2026:JHHC:14995 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.926 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 926 of 2005 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.07.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.VII, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.288 of 2001 arising out of Patratu P.S. Case No.5 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No.47 of 2000 (T.R. No.921 of 2001)] --------- Md. Sirajuddin, son of Late Md. Yasin, of village Sayal ‘D’ Colliery, P.S. Bhurkunda, Dist. Hazaribagh ……Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Khusbhu Neesa, W/o-Md. Mumtaz Ansari, D/o-Akbar Ali, R/o Barrack at Near Mines No.8, Sayal Colliery, P.S. Bhurkunda, Dist. Hazaribagh …. Respondent ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate Mr. Shashi Ranjan, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ----------- CAV On 23rd April, 2026 Pronounced On 13/ 05/2026 1. Heard Mr.Venkatesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.07.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.VII, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.288 of 2001 arising out of Patratu P.S. Case No.5 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No.47 of 2000 (T.R. No.921 of 2001), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences 2026:JHHC:14995 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.926 of 2005 2 under sections 498-A, 386 and 323 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years for the offence under section 498A of IPC and R.I. for 6 months each for the offence under section 323 of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act and further R.I. for 5 years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 386 of IPC and he has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with a fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence under section 3 of D.P. Act with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that a complaint case No.585 of 1999 was filed by one Khusbun Nisa before the court of learned CJM, Hazaribagh, which was sent to the concerned police station in exercising the power under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation. As per complaint, there were 11 accused persons and the case of the complainant that she is handicapped woman and presently residing at Sayal ‘D’ Colliery, Hazaribagh. It is alleged that the accused No.1, Md. Mumtaz met with the complainant in the month of October, 1997 while she was alone in her house and had committed rape upon her. The matter was reported to a local Anjuman Committee and a panchyati was held on 21.10.1997 where Md. Mumtaz confessed his guilt. Therefore, it was decided on 23.10.1997 that only way to settle the issue is ‘Nikah’. 2026:JHHC:14995 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.926 of 2005 3 Accordingly, on 02.11.1997 in presence of local respected persons, Nikah of the complaint was performed with the accused, Md. Mumtaz fixing them “Den Mehar” of Rs.20,001/-. It is further alleged that it was also decided by Anjuman Committee that father of complainant and his father (father of accused, Md. Mumtaj Ansari), namely, Md. Sirajuddin will deposit Rs.50,000/- each total amount of Rs.1 lakh in the account of the complainant. After Nikah, the complainant went to her matrimonial home at village Japla, P.S. Hussainabad, Dist. Palamau. It is further alleged that just after few months of marriage, the complainant was coerced for withdrawing the aforesaid amount of Rs.1 lakh and she was taunted passing remarks “तुàहारा बाप मंगनी मɅ Ǔनकाह ͩकया लंगड़ी का”. It is further alleged that food and clothes were also stopped by the appellant as a result of which her health started deteriorating. Her husband was also abating his father and mother and other family members for subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty. As such, the complainant was frequently assaulted by them and several times, she was locked up in a room without providing any food. It is further alleged that the accused, Md. Mumtaz and Md. Sirajuddin used to visit the village, Japla and tried to put the complainant in fear of death and pressurized her to withdraw the amount deposited in her name. The complainant was brought to Patratu Sayal ‘D’, Colliery quarter at 2026:JHHC:14995 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.926 of 2005 4 Hazaribagh, where she was compelled by putting under fear of death for withdrawing the amount, thereafter, total amount of Rs.1 lakh was withdrawn and handed over to the accused persons and she was not permitted to meet with her parents and forced to go the village, Japla. It is further alleged that the father of the complainant attempted to get the matter settled but the accused persons further raise demand cash of Rs.50,000/-, one color T.V., Hero-Honda motorcycle and other household articles, otherwise, she was driven out from her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that the accused, Md. Mumtaz and Md. Sirajuddin (present appellant) returned to Sayal ‘D’, colliery quarter at Hazaribagh but his family members were instructed to assault and torture the complainant to meet out the aforesaid demand. The father of the complainant also came to village, Japla but he was not allowed to meet with the complainant, thereafter, he raised the matter before Anjuman Committee of Japla as well as Sayal ‘D’ Anjuman Committee. After several efforts of Anjuman Committee, the accused persons did not stop torturing the complainant and consequently kicked her out from the matrimonial home. The family members of the complainant again tried to settle the matter by visiting at her matrimonial home on 26.08.1999 but of no result. The complainant also went to local police station on 06.09.1999 but she was advised to file a case before the court. 