Ahmad Khan vs The State of Jharkhand

All the three Appellants on being found guilty of committing murder of Hamida Parveen were convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

The case of the prosecution is that on 11.3.1997 at about 8 a.m. Hamida Parveen (deceased) sent her son, Md. Sahid Khan (examined as P.W.3 in S.T. No. 393 of 2000) and also other son to the school. After closure of the school, when both of them came home, they found door of the house locked from outside. They waited for their mother to come till evening but when she did not come, Md. Sahid Khan (P.W.3) as well as his brother came to the house of his maternal uncle, Md. Firoz and told him all about that. Thereupon Md. Firoz, his brother Parvej Ahmad and father Md. Yunush left home in search of Hamida Parveen but they did not get any trace of her till late night. Thereafter Md. Firoz on 12.3.1997 at about 10.15 a.m. came to Bistupur Police Station and informed the Officer-in-Charge about the missing of Hamida Parveen, upon which a Sahna was entered in the Station Diary. One Sub-Inspector, Jitendra Kumar (P.W.12) came to the place of occurrence and made enquiry from the persons residing in the neighbourhood and came to know that there had been altercation in between the deceased and other accused persons around 8 O''clock . After some time, the accused persons went away and since then, nobody had seen Hamida Parveen.

Thereafter lock of the door was broke open before the witnesses where they found the dead body of Himida Parveen. The said Jitendra Kumar (P.W.12) recorded the Fardbeyan (Ext.4) of Md. Firoz wherein suspicion was raised over these Appellants, who were living in the same house as the Appellants after the death of the husband of the deceased were putting pressure upon the deceased to leave the house for which there used to be altercation and had held out the threat of dire consequences.

Upon the said Fardbeyan (Ext.4), a case was registered against the Appellants and others. In course of investigation, Jitendra Kumar (P.W.12) made inquest on the dead body and then sent the dead body for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Lalan Choudhary (P.W.10/P.W.1), who found several abrasions present over front of neck, waist, right elbow, left knee and all over the hands. That apart, massive contusions were found present over front of neck and side of neck. Hyoid bone was found fractured. Cause of death, according to Doctor, was due to asphyxia as a result of pressure over neck. With such opinion, post mortem examination report (Ext. 3) was issued . On submission of charge sheet, Ahmad Khan the Appellant in Cr. App No. 101 of 2004 along with others was put on trial, vide S.T. No. 228 of 1998 whereas Nusrat Parveen and Abdul Rahman Khan the Appellants in Cr. App. Nos. 1741 and 1810 of 2003 were put on trial, vide S. T. No. 393 of 2000. Both the Sessions Trials were decided by two different judgments whereby all the three Appellants were found guilty of committing murder of Hamida Parveen. The other accused persons, who were put on trial along with the Appellant Ahmad Khan were acquitted.

Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, these three appeals have been preferred by the Appellants.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants would submit that the prosecution came forward with the case that after the son, namely, Md. Sahid Khan (P.W.3/P.W.8) and his brother left home, these three Appellants and other accused persons, who have been acquitted came to the house of Hamida Parveen (deceased) and had had altercation with the deceased and after some times, all the accused persons went away but there has been absolutely no evidence to this effect and as such, one of the vital links is conspicuously missing from the chain of the links but still the trial court recorded the order of conviction which is quite illegal and it is fit to be set aside.

It was also submitted that the prosecution though came forward with the case that relationship in between the deceased on one hand and the Appellants on the other hand was quite bitter but has failed utterly to establish that fact, still this circumstance was taken to be one of the incriminating circumstances while recording the order of conviction which is quite illegal.

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the State.

