2026:JHHC:19136 (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 -------- [Against the judgment of conviction dated 03.12.2008 and sentence dated 06.12.2008, passed in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. (I), Garhwa.] ------- 1. Hanif Ansari @ Hanif Mian, S/o. Rojan Mian; 2. Bifni Bibi, W/o. Hanif Ansari Both are R/o. Vill.- Belpahari, P.S.- Bhawnathpur, Dist.- Garhwa. ... ... Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mobin Miyan, S/o. Late Md. Ishak Mian, R/o. Vill.- Arsali, P.O. & P.S.- Bhawnathpur, Dist.- Garhwa. …… Respondents With Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008 ------ Gafoor Ansari, S/o. Hanif Ansari, R/o. Vill.- Belapahari, P.S.- Bhawnathpur, Dist.- Garhwa. ... ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mobin Miyan, S/o. Late Md. Ishak Mian, R/o. Vill.- Arsali, P.O. & P.S.- Bhawnathpur, Dist.- Garhwa. …… Respondents -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. For the Resp. No.2 : None J U D G M E N T CAV On: 01st May, 2026 Pronounced on: 30/06/2026 1. Both these criminal appeals arise out of the common judgment. Accordingly, both these appeals are being heard together for final disposal. 2. Already, heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. in both cases. None has appeared on behalf the Respondent No. 2 in both cases. 2026:JHHC:19136 2 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) 3. Instant Criminal Appeals are directed against the common Judgment and order of conviction dated 03.12.2008 and sentence dated 06.12.2008, passed in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. (I), Garhwa, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 498A & 304B/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for seven (07) years alongwith the fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C.; R.I. for three (03) years alongwith the fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and R.I. for two years alongwith the fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Factual Matrix:- 4. The factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is that informant’s daughter Aabida Bibi was married with Gafoor Ansari about one and half years prior to lodging of this case in accordance with Muslim rites and customs. It is alleged that the informant as per his capacity gifted some items at the time of marriage. It is alleged that in her matrimonial home, informant’s daughter remained quite well for one month, thereafter, her husband asked her to bring a motorcycle from her parents otherwise he would not keep her. The informant’s daughter told that her parents are very poor person and can’t afford to purchase a motorcycle and give him. Hence, her husband and family members started to torture her physically and mentally. The informant alongwith his some relatives also went to daughter’s matrimonial home 2026:JHHC:19136 3 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) and expressed inability to meet the demand of motorcycle and requesting to keep his daughter properly returned from there. It is further alleged that informant’s daughter came to her paternal home for some days and told that her husband and in-laws are not keeping her properly and she is not being given proper food and clothes and is being harassed in various ways. It is further alleged that on 13.09.2003, the in-laws of the informant’s daughter gave message to send her at matrimonial home and thereafter, informant’s son Khadim Ali alongwith his sister went to matrimonial home of his daughter and leaving her returned on the same day. Again, on 20.09.2003 at about 12:00 P.M., informant received information that his daughter has died at her matrimonial home then informant alongwith some relatives rushed to the matrimonial home of his daughter and found that her dead body was lying on ground. Upon interrogation from husband and other family members, they failed to disclose any reason for death of the daughter of the informant rather it was told that she has committed suicide by hanging but the reason for suicide was not explained by them. Therefore, informant went to police station for lodging case but his case was not registered due to pendency of a U.D. Case at that time. Hence, he lodged a complaint case before the Court of learned C.J.M., Garhwa which was sent to the concerned police station for registration of case and investigation of the case vide order dated 25.09.2003 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 5. Accordingly, Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 103 of 2003 dated 04.11.2003 under Sections 147, 498A & 304B of the I.P.C. and Section 2026:JHHC:19136 4 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against four accused persons. 6. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the aforesaid offences and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2004 was registered. 7. The appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. 8. