Jharkhand High Court
Amna Khatoon Alias Amna Bibi And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 March, 2015
Author: R.N. Verma
Bench: R.R. Prasad, R.N. Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 313 of 2014
1. Amna Khatoon @ Amna Bibi
wife of Mohiuddin Ansari @ Mohiuddin Sheikh
2. Mohiuddin Ansari @ Mohiuddin Sheikh
son of late Noor Mohammad Ansari
Both residents of Side Khurd, P.O., P.S. & District Garhwa
... ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 309 of 2014
Reshma Khatoon
w/o late Gulam Nabi Ansari resident of Side Khurd, P.O., P.S. &
District Garhwa ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 310 of 2014
Sarafat Ansari
S/o Israil Ansari resident of Unchari, P.O., P.S. & District Garhwa
... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 338 of 2014
Aasif Ansari
S/o Sarafat Ansari resident of Unchari, P.O., P.S. & District Garhwa
... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Azeemuddin, Advocate
07/31.03.2015I.A. No.140 of 2015 (In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.338 of 2014) Having been satisfied with the grounds taken, the delay occurred in filing this appeal, is hereby condoned.
Accordingly, I.A. No.140 of 2015 stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.338 of 2014 Admit.
Issue notice.
I.A. No.601 of 2015 (In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.313 of 2014), I.A. No.602 of 2015 (In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.309 of 2014) and I.A. No.603 of 2015 (In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.310 of 2014) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned (2) counsel appearing for the State and also learned counsel for the informant on the matter of bail of the appellantsAmna Khatoon @ Amna Bibi and Mohiuddin Ansari @ Mohiuddin Sheikh (Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.313 of 2014), Reshma Khatoon (Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.309 of 2014) and Sarafat Ansari (Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.310 of 2014) and also Aasif Ansari (Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 338 of 2014), who have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/120B for committing murder of the deceased Gulam Nabi Ansari and also under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the case of the prosecution is that Reshma Khatoon, wife of the deceased, was living at her father's place, who on 19.07.2011 made a call to her husband (the deceased) to come to her place for taking Vidai. Thereupon, her husband ( deceased) alongwith his brother Kaushar Ansari (P.W.3) came to the place of Reshma Khatoon and then the deceased was taken by the appellant Aasif Ansari in the said evening to village Sidde where he was found dead and therefore a case was lodged. During the investigation, the police did find complicity of all the appellants and were put on trial. During which, P.W.1 and P.W.7, uncle and aunt of the deceased, claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses. Of them, P.W.1 has testified that while he was in her inlaws place alongwith his wife P.W.7 (informant), P.W.9 made a telephonic call on his mobile informing therein that his son has been taken to village Sidde but nothing has been heard of him. Upon it, P.Ws.1 and 7 in the night at about 2 O' Clock left home in search of the deceased and found at one place the deceased being assaulted by all the accused persons and it was Aasif Ansari, who shot at her husband causing injury resulting into his death but P.Ws.1 and 7 never happen to be the eye witnesses as they had never gone to the village Sidde, which is evident from the evidence of the I.O., who during course of investigation when examined the mother of P.W.7, she did disclose that P.W.1 and P.W. 4 had not come to her place. Likewise, P.Ws.2 and 4, covillagers, have claimed to have seen the occurrence but P.W.4 could not identify the assailant where P.W. 2 claimed to have identified the appellant but the statement of P.W.2 has been recorded after one month of the occurrence and as such conviction on his part cannot be ruled out.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that there has been no reason to discard the testimonies of P.W.1 and 7 and that P.W.2 has specifically named the appellants, who had participated in the occurrence and that there is no reason to disbelieve the (3) testimony of P.W.3, who had categorically stated that it was the appellant Aasif Ansari, who had taken the deceased on his Bolero vehicle to village Sidde where the deceased was found dead and therefore, this case can be a case of last seen, so far the appellant Aasif Ansari is concerned.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellantAasif Ansari and hence his prayer for is hereby rejected.
However, the appellants Amna Khatoon @ Amna Bibi, Mohiuddin Ansari @ Mohiuddin Sheikh, Reshma Khatoon and Sarafat Ansari are directed to be enlarged on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions JudgeII, Garhwa in connection with Sessions Trial Nos.53 of 2012 and 135 of 2012.
Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 601 of 2015, 602 of 2015 and 603 of 2015 stand disposed of.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) (R.N. Verma, J.) Anit/Ritesh