2026:JHHC:14995 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.926 of 2005 5 4. On the basis of above complaint, Patratu P.S. Case No.05 of 2000 dated 09.01.2000 for the offence under section 498A, 420, 386, 307, 323, 120B of IPC and sections 3/4 of D.P. Act was registered. After due investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under sections 498-A, 420, 386, 307, 323 and 120-B of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act on 18.08.2000 against only one accused, Sirajuddin and cognizance has been taken by the learned CJM and case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T. No.288 of 2001 was registered. After framing the charge under section 498-A, 386, 307 and 323 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, it was read over and explained in Hindi to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to e tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely:- P.W.1-Ramchandra Ram P.W.2-Ramyas Ram P.W.3-Khushbu Nisa (complainant) P.W.4-Khairun Nisa P.W.5-Akbar Ansari P.W.6-Shahid Ansari 6. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, two documentary evidences have been adduced by the prosecution. 2026:JHHC:14995 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.926 of 2005 6 Ext.1.-Sign of complainant on complaint petition Ext.2.-Formal FIR 7. On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced by the defense rather following documentary evidence has been adduced, namely:- Ext.A-Certified copy of complaint case No.177 of 1999 (Md. Mumtaz Ansari Vs. Akbar Ali) Ext.B- Certified copy of order dated 20.07.2004 passed in S.T. No.169 of 2004 (State Vs. Md. Mumtaz Ansari). 8. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as stated above. Submission on behalf of appellant:- 9. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant, it is argued that the appellant happens to be father-in-law of the complainant, who was working in Sayal ‘D’ Colliery, Bhurkunda, Hazaribagh. It is further submitted that the son of the appellant, namely Md. Mumtaz Ansari was charged by the present complainant for the commission of rape with her for which a case was also lodged vide S.T. No.169 of 2004 wherein the appellant was also made accused for the offence under section 307 of IPC along with other family members and his son Md. Mumtaz was also charged for the offence under sections 376 and 498A of IPC in that case vide order dated 20.07.2004 (Ext.B), 2026:JHHC:14995 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.926 of 2005 7 the appellant was discharged. It is further submitted that the appellant was although residing at his service place at Bhurkunda and always used to visit to his native place, Japla. There are general and omnibus allegations against the present appellant that he used to subject the complainant to cruelty and compelled her to withdraw the amount of Rs.1 lakh from her account, which was settled at the time of panchyati by Anjuman Committee in the rape case. The complainant has brought no documentary evidence on record as to when she withdrew the money and gave to the present appellant. There is no iota of evidence at all in the entire evidence of witnesses showing any overt act of the appellant either for demanding dowry or torturing the complainant. Learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the overall aspects of the case wherein there is no pivotal role of the appellant attracting any of the offences charged against him. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal. Submission on behalf of State:- 10. Learned Spl.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the appellant is father of the main accused, Md. Mumtaz. Since, he was ordered by Panchyati to deposit Rs.50,000/- in favour of the complainant and after depositing the same, he became instrumental to withdraw the said 2026:JHHC:14995 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.926 of 2005 8 amount from the bank account of the complainant, who was a handicapped lady. The appellant is the head of the family and all the tortures’ activities met with the complainant were at his instructions. Therefore, learned trial court has very wisely and aptly apprised and appreciated the prosecution evidence and arrived at right conclusion about the guilt of the appellant. Hence, there is no reasonable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. This appeal has no merits and is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 11. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 12. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal?” 13. Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence lead by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant P.W.1- Ramchandra Ram has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Although, this witness admits that Md. Mumtaz was 2026:JHHC:14995 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.926 of 2005 9 married with the complainant about 3-4 years ago. However, he denied about any panchyati or other factual aspects. P.W.2-Ramyas Ram has also proved the factum of the marriage of the complainant with the accused, Md. Mumtaz, which was solemnized due to intervention of Anjuman Committee. P.W.4-Khairun Nisa is the mother of the complainant/informant. She has also proved the marriage of her daughter, Khusbhoo Nisa with Md. Mumtaz in the year 1997. She has also stated that her daughter went to her matrimonial home at Japla where she was subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of the demand raised by her husband and father-in- law(appellant) and other accused persons. Her daughter was also assaulted by shoes by pressing her neck. P.W.5- Akbar Ansari is the father of the informant. He has also consistently supported the version of the complaint petition regarding marriage of his daughter due to intervention of Anjuman Committee after commission of rape by Md. Mumtaz. Thereafter, the demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- cash, color T.V., motorcycle and other household articles were demanded from his daughter. The panchyati was failed and his daughter was driven out from the matrimonial home by the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and other family members. 