It would be worthwhile to indicate here that two Appellants, namely, Nurat Parween and Abdul Rahman Khan were tried in one sessions trial whereas the Appellant, Ahmad Khan was tried in different sessions trial but the witnesses examined by the prosecution are the same. Md. Firoz and Parvej Ahmad are the brothers of the deceased whereas Md. Yunush is the father of the deceased, who have been examined in both the cases. According to them, the deceased Hamida Parveen, whose husband had died one year before, was living in quarter No. 13 of Block ''A'' where the Appellants were also living. All the aforesaid three witnesses are consistent on the point that there used to be altercation in between the deceased and the Appellants, as the Appellants were putting pressure upon the deceased to leave the house. On account of that, as per the evidence of Md. Yunush, the deceased had also informed to the police about their misdeeds, upon which a Sanha entry was made which led to initiation of a proceeding u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This fact gets corroborated from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, Jitendra Kumar, who has testified that the record of Bistupur Police Station shows that on a complaint made by the deceased, the police had forwarded a report for initiating a proceeding u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the prosecution undoubtedly has established the fact that the deceased and the Appellants, who were living in the same house, were not in good terms at all.

We further do find from the evidence that on 11.3.1997, Md. Sahid Khan, one of the sons of the deceased examined as P.W.3 in S.T. No. 393 of 2000 and as P.W.8 in S.T. No. 228 of 1998, was sent school at 8 a.m. along with his brother by her mother Hamida Parveen (deceased). After closure of the school when both of them came home at about 12 O''clock, they found door of the house under lock from outside. Both of them waited for their mother to come till evening but when she did not come, the said Md. Sahid Khan as well as his brother (not examined) came to the maternal uncle, Md. Firoz (P.W.4/P.W.7) and told him all about that . Thereupon Md. Firoz , his brother Parvej Ahmad (P.W.9/P.W.10) and their father Md. Yunush (P.W.8/P.W.4) came at the house of the deceased where they found a lock over the door. They went on searching Hamida Parveen till late night but when she was not found, the matter was informed to the Bistupur Police Station. Thereafter the Investigating Officer, Jitendra Kumar (P.W.12) came to the house of the deceased and got the lock of the door opened and found the dead body lying there having injuries on her person. Upon post mortem examination, it could be detected that death occurred due to asphyxia on account of putting pressure over the neck and the estimation of the doctor relating to time elapsed since death concur with the version of witnesses suggesting time of offence in between 8 to 12 a.m. Thus, it gets established that death was on account of homicide and that the Appellants were not found present in the house during the period when the dead body was lying over there and even thereafter.

Not only that one of the witnesses, namely, Matiur Rahman (P.W.2/P.W.9) a shopkeeper whose shop situates in front of the house has deposed that on 11.3.1997 at about 8 p.m. there was an altercation in between the deceased and the Appellants. This witness has not been cross-examined at all on this point. Moreover, there appears to be no reason to raise any doubt over the said statement as his presence near the house of the deceased, on account of having shop in front of the house of the deceased seems to be quite natural. Thus, there has been unimpeachable evidences on the record that the Appellants were found missing from the house, for which no explanation whatsoever was given by the Appellants, though specific question was put to them u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they after committing murder put the lock on the door and went away. Normally it is found that as soon as the accused comes to know that he has been implicated in a case, tendency used tobe to abscond from the place but in the instant case, the Appellants were found missing from the house even before the case had been lodged against them which is the strongest incriminating circumstance. Thus, the circumstances being given below not only have been fully established but it unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused:

(i) The deceased and all the Appellants were living in the same house where the deceased was done to death.

(ii) Soon before the deceased was done to death, there was an altercation in between the deceased and the Appellants.

(iii) The Appellants were found missing from the house which had been put under lock.

(iv) No explanation whatsoever has been put forth about their absence from the house.

The aforesaid circumstances do form a complete chain to draw an inference that it is only the Appellants and none others, who are responsible for committing offence of homicide.

Under the circumstances, the trial court has rightly recorded the order of conviction and sentence. Hence, the order of conviction and sentence is hereby affirmed.

Accordingly, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Hence, all the three appeals are dismissed.