Dismissed

Aayesha Khatoon v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Aug 2024Acq. App./66/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an acquittal appeal where the Trial Court had acquitted accused persons in a case involving arson and hurt. The High Court found no merit in the appeal, noting the absence of independent witnesses, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, and lack of material evidence such as photographs to prove the burning of the house and vehicle.

What the court decided

AI extract

Aayesha Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 66 of 2022

¶3

Aayesha Khatoon @ Aaysha Khatoon @ Aaisha Khatoon, aged about 46 years, daughter of Asruddin Ali, resident of Ara More, Wasseypur, PO Bhuli, PS Bank More, Distrit Dhanbad … Appellant(s).

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Alam Ansari @ Pahari Neta 3.Md. Banti @ Sakil Ansari 4.Chhotka @ Sabir Khan 5.Md. Raja @ Imran Khan 6.Guddu @ Mona @ Iqbal Ansari 7.Md. Chhotu @ Chhotu Khan

¶6

8.Md. Nadir Jilani … Respondent(s).

¶7

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

¶8

-----For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State : APP

¶9

07/14.08.2024: This appeal is admitted for hearing.

¶10

This Acquittal Appeal arises out of judgment of acquittal dated 22.09.2022 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 144 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Dhanbad acquitted the accused persons from the charge under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 435, 436, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, who has taken us through the entire evidence, all the documents and since the Trial Court Record is also with us, we are disposing this appeal at this stage. There is no objection from either side in disposal of this appeal also.

¶12

Mr. A K Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the witnesses have been overlooked by the Trial Court and has not been relied upon properly. Though PW4 is an independent witness yet his

¶13

statement was rejected by the Trial Court without any reason. He submits that the Investigating Officer has also not been examined which prejudiced the case of the informant but admits that no petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C was filed to get the evidence of Investigating Officer recorded during pendency of the trial. He submits that the witness nos. 1, 2 and 3 have categorically stated that the house and the vehicle of this appellant was burnt by the accused persons but their statement has been disbelieved. He submits that the acquittal is perverse, which needs to be set aside.

¶14

We have gone through the records. The FIR being Dhanbad (Bankmore) PS Case No. 44 of 2009 was lodged by this appellant stating therein that her house and vehicle were set on fire by the accused persons. In this case, only five witnesses had been examined. PW1 and PW2 are daughters and PW3 is the daughter-in-law of the informant and PW5 is the informant himself. So far as PW4 is concerned, he is the servant of PW5. There is allegation that these respondents have set fire and burnt the house and the car of this appellant. As per the appellant the place where the occurrence has taken place is a market area. Surprisingly, there is no independent witness in support of the prosecution case. PW4 cannot be said to be an independent witness as he is the servant of PW5.

¶15

The genesis of the occurrence is that the appellant was being forced to withdraw a case against one Sarju Paswan but surprisingly PW1 in her cross-examination has admitted that this appellant has already compromised the case with Sarju Paswan. 7. It is admitted that Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case. In the absence of Investigating Officer, the place of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution. Further, there is no material to suggest that the house and the car

¶16

¶17

were burnt. Not even a single evidence like photographs or any other materials have been produced by the prosecution to the suggest that the vehicle was burnt. Though, we are not supposed to go through the case-diary yet we have gone through the same but we did not find any materials or photographs to suggest that the vehicle was burnt. Even there is no photographs to suggest that the house was burnt nor there is any such description in the case-dairy. In absence of all these things the Court below has correctly acquitted the accused persons.

¶18

Thus, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

¶19

(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

¶20

Tanuj/

¶21

Aayesha Khatoon v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Aayesha Khatoon v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chamu Mahto Alias Chandan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subarak Mian And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ashok Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Srikant Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand