Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26037-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.05.2002 (Sentence passed on 23.05.2002) holding the appellant Asif Equwal guilty of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by Shri Ramanuj Narain learned, Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj] Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 665 of 2002 Asif Equwal S/o Abdul Gafoor Ansari, R/o Vill. Rudidih, P.S. Patan, Dist. Palamau … Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ----------- P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ---------- For the Appellant : M/s. Juhi Kumari, Amicus Curiae : M/s. Rajveer Singh, Advocate For the State : M/s. B. N. Ojha, Spl.P.P. --------- C.A.V. On 15.07.2025 Pronounced on 27 / 08 /2025 1. Heard Mrs. Juhi Kumari, learned Amicus appearing for the appellant and also Mr. Rajveer Singh and Mr. B. N. Ojha, learned Spl.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.05.2002 (Sentence passed on 23.05.2002) holding the appellant Asif Equwal guilty of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code passed by Shri Ramanuj Narain learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj and thereby sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Halima Bibi alleging therein that on 10.02.1999 at about 10:00 A.M., there was some dispute between her husband, Amir Hamza and the accused persons over construction of house under Indira Aawas Yojana. It is alleged that during the quarrel, the appellant Asif Equwal, stabbed her husband, due to which he succumbed to his injuries and Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26037-DB ) 2 when the informant tried to intervene, the accused persons also assaulted her by lathi with the intention to commit her murder. 4. After investigation police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on 28.02.1999 under sections 323/ 324/ 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance of the case was taken by the learned C.J.M., Palamau at Daltonganj on the same day under the aforesaid sections. This case was committed to the court of Sessions by learned C.J.M., Palamau on 23.05.2000 as it was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. 5. Charge was framed against the appellant under sections 302, 307, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were 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. The informant Halima Bibi has been examined as P.W.1. Imamuddin Ansari has been examined as P.W.2. Hamida Bibi has been examined as P.W.3. Mahadeo Nonia has been examined as P.W.4. Ajmal Mian has been examined as P.W.5. Laxminia Devi has been examined as P.W.6 Fulmatiya Devi has been examined as P.W.7. Ramchandra Bhuiyan has been examined as P.W.8. Sunita Devi has been examined as P.W.9 Dr. Krishna Murari Sah has been examined as P.W.10. Md. Iqbal Husain has been examined as P.W. 11. Md. Nasim Akhtar has been examined as P.W. 12. 8. The prosecution has adduced the post-mortem report in evidence which is Ext:- 1. Inquest report is Ext:-2. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., defence is general denial of the occurrence. 9. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary available on the record the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offence under sections 307, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code but held him Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26037-DB ) 3 guilty for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. 10. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that apart from the informant who has been examined as P.W. 1, there is no eye witness to the occurrence, he has also pointed out towards the statement of the informant Halima Bibi P.W.1, she has stated in her cross- examination that she reached at the place of occurrence after the occurrence. 11. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Special P.P. has stated that the informant Halima Bibi P.W.1 has categorically stated that it was the appellant who had stabbed her husband due to which he succumbed to his injuries and as such the learned Trial Court has rightly held him guilty and sentenced him accordingly. It was further submitted that the sentence passed by the learned Trial Court was commensurate to the gravity of the offence. 12. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to come to the aforesaid finding, it has to be established: - (i) That the deceased Amir Hamza died a homicidal death. (ii) Whether the appellant Asif Equwal stabbed him due to which he succumbed to his injuries? 