Dismissed

Jubera Bibi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Jul 2018Acq. App./14/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an acquittal appeal, the High Court examined a lower court order acquitting accused respondents due to land dispute enmity and lack of specific assault allegations against them, affirming the Trial Court's decision to grant benefits of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal and the acquittal appeal were dismissed with no interference in the acquittal of respondents Nos. 2 to 6.

Jubera Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal No. 14 of 2018

¶2

with

¶3

I.A. No. 2892 of 2018

¶4

Jubera Bibi ..... … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Md. Siraj

¶8

Kalamuddin Mian @ Kamaluddin

¶9

Gulshan Bibi

¶10

Marjina Khatoon

¶11

Jamaluddin Mian @ Jamal Ansari .….… Respondents

¶12

-------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI -----For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P. --------

¶13

07/ 20.07.2018 Heard learned counsel for the informant appellant and learned counsel for the State.

¶14

The informant appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 19^th of January, 2018, passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court (Rape Cases), Deoghar, in S.T. Nos. 113 of 2013 and 113-A of 2013, whereby the accused respondents, who were facing the trial, for the offences under Sections 447, 341, 323, 307 / 34 and 504 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted of the charges. It may be stated that in S.T. No. 113 of 2013, one accused Md. Salauddin, who was also facing the trial along with the accused respondents, has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

I.A. No. 2892 of 2018 has been filed for seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal of the accused respondents.

¶16

According to the prosecution case, it is alleged that on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 5.1.2012, all the accused persons had taken part in the occurrence, and the female respondents had caught hold the informant on the order given by the respondent Md. Siraj, and on his order, the accused Md. Salauddin had assaulted the husband of the informant by axe,

¶17

-2-

¶18

causing bleeding injury on his head. Md. Salauddin thereafter, assaulted the informant also by axe, resulting into injury in left wrist, and upon the alarm raised, the accused persons fled away.

¶19

It is an admitted fact in the cross-examination of P.W.-4 Jubera Bibi, the informant appellant herself, that there was dispute between the parties for the landed property. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have supported the prosecution case and the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused Md. Salauddin, against whom, there was specific allegation of assault upon the informant and her husband, also in view of the fact that the ocular evidence of the witnesses, was corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Gopal Prasad, who had examined both the injureds.

¶20

The Court below after taking into consideration the fact that there was land dispute between the parties, found that false implication of those accused, against whom there was no allegation of assault causing any injury, could not be ruled out, and accordingly, acquitted them giving them the benefits of doubt.

¶21

Learned counsel for the informant appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in view of the fact that there is allegation against them also, in the evidence of the witnesses. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the accused respondents be noticed and upon hearing both the sides, Judgment of acquittal be set aside and they be also convicted and sentenced for the offences as aforesaid.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand has opposed the prayer.

¶23

Having heard counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the Court below has rightly convicted the accused against whom, there is specific allegation of assault by axe upon the informant and her husband. So far as the implication of the other accused respondents are concerned, we find that there is an admitted enmity between the parties due to land dispute, and in that view of the matter, the Court below has rightly drawn the conclusion that their names could be added in the prosecution case only to drag them in a criminal case, who might not be involved in commission of the offence.

¶24

-3-

¶25

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned Judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned Trial Court below, giving the benefits of doubt to the accused respondents, against whom there was no allegation of assault causing any injury upon the informant or her husband, and acquitting them giving them the benefits of doubt. As such we do not find any such inherent or patent illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal, so as to call for any interference by this Court.

¶26

Since, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal, passed by the Trial Court below, no question arises of granting any leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the interlocutory application, I.A. No. 2892 of 2018, filed for seeking leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal, stands dismissed. 12. Consequently, the acquittal appeal also stands dismissed, being bereft of any merit.

¶27

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶28

Amitesh/-

Jubera Bibi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jubera Bibi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balay Banerjee Shishir Banerjee Vs State of Jharkhand

Seraj Ansari And Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Guru Charan Singh Vs State of Bihar

Rajendra Thakur Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rajendra Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand

Ghasi Ram Munda Vs State of Bihar

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Balay Banerjee  Shishir Banerjee Vs State of Jharkhand

Seraj Ansari And Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Guru Charan Singh Vs State of Bihar

Rajendra Thakur Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rajendra Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand

Ghasi Ram Munda Vs State of Bihar

Balay Banerjee Shishir Banerjee Vs State of Jharkhand