2025 Supreme(Pat) 65
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and NANI TAGIA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 541 of 2017
(6.3.2025)
Md. Jamshed Alam ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Hari Kishore Thakur.
For the Respondent: Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – The appellant alleged to have assaulted the deceased with bamboo stick on her head and neck resulting in her death on way of hospital – PWs-2. 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 admitted to have not witnessed the alleged occurrence and while some of them claimed to have heard from others that the deceased was assaulted by the appellant by bamboo stick leading to her death, other witnesses stated not to know as to how the deceased died – Hence, testimony of these witnesses would not have any evidentiary value and has been excluded to the purposes of proving the guilt of the appellant – material contradictions exist in the evidence of PW-6 and PW-8 and their testimony is not trustworthy of proving the guilt of the appellant – However, PW-1 (informant) and PW-4 consistently deposed that the deceased (wife of the informant) was assaulted by the appellant with bamboo and the occurrence stood corroborated by the material/documentary evidence, i.e. seizure list pertaining to blood soaked/stained earth and the weapon and the doctor has opined that the death has been caused on account of hemorrhage and shock due to the injuries mentioned in the PM Report, caused by hard and blunt substance – Thus, evidence of AW-1 and 4 (nephew of the deceased) a cogent, trustworthy and reliable and have stood the test of cross-examination and cannot be said to be irreconcilable with the medical evidence and no reason to create any doubt about the guilt of the appellant in the alleged occurrence which stands proved beyond all reasonable doubt – however, the incident being premeditated and appellant having no intention to kill and there being no repetition of assault, conviction of appellant converted under Section 304 Part-II IPC with a sentence of RI for ten years. (Paras 26 to 29)
Camilo Vaz Vs. State of Goa, (2000) 9 SCC 1; Rampal Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 289; Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770; Chenda Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 12 SCC 110; Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2017) 5 SCC 796; Anbazhagan Vs. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 857; Velthepu Srinivas Vs. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 107 – Relied.
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The aforesaid appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 09.03.2017 and 10.03.2017 respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No.160 of 2013 (arising out of Baruraj P.S. Case No.38 of 2012) by the learned Court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as “learned Trial Judge”). By the said judgment dated 09.03.2017, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and vide order dated 10.03.2017 he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof, the appellant has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. The short facts of the case are that on 08.06.2012 at about 12.00 hours in the afternoon, the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Md. Ramjan was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police. In the fardbeyan, the informant has stated that on 08.06.2012 at about 11.00 a.m. in the morning, he along with his deceased-wife Julekha Khatoon was sitting at the door of his house when Md. Jamshed Alam (Appellant) had arrived there and told his wife to come along with him since he had to talk with her, whereafter his deceased-wife Julekha Khatoon had gone with Md. Jamshed (Appellant) to his house. After the wife of the informant had gone for some distance, he heard his wife raising an alarm, whereafter he had immediately gone there and saw that his wife Julekha Khatoon was being assaulted by Md. Jamshed (Appellant), Md. Shamshad, Md. Khurshid, Kaishar Khatoon and Habiban Khatoon by fists, slaps and legs. The informant has further stated that he had then intervened and stopped the quarrel in between them and taken his wife Julekha Khatoon to the police station, however when they had reached at Sahdeo Chowk at about 11:30 a.m., Md. Jamshed Alam (Appellant) came running and then he had assaulted Julekha Khatoon with bamboo stick on her head and neck, whereupon Julekha Khatoon became injured and fell down on the ground and then the informant had taken his wife Julekha Khatoon in an injured condition on a tempo for treatment to Primary Health Centre, Motipur, however, on the way she died. The informant has next stated that he had then taken his deceased-wife Julekha Khatoon to the police station on the same tempo where his statement was recorded. The informant has stated that the motive for the occurrence is that the sister of Md. Jamshed Alam (Appellant), namely Khushboo had run away with the son of the informant and had solemnized marriage in the Court. The informant has also stated that the aforesaid accused persons had assaulted his wife Julekha Khatoon by fists and slaps and then Jamshed Alam (Appellant) had assaulted on the head and neck of his wife with an intention to kill her.
3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan of the informant, a formal FIR bearing Baruraj P.S. Case No.38 of 2012 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC by the Officer-in-charge, Baruraj Police Station against Md. Jamshed Alam (Appellant), Md. Shamshad Alam, Md. Khurshid, Kaishar Khatoon and Habiban Khatoon. After investigation and finding the case to be true qua the appellant, the police had submitted charge sheet on 15.11.2012 under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 302/34 of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court had taken cognizance against the appellant on 23.11.2012 under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 302/34 of the IPC. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions and was numbered as Sessions Trial No.160 of 2013. The learned Trial Court had framed charges against the appellant on 04.04.2013 under Sections 341/34, 504, 323/34 and 302/34 of the IPC against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial, 14