Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SRI ANANDA SEN, SRI SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Md. Aslam, S/o. Late Dukhan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1423 of 2016
Decided On : 09-04-2024
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Md. Aslam, was convicted for the murder of his wife, Juleshan Khatoon, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The informant, Jalaluddin, reported that after a troubled marriage and a divorce, Juleshan was found dead in her in-laws' house with signs of strangulation. The prosecution argued that Aslam had a motive related to dower demands and a history of domestic abuse.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established a case of homicide based on circumstantial evidence, including the presence of the appellant at the scene, the nature of the injuries on the deceased, and the lack of a credible explanation from the appellant regarding her death.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charge of murder against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the appellant provided a satisfactory explanation for the circumstances surrounding the death of his wife.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while the prosecution bears the burden of proof, once it establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances of the crime, particularly when it occurs in a domestic setting.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and life sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Chand, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned P.P. for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant against the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 12th August, 2016 and Order of sentence dated 24th August, 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda in Sessions Trial No.135 of 2011, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
3. The brief facts leading to this criminal appeal are that informant Jalaluddin had given the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that his sister Juleshan Khatoon was married three years ago with Md. Aslam. One child was also born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, Aslam divorced his sister. On making demand of ‘Den-Mohar’ (dower), the people of the village asked them, what will happen of the child born out of the said wedlock. Again at the behest of the villagers, Juleshan Khatoon was got married with Md. Aslam. Md. Aslam had dropped his four years old son, who died during treatment and Aslam began to torture his sister. On 6th March, 2011, at 12 o’ clock in the night, Md. Aslam had informed over the mobile phone to the informant that his sister Juleshan Khatoon was no more. He asked the cause of death of his sister from Md. Aslam, who told that she was complaining for the stomach ache and on account of the same, she succumbed. On 7th March, 2011, he along with 20 to 25 persons of the village reached to the in-law’s house of his sister and found her dead body. On her neck, there was swelling and red colour mark. Indeed, the said death was caused by Aslam, so that he could not pay the dower on divorcing his sister after the first marriage.
4. On this written information, the Case Crime No.39 of 2011 was registered with the police station Mahagma, District Godda under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Md. Aslam and two to three unknown persons. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation filed charge-sheet to the Court of Magistrate concerned who after taking cognizance thereon committed the case for trial to Sessions Judge, Godda. Further, the Sessions Judge Gooda transferred the same for trial to Second Additional District and Session Judge, Godda.
5. The Trial Court framed the charge against the accused under Sections 302/201/34 of Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, who denied the charge and claimed for trial.
6. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in oral evidence examined P.W.1-Md. Nazir, P.W.2-Md. Nizam, P.W.3- Md. Amjad, P.W.4-Md. Mustfa, P.W.5-Md. Nasim, P.W.6-Jalaluddin (the informant), P.W.7-Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha, P.W.8-Gunadhar Mahto, P.W.9-Dukha Das and P.W.-10 Kameshwar Kumar Singh.
7. On behalf of the prosecution in documentary evidence adduced Ext.1 signature of Md. Nasim on the fardbeyan, Ext.1/1 fardbeyan, Ext. 1/2 endorsement on the fardbeyan, Ext.2 Postmortem report, Ext.2/1 signature of Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha on the carbon copy of postmortem report, Ext.3 Inquest report, Ext.4 Formal FIR, Ext.4/1 Signature of Rameshwar Kumar Singh on the Formal FIR.
8. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded who denied the incriminating circumstances against him in the evidence and stated to be innocent.
9. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
10. The trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties passed the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12th August, 2016, convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated in paragraph 1 of this judgment.
11. The aforesaid co
Criminal Law – Offence of Murder - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Prosecution has succeeded in establishing other circumstances in chain raising a strong presumption of guilt ag....
Point of Law : Prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge brought against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing circumstantial evidence. Each link in the chain of circumstances has bee....
The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of circumstances consistent with the guilt of the accused in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. The burden of proof on the prosecution and the ....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, and mere suspicion i....
The judgment establishes that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the absence of a direct witness does not preclude a conviction if the circumstantial evidence is compelling and the accused fails to....
Point of Law : Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of circumstances does not show link to each other.
The burden of proof in a criminal case lies on the prosecution, but in cases of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the accused to provide a cogent explanation is lighter. Motive and conduct are r....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of legal presumption....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