2026:JHHC:14995 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.926 of 2005 10 P.W.6- Shahid Ansari is the friend of P.W.5, Akbar Ansari. He has also gone to Japla for settling the dispute and supported the prosecution case in the manner as other witnesses. 14. The important witness of this case is P.W.3, Khusbu Nisa (complainant). She has consistently reiterated the contents of her complaint petition regarding background of her marriage with Md. Mumtaz. According to her, at first, she was committed rape by Md. Mumtaz in the year 1997 in the night at about 10:00 o’ clock. Thereafter, the matter was raised before Anjuman Committee and her marriage was solemnized fixing “Den Mohar” of Rs.20,001/- according to Muslim Law and Customs. She has further stated that as per terms and conditions of decision of Anjuman Committee, her father and father-in-law were directed to deposit of Rs.1 lakh in her account and they deposited the above amount in her name at Sayal ‘D’ Bank. Thereafter, she went to her matrimonial home at village, Japla where all the accused persons began to torture her raising demand of Rs.50,000/-, one color T.V., motorcycle and other household articles from the complainant and she was also subjected to physical and mental cruelty by not providing proper food and she was locked in a room about 15 days without supplying of food and other necessities and she was driven to commit suicide. Thereafter, she was brought to Sayal ‘D’ Colliery, Hazaribagh and the amount deposited in her name was withdrawn 2026:JHHC:14995 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.926 of 2005 11 putting her under fear of her death and the accused persons received the said amount. Thereafter, the complainant was driven away from the matrimonial home. 15. It appears that learned trial court on the basis of general and omnibus allegation made against the present appellant found the appellant guilty for the offences under sections 498-A, 323 of IPC and Section 386 of IPC because the victim was put under fear and Rs.1 lakh was extorted from her. Learned trial court also found that there was demand and receiving of money as dowry by the present appellant and also held guilty for the offence under sections 3/4 of D.P. Act. 16. I have given thoughtful consideration to overall evidence available on record. It appears that the defense has also adduced the documentary evidence, Ext. A and Ext. B, which clearly goes to show that the husband of the complainant has lodged a complaint case against his father-in-law and his wife and other accused persons for abducting his wife. The present appellant was also discharged in the case of rape and attempt to murder lodged by the complainant (Ext.B). From the evidence of the main witness, the victim lady (P.W.3), it appears that all the incidents alleged by her has happened at village, Japla and it is admitted position that the present appellant was residing at the working place, Bhurkunda, Pataratu at Hazaribagh. There is no specific allegation of any demand of dowry or subjecting to torture to the 2026:JHHC:14995 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.926 of 2005 12 complainant at the instance of the appellant. There is no evidence at all that Rs.1 lakh was withdrawn by the complainant and handed over the same to the present appellant, even no documentary evidence about any Bank Account of the complainant has been brought on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said money was extorted by the present appellant from the complainant. 17. From perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record in respect of the appellant, who alone has faced the trial and other accused persons were not apprehended and put to trial. The factual scenario proved by the prosecution does not attract commission of any offence by the appellant. Therefore, I am of the firm view that learned trial court has committed serious error of law in recording the guilt of the appellant for the offence charged against him by ignoring the specific materials available against the present appellant. The appellant appears to have been convicted on general and omnibus testimony of the complainant/informant. 18. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.07.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.VII, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.288 of 2001 arising out of Patratu P.S. Case No.5 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No.47 of 2000 2026:JHHC:14995 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.926 of 2005 13 (T.R. No.921 of 2001) is, hereby, set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges leveled against him. This appeal is allowed. 19. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from liability of his bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 20. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 13 /05 /2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 15 /05 /2026