13. Dr. Krishna Murari Sah P.W.10 has performed the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person. (i) Spindle shaped incised wound in the cardiac region 1”X ¼” x chest cavity deep. (ii) Spindle shaped incised wound in the abdomen 1” X ¼” X abdominal cavity deep. According to this witness, the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon and the deceased died due to the aforesaid injuries. From the perusal of the oral testimony of Md. Nasim Akhtar P.W. 12, it appears that he is witness to inquest. He had seen the dead body of the deceased. He has stated that the deceased had sustained knife injuries on his back and stomach. On perusal of the oral testimony of Dr. Krishna Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26037-DB ) 4 Murari Sah P.W. 10, it appears that his oral testimony fully corroborates his finding in the post-mortem report which is Ext:-1. In view of the aforesaid finding, it is evident that the deceased, Amir Hamza died due to injuries, which were inflicted by sharp cutting weapon. These injuries do not appear to be self-inflicted and as such we come to a finding that the deceased had died a homicidal death. 14. As far as the complicity of the appellant in committing the murder of the deceased Amir Hamza is concerned, from the perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that Halima Bibi P.W. 1 has supported the occurrence and has stated that occurrence took place one year ago at about 10:00 A.M. when she was present in her house. Her husband had gone to inspect the construction of house allotted under Indira Aawas Yojana. It is alleged that appellant Asif Equwal inflicted several knife on his person due to which he succumbed to his injuries. She has also stated that appellant Asif Equwal assaulted her by a lathi due to which she sustained fracture in her hand. In her cross examination, she has stated that when she went to the place of occurrence she saw that her husband was lying dead in a pool of blood. She further stated that she fainted and when she regained consciousness, she saw that there was cut in her hand. Imamuddin Ansari P.W.2 has stated that he cannot say who had entered in his house and who had inflicted knife injury. He has not supported the prosecution case and as such, he has been declared hostile. Hamida Bibi P.W. 3 has stated that she has no knowledge about the occurrence and as such she has also been declared hostile. Mahadeo Nonia P.W.4 has stated that after the occurrence, he went to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased in an injured condition. He has stated that he did not see anybody assaulting the deceased. This witness has also been declared hostile. Ajmal Miyan, P.W.5 has not supported the prosecution case and as such he has also been declared hostile. Lakshmanya Devi P.W.6 has stated that she does not know as to how Amir Hamza died. She has also been declared hostile. Fulmatiya Devi P.W.7 has stated that she is not aware as to who Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26037-DB ) 5 committed the murder of the deceased Amir Hamza. She has also been declared hostile Ramchandra Bhuiyan P.W.8 has stated that he is not aware as to who committed the murder of Amir Hamza. She has also been declared hostile. Sunita Devi. P.W.9 has not supported the prosecution case as such she has also been declared hostile. Md Iqbal Husain P.W.11 is witness of seizure to the blood stained soil recovered from the place of occurrence. She has proved his signature on the inquest which is Ext:-.2. From perusal of the statement of oral testimony of Halima Bibi P.W.1, who is the informant of this case, it appears that she has stated that the occurrence took place one year ago at about 10:00 A.M. She was present in her house. Her husband had gone to supervise the construction of house under Indira Aawas Yojana. She has stated that the appellant Asif Equwal stabbed him due to which he died at the place of occurrence. At paragraph 9 of her cross-examination, she has stated that when she reached at the place of occurrence, she saw that her husband had died and blood was oozing from his body. She has also stated that she immediately fainted on seeing the dead body of her husband and when she regained consciousness, she found that her hand was also injured. From the perusal of the statement of Halima Bibi. P.W.1, it is evident that she is not an eye witness to the occurrence. 15. Accordingly, it is evident that none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and such they have been declared hostile, though the informant Halima Bibi P.W.1 has stated that it was the appellant who had stabbed her husband resulting in his death but in her cross-examination, she has stated that she reached at the place of occurrence and saw her husband lying in an injured. It is evident that she is not an eye witness to the occurrence. Accordingly, we come to a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant Asif Equwal beyond all reasonable doubt. 16. This appeal is allowed. 17. The appellant is on bail. He along with his bailors are discharged Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26037-DB ) 6 from their liability towards bail bond. 18. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of. 19. We record our appreciation towards Mrs. Juhi Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae, who has very ably assisted this court in deciding this case. Member Secretary JHALSA is directed to pay her Rs. 7,000 /- by way of remuneration. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) (Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated:- 27 / 08 / 2025 Saurabh/NAFR