu and Mehandi Hasan had threatened them of being shot. He had also not given any statement that Gulam Nabi died in his presence. He had also not told that his vehicle had a break down. Khusdil had not stated that he had informed his brother and prior to that his brother had informed the police. He had stated that with him on his motorcycle was his wife. He has resiled and stated that Khusdil had never told that his wife was accompanying him. Jokhu Ansari had never stated before him that he had seen Amna, Reshma, Mohiuddin, Aasif and Sharafat. He had also not stated that Aasif had fired a shot. He had not stated that he had gone away on his vehicle. He had also not disclosed that he had seen a male and a female on a motorcycle who were not identified by him. Jokhu Ansari had also not stated that he had gone to Rehla Station for dropping Firoz Ansari. He had not stated that he had disclosed about the incident in the police station to Nurul Hoda. Jokhu Ansari had also not stated that he had seen the occurrence from a distance of 25-30 ft. He had not stated that he had seen the deceased being shot at from point blank range. He had not stated that he had disclosed about the incident in the police station to Nurul Hoda. Jokhu Ansari had also not stated that he had seen the occurrence from a distance of 25-30 ft. He had not stated that he had seen the deceased being shot at from point blank range. The witness Kausar Ansari had not stated that when had come to Garhwa, he had seen Mohiuddin, Aasif, Sharafat, Reshma and Amna talking to each other. He had also not stated that Khusdil Ansari had disclosed to him that Amna Bibi, Reshma Khatoon, Mohiuddin Ansari, Aasif Ansari, Sharafat, Chandu and Sonu had committed the murder of Gulam Nabi Ansari. The witness Azma Bibi had not stated before him that Khusdil had disclosed that Aasif had fired at the deceased. The witness Afsana Khatoon had not stated before him that she had come to know about the incident from her uncle Khusdil Ansari. The witness Jainul Bibi had never stated that she had come to her parents’ place one day before the incident and that her brother Ayub was sick. She had also not stated that in the light of the motorcycle, she had seen a Bolero coming from Garhwa, which stopped at a distance of 10-20 ft. from her. She had not stated that the assailants included Mehandi Hasan and Sonu and that they had threatened her. She had not stated to have seen the dead body at the place of occurrence. The witness Jaituna Bibi had not stated that it has come to her knowledge that the murder was committed by Aasif. She had also not stated that one day before her daughter Jaibun and son in law Khusdil had come to her house. The witness Nurul Hoda Ansari in his restatement had not stated that the incident is of 20.7.2011 at 3 A.M. and he was in his house. He had not stated about the discussions, which had taken place with respect to the Bidai of Reshma Khatoon. He had also not stated about calling Ayub Ansari over phone to search for his son. He had not stated that near the dead body he met Khusdil Ansari and after getting the information, he had given another written application to the inspector. He had also not stated about calling Ayub Ansari over phone to search for his son. He had not stated that near the dead body he met Khusdil Ansari and after getting the information, he had given another written application to the inspector. He had also not stated in his restatement that Khusdil Ansari had disclosed to him about Aasif Ansari, Sharafat Ansari, Mohiuddin Ansari, Amna Bibi, Reshma Khatoon, Sonu Khan and Mehandi Hasan committing the murder of Gulam Nabi. In the diary, he has mentioned that on 20.07.2011 at 6.25 A.M. on the basis of a rumor, a sanha was registered. On account of such information, he had gone to the place of occurrence along with police force and at the place of occurrence, he had seen the father of the deceased, the brother of the deceased and others. From the place of occurrence, nothing was recovered. No empty cartridge was recovered. A search was carried out in the house of the accused but nothing incriminating was recovered. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have merely denied their participation in the occurrence. 7. The defence has examined as many as two witnesses in support of its case. D.W-1-Md. Yakub Ansari has stated that he knows Mohiuddin Ansari who worked as a cook in Garhwa Daknunglow and who has superannuated on 31.12.2003. Prior to the incident, Gulam Nabi had never come to his inlaws place. D.W-2-Md. Illiyas Ansari has deposed that he had gone to Naujwan Chowk and had seen the dead body of the son inlaw of Mohiuddin Ansari. Some unknown persons had committed the murder and had thrown the dead body at the said place. 8. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-7 claim themselves to be the eye witnesses but their evidence is not consistent with each other. They have claimed to have seen the deceased being dragged out from a vehicle and Aasif Ansari had shot at him but their subsequent demonor belies a natural human conduct. P.W-2 had not disclosed about the incident after he came back to the village and only at 10.A.M. he had informed the informant Nurul Hoda Ansari of having seen the murder. Mr. P.W-2 had not disclosed about the incident after he came back to the village and only at 10.A.M. he had informed the informant Nurul Hoda Ansari of having seen the murder. Mr. Kashyap has further submitted that P.W-1 and P.W-7 travelled together from the parents’ house of P.W-7 on a motorcycle at 3 A.M. which itself is surprising considering the topography of the place and the menace it fosters and the evidences of P.W-1 and P.W-7 are at variance. As per P.W-7, her parents’ place was about five minutes away from the place of occurrence but instead of taking shelter there and informing the others about the incident, instead took a circuitous route through the hills to her matrimonial house. Mr. Kashyap has put much reliance upon the evidence of P.W-11 to emphasize that the evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-7 suffers from improvements and contradictions. 9. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P. has firmly relied upon the evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-7 apart from the testimony of the informant (P.W-9). The informant had initially given a written report which raised suspicion against the appellants and which was registered as an FIR but the informant had again given a written application specifying the incident as disclosed to him by Khusdil Ansari (P.W-1) and therefore the same fact corroborates the evidence of P.W-1. While referring to the testimony of P.W-2 she has submitted that when P.W-2 had reached the place of occurrence, he from the headlamp of his motorcycle had seen another motorcycle with a male and a female riding on the same and though he could not recognize them but the evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-7 clearly points to them as the couple who were at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. There being direct evidence on record, according to Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P., these appeals are liable to be dismissed. