SUSHIL HARKAULI AND R.R.PRASAD, JJ. - (1.) ALL the three appellants on being found guilty of committing murder of Hamida Parveen were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 11.3.1997 at about 8 a.m.Hamida Parveen (deceased) sent her son, Md.Sahid Khan (examined as P.W.3 in S.T.No.393 of 2000) and also other son to the school. After closure of the school, when both of them came home, they found door of the house locked from outside. They waited for their mother to come till evening but when she did not come, Md. Sahid Khan (P.W.3) as well as his brother came to the house of his maternal uncle, Md. Firoz and told him all about that. Thereupon Md. Firoz, his brother Parvej Ahmad and father Md. Yunush left home in search of Hamida Parveen but they did not get any trace of her till late night. Thereafter Md. Firoz on 12.3.1997 at about 10.15 a.m. came to Bistupur Police Station and informed the Officer -in -Charge about the missing of Hamida Parveen, upon which a Sahna was entered in the Station Diary. One Sub -Inspector, Jitendra Kumar (P.W.12) came to the place of occurrence and made enquiry from the persons residing in the neighbourhood and came to know that there had been altercation in between the deceased and other accused persons around 8 O'clock . After some time, the accused persons went away and since then, nobody had seen Hamida Parveen. Thereafter lock of the door was broke open before the witnesses where they found the dead body of Himida Parveen. The said Jitendra Kumar (P.W.12) recorded the Fardbeyan (Ext.4) of Md. Firoz wherein suspicion was raised over these appellants, who were living in the same house as the appellants after the death of the husband of the deceased were putting pressure upon the deceased to leave the house for which there used to be altercation and had held out the threat of dire consequences. Upon the said Fardbeyan (Ext.4), a case was registered against the appellants and others. In course of investigation, Jitendra Kumar (P.W.12) made inquest on the dead body and then sent the dead body for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Lalan Choudhary (P.W.10/P.W.1), who found several abrasions present over front of neck, waist, right elbow, left knee and all over the hands. That apart, massive contusions were found present over front of neck and side of neck. Hyoid bone was found fractured. Cause of death, according to Doctor, was due to asphyxia as a result of pressure over neck. With such opinion, post mortem examination report (Ext. 3) was issued .On submission of charge sheet, Ahmad Khan the appellant in Cr.App No.101 of 2004 along with others was put on trial, vide S.T.No.228 of 1998 whereas Nusrat Parveen and Abdul Rahman Khan the appellants in Cr.App. Nos. 1741 and 1810 of 2003 were put on trial, vide S. T. No. 393 of 2000. Both the Sessions Trials were decided by two different judgments whereby all the three appellants were found guilty of committing murder of Hamida Parveen. The other accused persons, who were put on trial along with the appellant Ahmad Khan were acquitted. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, these three appeals have been preferred by the appellants. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the prosecution came forward with the case that after the son, namely, Md. Sahid Khan (P.W.3/P.W.8) and his brother left home, these three appellants and other accused persons, who have been acquitted came to the house of Hamida Parveen 6/5/2014 Page 85 Ahmad Khan,Nurat Parween,Abdul Rahman Khan Versus State Of Jharkhand (deceased) and had had altercation with the deceased and after some times, all the accused persons went away but there has been absolutely no evidence to this effect and as such, one of the vital links is conspicuously missing from the chain of the links but still the trial court recorded the order of conviction which is quite illegal and it is fit to be set aside.
(3.) IT was also submitted that the prosecution though came forward with the case that relationship in between the deceased on one hand and the appellants on the other hand was quite bitter but has failed utterly to establish that fact, still this circumstance was taken to be one of the incriminating circumstances while recording the order of conviction which is quite illegal. Heard learned counsel appearing for the State.;