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record adduced by the prosecution, arrived at conclusion holding the appellants guilty and impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been passed, whereby one of the co-accused Jamruddin Mian (father-in-law) was acquitted and other three accused persons (present appellants) were convicted and sentenced as stated above. Submissions on behalf of the appellants:- 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that appellant Bifani Bibi and Hanif Ansari (appellants in Cr. Appeal. No. 1415/2008) have no concern with the matrimonial affairs of Gafoor Miyan and his wife. No demand of motorcycle was raised by these appellants and in the prosecution evidence also, it has not been proved that these appellants were making any demand of motorcycle rather the allegation is against the husband Gafoor Miyan. It is further submitted that no specific overt act of any kind relating to assault or torture and harassment in any manner meted out with the deceased was extended by the appellants, namely, Bifani Bibi and Hanif Ansari. The information of death of 2026:JHHC:19136 5 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) deceased was also given at parental home of the deceased and a U.D. case was also registered on the basis of information given by Mobin Ansari (respondent no. 2), who is nonetheless but father of the deceased. Later on, due to grudge and vengeance Mobin Miyan has lodged this case falsely roping all the family members in dowry death case. There is no iota of evidence against the appellants Bifani Bibi and Hanif Ansari, who have been convicted and sentenced illegally, beyond the evidence on record. Hence, conviction of Bifani Bibi and Hanif Asnari (appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 1415/2008) is liable to be set aside and they deserve acquittal from the charges levelled against them. 10. So far appellant Gafoor Miyan (Cr. Appeal No. 1417 of 2008) is concerned, it is submitted that the appellant is quite innocent and has unnecessarily been implicated in this false case. It is further submitted that UD case was lodged by the father of the deceased, wherein, it was mentioned that his daughter Aabida Bibi (deceased) was suffering from multiple illness and due to that reason, she has committed suicide. UD case was registered on the basis of fardbeyan of father of the deceased Mobin Miya, who has lodged this case, wherein he has not whispered about demand of motorcycle and consequent torture and harassment meted out with his daughter. There is no iota of evidence against the appellant except the version regarding demand of motorcycle and torture meted out with the deceased about non-fulfilment of the same alleged by the informant. No specific day, date or month has been stated as to when the said demand was raised and what type of cruelty and harassment was extended to the deceased at the hands of present 2026:JHHC:19136 6 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) appellants. In the alternative, it is prayed that out of seven years of sentence awarded to the appellant, he has undergone about five years imprisonment. On the date of occurrence, the appellant was aged about 21 years and now more than 22 years have been expired from the date of occurrence. The appellant was released on bail during pendency of this appeal vide order dated 28.01.2009. It is further submitted that the informant (respondent no. 2) was also validly served with notice to appear in this case, but did not appear to contest this appeal. It was the appellant’s first offence and he never indulged in any criminal activity prior to the occurrence and even post-conviction in this case and leading normal peaceful life with his family. Therefore, sending again the appellant to serve the remaining sentence of 2 years would serve no useful purpose in the eye of law rather create abnormal situation for the appellant as well as his family members. Hence, sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:- 11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and defended the impugned judgment on merits. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly scrutinized the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and arrived at right conclusion while convicting the appellants. It is very serious social offence committed by the appellant. Therefore, sentence awarded to the appellants is not fit to be reduced further. Considering the overall 2026:JHHC:19136 7 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) mitigating and aggregative circumstances, the learned Trial Court has awarded minimum sentence prescribed under law to the appellants. Therefore, this appeal has no merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussions and reasons: - 12. I have gone through the records of the case alongwith impugned judgment in light of the contentions raised on behalf of both parties. 13. The only point for determination in this appeal is that "as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any serious error of law calling for any interference in this appeal or not?" 14. It appears that prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses out of them PW-5 & PW-6 have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution. I. Exhibit-1 : Signature on inquest report of Akhtar Ansari II. Exhibit-2 : Postmortem report. III. Exhibit-3 : Endorsement of PW-12 over complaint petition. IV. Exhibit-4: formal F.I.R. 15. Defence has also adduced two witnesses, namely, DW-1 Mohammad Gani and DW-2 Samsuddin Mian and one Exhibit-A Fardbeyan of Mobin Ansari in Bhawnathpur P.S. U.D. Case No. 11/2003 dated 20.09.2003. 