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the Lower Court Records. 11. The gist of the prosecution case is of the son of the informant visiting his inlaws place at Garhwa Dakbunglow and thereafter not returning only to be later on discovered of having been murder. The written report of the informant was confined to raising suspicion against the inlaws and wife of the deceased as the deceased had gone to visit them. The written report of the informant was confined to raising suspicion against the inlaws and wife of the deceased as the deceased had gone to visit them. Suspicion took the form of solid evidence as the eye witness accounts of Khusdil Ansari, Jokhu Ansari and Jaibun Bibi came to light. These witnesses have been examined as P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-7. P.W-1 has stated about staying at the house of his inlaws on the date of occurrence since his brother in law was sick and astonishingly had left for his house at 2.30-3 A.M. along with his wife. His parents in law did not stop them though one wonders what prompted P.W-1 to leave his inlaws place at the dead of night and that too in an area, which was not conducive to night travel. P.W-1 has not given any reasons for the urgency shown in leaving his inlaws place. As per P.W-1, near Naujwan Chowk, he had seen the accused persons coming out of a Marshal Jeep who had dragged out Gulab Nabi Ansari while the appellant Aasif Ansari had shot at him. P.W-1 and his wife (P.W-7) were threatened by the accused persons and thereafter they left. His cross-examination reveals that he had not made any efforts to inform the relatives of Gulam Nabi Ansari, rather his non-chalant attitude speaks volumes about his conduct and makes his entire testimony doubtful. P.W-7, the wife of P.W-1, has also matched her statement with that of P.W-1 regarding the manner, in which the occurrence had taken place barring the make of the vehicle, which she says was a Bolero vehicle. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that her parents place is near to the place of occurrence and takes about five minutes to reach. The natural conduct in the circumstances denoted by P.W-1 and P.W-7 was to have gone back to the parents’ house of P.W-7 and inform the police and the relatives of the deceased more so when both were aware that the informant was worried about the missing of his son and that the brother inlaw of P.W-1 was telephonically requested by the informant to trace out his son which fact was conveyed by P.W-7 to P.W-1. Apart from this, P.W-1 and P.W-7 have also stated about presence of vehicles near the place of occurrence but it seems that no attempt was made by them to seek any assistance. Apart from this, P.W-1 and P.W-7 have also stated about presence of vehicles near the place of occurrence but it seems that no attempt was made by them to seek any assistance. As per the informant ( P.W-9) he had come to know about the persons involved in the murder of his son from P.W-1 in between 7.15 to 7 45 A.M. It also appears that neither the parents in law of P.W-1 nor his brother in law have been examined by the prosecution. Both these witnesses have also not stated about the presence of P.W-2 at the place of occurrence. The evidence therefore of P.W-1 and P.W-7 are not suggestive of the fact that they are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. 12. The evidence of P.W-2 is likewise as though he claims to have seen the incident but he also chose to remain silent as he had not disclosed about the incident to his co-villagers, his relatives and to the relatives of P.W-9 and only at about 10 A.M. on the next day, he had disclosed about the same to P.W-9. He had also seen a male and female on a motorcycle at the place of occurrence but he had never tried to approach them. P.W-2 claims to have seen the incident as he was returning from Garhwa road after dropping his son Firoz Ansari at Rehla station. Though he appears to be a chance witness but his conduct on witnessing the incident seems to be surprising as we have considered above. His son Firoz Ansari was also not examined by the prosecution. 13. In the backdrop of such conflicting evidence of P.W-1,P.W-2 and P.W-7, we shall consider the testimony of the Investigating Officer (P.W-11). It appears that none of the facts deposed by P.W-2 from the time of his dropping his son to Rehla Station till the disclosure of the incident by him to Nurul Hoda Ansari had been stated by P.W-2 to P.W-11. He has denied to have seen the incident of firing or the presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence. The testimony of P.w-2, which otherwise was on shaky ground has totally crumbled in the face of the onslaught of the evidence of P.W-11. 14. He has denied to have seen the incident of firing or the presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence. The testimony of P.w-2, which otherwise was on shaky ground has totally crumbled in the face of the onslaught of the evidence of P.W-11. 14. P.W-1 and P.W-7 who were travelling together in a motorcycle had also given conflicting versions before P.W-11, which further leads credence to the findings recorded by us that they were not the eye witnesses to the incident of murder. Moreover, it appears that the testimony of P.W-1 has been further diluted as P.W-9(informant) had never stated before P.W-11 of coming to know about the assailants as well as the incident from P.W-1. This also demolishes the contention of P.W-9 in his evidence of P.W-1 disclosing about the occurrence to him. 15. The aforesaid discussions leads us to conclude that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and as a consequence thereof the judgment of conviction dated 25.2.2014 and order of sentence dated 1.3.2014 passed in S.T. No.53/2012 and S.T. No.135/2012 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly they are set aside. 16. These appeals are allowed. 17. Since the appellant-Aasif Ansari in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 338 of 2014 is in custody, he is directed to be released immediately and forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 18. So far as the other appellants are concerned, they are on bail and hence they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.