Ahmad Mian And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:14632

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 58 of 2009

[ Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 04.12.2008, passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 63 of 2006 ]

¶4

Tehrun Bibi @ Tehran Bibi, wife of Ahmad Mian, resident of Village – Nawagarh, P.O. & P.S.-Latehar, District - Latehar.

¶5

… … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

¶6

….. For the Appellant : Mr. Shrawan Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT

¶9

Dated: 12^th May, 2026

¶10

By Court :- A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

¶11

State.

¶12

2 . From perusal of the counter affidavit, it appears that original appellant no. 1 namely, Ahmad Mian has died during pendency of this appeal.

¶13

3 . In view of the above, the appeal preferred on behalf of original appellant no. 1 namely, Ahmad Mian stands abated.

¶14

4 . This appeal was originally filed on behalf of two appellants namely, Ahmad Mian and Tehrun Bibi @ Tehran Bibi, out of whom, Ahmad Mian has died and the appeal on his behalf is abated and now this appeal is being heard only against the surviving appellant – Tehrun Bibi @ Tehran Bibi.

¶15

1

¶16

2026:JHHC:14632

¶17

5 . Heard Mr. Shrawan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶18

6. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2008 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 63 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the appellant along with co-convict have been held guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of two years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with default stipulation.

¶19

FACTUAL MATRIX

¶20

7 . The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that 13.04.2003, the complainant / informant was married with one Md. Naeem according to Muslim rites and custom and at the time of marriage, Rs. 40,000/- and ornaments etc. were given to her husband. After living six months peacefully, the complainant / informant was being ill-treated and a demand of Rs. 25,000/and one Hero Honda Motorcycle was made by her husband and in-laws and on non-fulfillment of same, she was tortured mentally and physically. The complainant / informant was beaten over the abdomen, due to which pain was started and aborted

¶21

2

¶22

2026:JHHC:14632

¶23

on dead child of eight months on 05.10.2004 and after two months of said occurrence, complaint was filed.

¶24

8 . On the basis of above complaint made by complainant Rukaiya Khatoon, Complaint Case No. 38 of 2004 dated 09.12.2004 was registered and on 25.02.2005, the complaint was sent to Simariya Police Station under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of the case. Thereafter, Simariya P.S. Case No. 70 of 2005 was registered against the four accused persons for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. read with Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against two accused persons under Sections 498-A, 323, 315, 504 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act keeping investigation pending against rest of the two accused persons. After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions; where S.T. No. 63 of 2006 was registered. The charge for the offence under Sections 498A, 323, 315, 504 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against accused persons and read over and explained to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶25

3

¶26

2026:JHHC:14632

¶27

9 . In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses and also adduced certain documentary evidences.

¶28

10. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

¶29

11. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellant including the deceased appellant, as stated above, which is assailed in this appeal.

¶30

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on 13.04.2003, the complainant was married with Md. Naeem according to Muslim rites and customs. The appellant is mother-in-law of the complainant. The allegation against the petitioner is that she is inciting her son to demand Hero Honda Motorcycle and Rs. 25,000/- cash and due to non-fulfillment of which, there is allegation of mental and physical torture extended to the informant at the hands of her husband, who was threatening to solemnize second marriage, if the demand is not fulfilled.

¶31

13. It is further submitted that there is no role of the present appellant, rather she has been falsely implicated in the case because she happens to be mother of the informant’s husband.

¶32

4

¶33

2026:JHHC:14632

¶34

14. It is further submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for about 09 months 15 days and has sufficiently been punished. Therefore, in alternative, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone.

¶35

15. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has defended the judgment on merits and submitted that the present appellant was inciting and abetting her son for the demand of Rs. 25,000/- cash and motorcycle. She was also involved in subjecting the informant to cruelty both mental and physical. Therefore, conviction of the appellant does not suffer from any error of law, calling for any interference by way of this appeal.

¶36

16. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side.

¶37

17. In the course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution:-

¶38

P.W.-1 Md. Muslim is the father of the

¶39

complainant, who supports the contents of F.I.R., but he is not eye-witness to the occurrence.

¶40

P.W.-2 Md. Nasim is hearsay witness. He has

¶41

stated that after the marriage Rukaiya went to her matrimonial home and lived there for 5 to 6 months

¶42

5

¶43

2026:JHHC:14632

¶44

peacefully thereafter her mother-in-law and husband started to demand Rs. 25,000/- cash and one motorcycle as additional dowry. Due to nonfulfillment, they used to assault and commit cruelty against her. They have threatened her to oust her from her matrimonial home, for which a Panchayati was convened.

¶45

But in cross-examination, this witness has failed to state the name of Panch. In Para-6 he had admitted that he has told what he heard about assault.

¶46

P.W.-3 Md. Mustakum is hearsay witness. In para-4 this witness has admitted that he has not seen the incident of assault, but he heard about it.

¶47

P.W.-4 Jamila Khatoon is the mother of the informant. She has stated that same in the line of P.W.-1 in her examination-in-chief.

¶48

P.W.-5 Rukaiya Khatoon is the informant of the case. She has proved the complaint petition marked as Exhibit-1. She has supported the prosecution case and there is nothing to rebut her deposition.

¶49

P.W.-6 Suresh Baitha is the I.O. of the case. He has stated that from the court Complaint Case No. 38 of 2004 was received and after receiving it the then Officer-in-Charge Awadhesh Kumar registered the case. Endorsement on it is in the handwriting of him.

¶50

6

¶51

2026:JHHC:14632

¶52

He has also proved the formal F.I.R. marked as Exhibit-2. He has also proved the place of occurrence and deposed that after finding the evidence he has submitted the charge-sheet.

¶53

P.W.-7 Preeti Bala Sahay has stated that on 05.10.2004, she was posted as Professor of RMCH, Ranchi. On that day, Rukaiya Khatoon was admitted in Labour Room at 1:45 P.M. where she was examined by Dr. Kiran Trivedi, Registrar. The report is in the pen of Dr. Kiran Trivedi and it bears her signature, marked as Exhibit-3.

¶54

18. It appears from the evidence of witnesses, who have been examined in this case that the present appellant was also participating in cruel treatment with the informant abetting her son, as regard demand of dowry as well as torture by taunting and tormenting to the informant.

¶55

19. Therefore, on merits, there is no error of law in conviction of the appellant, but so far quantum of sentence is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence committed by the appellant, her age, antecedent and character and also in view of the fact that considerable period has elapsed from the date of occurrence and appellant has also remained in custody for about 09 months and 15

¶56

7

¶57

2026:JHHC:14632

¶58

days, out of maximum sentence of two years, I feel inclined to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone instead of rigorous imprisonment of two year as awarded by the learned trial court.

¶59

20. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

¶60

21. The appellant is on bail. As such, she is discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties shall also discharged.

¶61

22. Pending I.A. if any stands disposed of.

¶62

23. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned immediately for information and needful.

¶63

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶64

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi. Dated: 12^th May, 2026. Sunil/- NAFR Uploaded On 19/05/2026

¶65

8

Ahmad Mian And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmad Mian And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhuneshwar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Yadav And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Bameshwar Raut And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Paramveer Kumar Deepak Alias Paramvir Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chote Lal Soren Chhutu Lal Soren Vs State of Jharkhand

Amar Prasad Agrawal Alias Amar Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Bhuneshwar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Yadav And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Bameshwar Raut And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Paramveer Kumar Deepak Alias Paramvir Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chote Lal Soren  Chhutu Lal Soren Vs State of Jharkhand

Amar Prasad Agrawal Alias Amar Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chote Lal Soren Chhutu Lal Soren Vs State of Jharkhand