2026:JHHC:19136 8 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) 16. P.W.10 Mobin Mian is the informant and father of the deceased Aabida Khatun. He has deposed that his daughter was married to Gafoor Mian about 3 years ago. After marriage his daughter went to her matrimonial house and after 2 days she returned. He has further stated that after 15 days, he took his daughter to her matrimonial home. He further states that after some days he sent his son Khadim Ali to his daughter's matrimonial home, where Gafoor Ansari, Hanif Ansari and Jamruddin asked from her daughter to bring motorcycle from her parents. He has further stated that his son said them about their inability to give them motorcycle. His son also told him above incident. P.W.10 has further stated that he also went to the matrimonial house of his daughter, then she disclosed about the demand raised by the accused persons. His daughter also told that she requested the accused persons that her parents are poor and they cannot give motorcycle. Then they abused and assaulted her. P.W.10 has further deposed that the accused persons said that unless the motorcycle is given, his daughter cannot live peacefully. P.W.10 has further stated that he brought his daughter with him. P.W.10 has further stated that he alongwith his wife, Khadim Ali, Mohiuddin Ansari, Shahid Mian, Asmuddin Mian and Pyari Bhulan again went to the matrimonial house of his daughter. They tried to convince them but they did not pay any heed, then they returned. P.W.10 has further stated after 3-4 days Hanif Mian, Gafoor Ansari, Jamruddin Ansari came to his home and asked for motorcycle, but he denied and expressed his inability. Then they returned. Thereafter the 2026:JHHC:19136 9 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) in-laws of his daughter asked to send the girl with them. Thereafter, on 13.09.2003, his son Khadim took the girl to her matrimonial house. He has further stated that on 20.9.2003, he received information about the illness of his daughter, then he went to the matrimonial house of his daughter. In the way, at Bhawnathpur, Musan Mian told him that his daughter has died. Thereafter, he called his wife and both sons and they all went to the matrimonial house of his daughter, where they found her dead body was lying on the ground. On inquiry, accused persons told that she has committed suicide by hanging. He has further stated he called the police at the spot. In presence of police he removed the cover from the dead body and found that there was black strip like mark on the neck of the dead body. There was also some spot on the stomach on left side appearing to be mark of lathi blow. There was also scratch near the throat caused by nails. He has further stated that police did not lodge the case. Therefore, he filed this complaint on 25.09.2003. P.W.3 Khadil Ali is the brother of the deceased. He has also stated that Gafoor, Bifani Bibi and Hanif Mian used to beat his sister and demanded motorcycle. His father could not meet the demand of motorcycle. He has further stated that on 13.9.2003, he took his sister to her matrimonial home and thereafter they received information on 20.09.2003 that his sister has died. On his cross-examination, P.W.3 states that utensils, cloths were given in the marriage of her sister which was not returned by the accused persons. He has further stated that when the accused persons refused, then case was filed after a week by his father. 2026:JHHC:19136 10 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) P.W.4 Pyari Bhuian has deposed that he knows Mobin Mian. Daughter of Mobin was married with Gafoor Mian. He has further stated that the girl was not treated well in her in-laws. He has further stated about 2 years ago, alongwith Mobin Mian and sons and other relatives, he also went to the matrimonial house of the girl in Belpahadi to convince the accused persons. He has further stated that motorcycle was being demanded and in this matter he went to convince the accused persons. He has further stated that at that time girl was in her Naihar. He has further stated that information was sent from Belpahadi to send the girl, then elder son of Mobin Mian took the girl. He has further stated that after 6 days, information came that the daughter of Mobin had died. He cannot say how she died. Police inquired from him. In his cross-examination, P.W.4 has deposed that it was month of Bhado and it was Saturday when they went to convince the accused persons, but he cannot say the date and year. P.W.8 Mahiruddin Ansari is another brother of the deceased Aabida Bibi. He has deposed that deceased was married with Gafur about 2 ½ years ago. After the marriage, the in laws of her sister used to torture her for the demand of motorcycle. They used to beat her and stopped her food. P.W.8 has further stated that they could not give motorcycle. They committed murder