Allowed

Nijamuddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 May 2018Cr.Rev./45/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision and discharged the petitioner, holding that conviction under Section 364 IPC cannot rest on the sole testimony of an informant who failed to explain a three-month delay in lodging the FIR without corroborative evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner discharged from conviction liability and liability of bail bonds.

Nijamuddin Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 45 of 2003

¶2

Nijamuddin Ansari …… Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand

…… Opposite Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Amicus Curiae For the O.P. : A.P.P

¶8

-----

¶9

05/Dated: 08/05/2018

¶10

The sole petitioner has preferred this criminal revision being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 14.11.2002 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTC No.5 Dhanbad in ST No.308/2001 , whereby he held the petitioner guilty under section 364 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years with a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default to undergo one year imprisonment.

¶11

The present criminal revision application has been filed on 15.01.2003 and on 27.01.2003, this revision was admitted for hearing, LCR was called for and during pendency of this criminal revision application, the petitioner was admitted on bail.

¶12

After 15 years, this case was listed before this Bench on 15.01.2018 and on 20.02.2018, Mr. Pankaj Kumar was appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner in this case.

¶13

P.W.7 who is informant of this case has stated in his written report that petitioner had taken away his husband on 20.06.1999, but the case was lodged on 08.09.1999 i.e. after a delay of three months for which no explanation has been given.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except the informant all the eight prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses and they have been declared hostile. So no case under section 364 is made out against the petitioner, but the trial court has failed to consider the aforesaid fact.

¶15

In that view of the matter, I find that the informant has not given any explanation for the delay of three months in lodging the FIR and there is no corroborative evidence supporting the version of the informant. So it would not be appropriate to maintain the conviction of the petitioner on the sole testimony of P.W.7 ( informant).

¶16

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this criminal revision application is allowed.

¶17

The petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

¶18

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee for quantifying the fees payable to Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Amicus Curiae and the order be also communicated to the court below.

¶19

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶20

Raman /

Nijamuddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nijamuddin Ansari v. 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

Babu Pillay Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bhola Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Pankanj Ram Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bharat Jhunjhunwala Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sudhir Ram Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Abhay Nindkan Tigga Vs State Through Superintendent Of Police Hob Cbi Acb Ranchi