Latif Nadaf And Ors. Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2025)

Latif Nadaf And Ors. Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.12.1996 and order of sentence dated 13.12.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, quashed and set aside so far as the present appellants are concerned; appeal allowed; appellants acquitted from their criminal liability and discharged from the liability of bail bonds.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubt? +2 more

Court's answer

There is a vital contradiction between the informant's testimony that the Investigating Officer talked to Ibrahim (implying the deceased could speak) and the medical evidence that before death the deceased was in coma and not in a position to talk, which raises doubt in the prosecution case.

Ratio / Principle

Since Dr. P.W.7 deposed that injured witness Sk. Kausar (P.W.5) was treated on 24.11.1997 at 12.45 pm with an injury about 12 hours old, Kausar must have been injured on 23.11.1997 and not on the date of occurrence 21.11.1977; this raises doubt on the credibility and reliability of the injured eye-witness and is fatal to the prosecution case.

Key takeaways

The arrow alleged to have been shot by accused Sk. Ainudi was never seized by the police (it remained with the departmental museum); this lacuna in the investigation raises doubt in the prosecution case.ratio¶60
The variations/discrepancies pointed out by the appellants' counsel are enough to conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and affect the prosecution case substantially.ratio¶64
Since the main accused Sk. Ainudi and Kedar Rai died during pendency of their appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 40/1997), which stands abated, the Court confined itself to the culpability of appellant Pandu Ray, alleged to have shot the arrow that injured P.W.5 Kausar.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (DB), Jharkhand High Court — incidents of 21.11.1977 (paddy-harvesting dispute, Godda). Surviving appellants Latif Nadaf, Ibrahim Nadaf, Pandu Ray and Lakhinder Rai had been convicted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda (judgment 12.12.1996; sentence 13.12.1996) under ss. 302/149, 324/149, 379, 147 and 148 IPC; the appeal stood abated against four deceased appellants, and the tagged Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 40 of 1997 (Sk. Ainudi and Kedar Rai — the archers who fired the arrows hitting the deceased's eye and cheek) also abated on their death. Held: (i) the informant's statement that the I.O. talked to the deceased contradicts the postmortem finding that the arrow through the left eye penetrated the brain leaving the deceased comatose and unable to speak — a vital contradiction; (ii) Dr. P.W.7's evidence dates injured witness P.W.5 Kausar's wound to about 23.11.1997, not the occurrence date 21.11.1977 — fatal to the credibility of the injured eye-witness; (iii) the arrow (weapon of offence) was never seized by the police; (iv) relying on Krishnegowda, Abdul Sayeed and Bhajan Singh, medical evidence making ocular testimony improbable discredits the ocular version, the doctor being the only non-interested witness; (v) ingredients of s.149 IPC not attracted; (vi) following Rang Bahadur Singh, Bhagirath, Allarakha Mansuri and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the benefit of doubt applies where reasonable doubt persists on the whole evidence. Conviction and sentence quashed; appeal allowed; appellants acquitted and discharged from bail bonds.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment of conviction dated 12.12.1996 and order of sentence dated 13.12.1996 convicting the appellants under section 302/149 IPC (rigorous imprisonment for life); Pandu Ray additionally under section 324 IPC; the remaining three under 324/149 IPC (3 years); Latif Nadaf and Ibrahim Nadaf under section 379 IPC (3 years); Lakhindra Rai and Pandu Ray under section 148 IPC (3 years); Latif Nadaf and Ibrahim Nadaf further under Section 147 IPC (2 years); sentences directed to run concurrently.¶30
1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda (Sessions Trial No.33 of 1981/23 of 1995) · 12.12.1996 (conviction); 13.12.1996 (sentence)
Prior proceeding
Fardbeyan of informant Md. Alimuddin recorded on 21.11.1977; on that basis FIR registered; after investigation charge-sheet submitted and cognizance taken; the case, being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, was committed to the Court of Sessions.¶40
Prior proceeding
Charge framed under Sections 302, 302/149, 324, 324/149, 379, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code; accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.¶43
Prior proceeding
Trial held; prosecution examined ten witnesses (including informant P.W.4, eye-witnesses P.W.1-P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6, doctors P.W.7 and P.W.8, I.O. P.W.9 and A.S.I. P.W.10); trial Court found the charges proved and convicted the appellants.¶44
Prior proceeding
By order dated 28.02.2019 the Co-ordinate Division Bench recorded a status report of the Officer-in-Charge, Mahagama Police Station dated 24.02.2019 (supported by Mukhiya certificates) on whether the appellants in the two tagged appeals were alive.¶20
Prior proceeding
Appellant nos. 1 Chhaku Nadaf, 5 Pagal Ray, 6 Basant Sikdar and 7 Sanu Sikdar died during pendency; no leave sought under section 394 Cr.P.C.; Cr. Appeal No. 3/1997 (DB) abated against them and survived against appellant nos. 2 Latif Nadaf, 3 Ibrahim Nadaf, 4 Pandu Ray and 8 Lakhindar Rai.¶20
Prior proceeding
In the tagged Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 40 of 1997, appellants Kedar Rai and Sk. Ainudi died during pendency; no leave sought under section 394 Cr.P.C.; that appeal stands abated.¶23