of his sister by pressing her neck. On information, his father went to the police station, but police did not register the case. 2026:JHHC:19136 11 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) On his cross-examination, P.W.8 has stated that his sister was murdered on 19.9.2003 in the night. They were informed in the day at 01.00 P.M. When he asked from the accused persons about the death of his sister, then they said that she has committed suicide by hanging herself. He had seen the dead body of his sister at 5.00 P.M. on the ground. P.W.8 has also stated that Officer In-charge told them about registering a U.D. Case in this matter. P.W.8 also states that Jamruddin Ansari is grand father-in-law of her sister in relation. P.W.9 Jainab Bibi the mother of the deceased, has deposed that Aabida Bibi was her daughter. She was married with Gafoor Ansari at village Pandaria tola Belpahadi, S/o Hanif Mian. Bifani Bibi is mother-in-law of her daughter. Jamruddin is grand father-in-law. She has further stated that marriage took place about 4 years ago. She has further stated that all the accused persons demanded motorcycle from her daughter. Due to poverty, they could not give motorcycle. Therefore, they committed murder of her about 2 ½ years ago. The occurrence took place on Friday and on Saturday, they received information. She also went to the matrimonial house of her daughter and after seeing her dead body she fainted. On her cross-examination, P.W.9 has stated that accused persons told that Aabida committed suicide by hanging. She has further stated that they did not file any case at the police station because they were scolded by the police. P.W.9 has also disclosed that Pyari Bhuian, Kasmuddin, Jahir Mian, Khadim Ali are the witnesses 2026:JHHC:19136 12 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) of the demand of motorcycle. All the above named witnesses went to the matrimonial house of her daughter to convince her in laws. P.W. 11 Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh is the doctor, who conducted Post- mortem upon the dead body of Aabida Bibi on 21.9.2003. He has deposed that the dead body was brought and identified by Hawaldar Shiv Pujan Singh. He has further stated that the body was average built. A rigor mortis in lower limbs only. Un-digest food material came out from mouth and nose. Discoloration of body. Both eyes closed and congested, mouth partially closed. Doctor has found the following ant-mortem injuries on the dead body :- (1) Swelling over the neck (all around the neck). No definite ligature mark seen. Bruise measuring 1 ½" x 1" over back of chin. On dissection- larynx and traces were congested. Cricoid cartilage fractured. Doctor has opined that death has been caused due to pressure over the neck and may have been caused by hanging by soft cloth. Time since death- 06 to 36 hours. He has also proved his writing and signature over the postmortem report marked Ext.- 2. P.W.12 Dinesh Prasad has proved endorsement in the pen and signature on the complaint marked as Ext.-3. He has also proved the formal F.I.R. marked as Ext.-4. P.W.1 Dilip Kumar Chaubey has deposed that the daughter-in-law of Hanif Ansari committed suicide. She was mentally ill. P.W.2 Akhtar Ansari has identified his signature on the inquest report marked as Ext.-1. 2026:JHHC:19136 13 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) P.W.7 Sarajuddin Ansari has deposed that wife of Gafoor Ansari committed suicide and has no further information about the occurrence. 17. Two witnesses have also been examined by the defence in this case. D.W.1 Mohammad Gani has stated that deceased was daughter of Mobin Mian, who committed suicide by hanging herself. Police came to the spot and they brought the dead body down. He has further stated the girl was under the effect of 'Shaitani Harakat. He has further stated that police asked to take the dead body to the police station, then Robin Mian said not to take the dead body because she has herself committed suicide. He has further stated the in-laws of Aabida did not torture for dowry. He has further stated that Jamruddin Ansari does not belong to the matrimonial family of Aabida. On his cross-examination, he has stated that he had seen the deceased under the effect of 'Shaitani Harakat'. He has further stated that accused persons brought him to depose in the court. DW-2 Shamsuddin Mian has deposed that he knows Mobin Mian and accused persons. He has further stated that Aabida was married with Gafoor Mian. He has further stated that Aabida was treated well in her matrimonial house. He has further stated that sometimes her mental balance was disturbed. He has further stated that Mobin Khan wanted to send her to sasural, but she was not ready. Aabida was taken to her sasural, at that time Aabida said that after one week they will hear about her death. He has further stated that thereafter he heard that Aabida died 2026:JHHC:19136 14 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) in her matrimonial home. On his cross-examination, D.W.2 has stated that he had not seen the dead body of Aabida. To the suggestion of prosecution that he had no information about Aabida, D.W.2 denied. 18. It is apparent from the aforesaid discussion of testimony of witnesses that the deceases died at her matrimonial home within two and half years of her marriage and the said death was unnatural as has been apparently proved by postmortem report of the deceased. 19. It is also proved that after one month of marriage, husband of the deceased namely Gafoor Miyan started demanding a motorcycle as an additional dowry but due to non-fulfilment of demand, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by not providing proper food and clothing and frequent assault and torture at the hands of her husband and in-laws. 20. It appears that the learned Trial Court has considered overall evidence available on record and rightly found that all the ingredients of offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. has been constituted in this case. So far application of presumption under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, it applies to only those accused persons against whom the ingredients of this section has been proved. For better appreciation, the relevant is extracted as under:- Section- 113(B)- Presumption as to dowry death- when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in 2026:JHHC:19136 15 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation- For the purposes of this section 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. 21. From the evidence of witnesses examined in this case as discussed above, it is crystal clear that no overact has been attributed against the appellants Bifani Bibi and Hanif Miyan, who happened to be mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased either in demand of motorcycle or was subjecting the deceased to cruelty in any manner. It is also here to be mentioned that except husband, there was no use of motorcycle to these appellants. Therefore, the basic ingredients for using presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act is lacking against the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 rather it is the husband Gafoor Miyan alone ( appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1417 of 2008) against whom the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act may be raised for conviction. 22. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellants Bifani Bibi and Hanif Miyan (appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 1415 of 2008) is set aside and conviction and sentence of the appellant Gafoor Ansari under Sections 304B/34 & 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act is upheld and confirmed. 23. So far the question of reduction of sentence of the appellant Gafoor Ansari in Cr. Appeal No. 1417 of 2008 is concerned, it appears that it was his first offence and he has undergone substantial period of imprisonment for about five years out of seven years of R.I. The appellant is enjoying the benefit of suspension of sentence for seventeen 2026:JHHC:19136 16 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) years and he has also got married and leading happy conjugal life with his spouse. The case has become stale one and the informant (respondent no. 2) of these cases is also not taking any interest in contesting this appeal. Therefore, deterrent effect of the offence has lost its vigour. The reformative approach should be taken in the facts of the circumstance of this case. It further appears that the appellant Gafoor Ansari has not indulged in any criminal activity except this case and there is every possibility of his reformation remained in the main extreme of life. 24. Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, age, character and decency of appellants and possibility of his reformation and restoring to peaceful life, abiding person of the society, it appears that it is expedient in the case of justice to reduce imprisonment awarded to the appellant Gafoor Ansari. 25. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the appeal of appellants namely, Bifani Bibi and Hanif Ansari @ Hanif Mian is hereby allowed and their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 is allowed. The appellants appear to be on bail and as such, their respective bail bonds are cancelled and their sureties are also discharged. 26. So far the appellant Gafoor Ansari in Cr. Appeal No. 1417 of 2008 is concerned, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby upheld and confirmed subject to modification of his sentence from R.I. of seven years to the imprisonment already undergone by him. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal No. 1417 of 2008 is hereby dismissed 2026:JHHC:19136 17 | P a g e (Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1415 of 2008 with Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1417 of 2008) with modification in sentence. The appellant is on bail. As such, his bail bond is cancelled and also discharged from the sureties. 27. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 28. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back immediately to the concerned court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: 30/06/2026 Rahul / NAFR Uploaded on 01/07/2026