Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment Of Conviction … vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 1 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 202 of 1998(R)
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 22.07.1998 and Order
of sentence dated 24.07.1998 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial No.299
of 1995]
Serajuddin Ansari, son of Wazir Mian, resident of village
Lalgarh Bihar, P.S. Bishrampur, District (Palamau)..
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
.....
C.A.V. on 13.06.2025 Pronounced on 01/07/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment of
conviction dated 22.07.1998 and order of sentence dated
24.07.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial No.299 of 1995
arising out of Bishrampur P.S. Case No.42 of 1994
corresponding to G.R. No.531 of 1994 registered under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder
of Magrum Bibi by which the appellant has been convicted
under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has
been directed to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence
under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of
payment of fine, further two years R.I. has been ordered.
1
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
Factual Matrix
2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality
and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of
institution of prosecution case. The prosecution story in brief
as per the allegation made in the First Information Report
reads hereunder as :-
3. According to the fardbeyan of the informant Ahmad Ali
brother of the deceased that his sister Magroom Bibi was
married with the appellant about 12 years ago. It has been
alleged that after few years of marriage, the appellant used to
assault the informant’s sister Magroom for one or the other
reasons. About a year before, the golden nose ring of the
informant’s sister was lost somewhere for which the
appellant assaulted the informant’s sister. On one occasion
when the informant had gone to appellant’s house he was
assaulted by appellant by means of lathi. About 14 days prior
to the incident, the informant’s sister was in her Maike in
village Godamana Kalan. The appellant came there where the
informant’s uncle Ahjad Ali made him understood not to
assault the deceased and thereafter, the informant’s sister
returned to Lalgarh.
4. It has further been alleged that on 14.04.1994, the
neighbour Shakur Mian came to village of informant and told
informant’s uncle that the informant’s sister Magroom Bibi
has died. On this information, the informant went to Lalgarh
2
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
where he learnt from the villagers that his brother-in-law
Serajuddin had killed his sister and had lodged a case in
police station that the deceased died by consuming poison. It
has further been alleged that the informant’s mother, while
giving bath to the dead body, had seen sign of assault on the
body of the deceased.
5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant recorded
at the police station a FIR being Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 42
of 1994, under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was
instituted against the appellant.
6. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet
under Section 302 Indian Penal Code against the appellant.
7. After cognizance of the offence, the case was committed
to the Court of Sessions. Charge under Sections 302 of the
IPC was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
8. The prosecution has altogether examined 10 witnesses.
P.W-1 is Gayasuddin Ansari cousin of informant, P.W. 2 is
Kalo Bibi @ Kaloiya Bibi, the mother of informant, P.W. 3 is
Ahmad Ali, the informant and brother of deceased. P.W.4 is
Amjad Ali, uncle of informant, P.W.5 is Anup Kumar, a police
personnel and formal witness, P.W.6 is Ramchandra
Choudhury and P.W.7 Rajmani Singh, both are co-villagers,
P.W.8 is Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of
the deceased, P.W.9 is Md. Jalil, a relative of informant and
3
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
P.W.10 is Investigating Officer. None of these witnesses are
eye witness to the alleged occurrence.
9. The Defence has not examined any witness in support
of his case.
10. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of
witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination,
recorded the statement of the accused person, found the
charges levelled against the appellant proved beyond all
reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellant had been
found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is
subject matter of instant appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence
passed by the trial court cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law.
13. The following grounds have been taken by the learned
counsel for the appellants in assailing the impugned judgment
of conviction: –
(i) The appellant has been falsely implicated in this
case and the prosecution case suffers from several
infirmities and improbabilities.
4
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
(ii) The ground has been taken that there is no direct
evidence as against the accused/appellant and
there is nothing except suspicion against the
accused.
(iii) The further ground has been taken that the I.O.
did not find anything material on the place of
occurrence, i.e., no sign of disturbance or no blood
drop. There is no seizure of material exhibit, nor
anything was found establishing the place of
occurrence.
(iv) The learned trial court ought to consider that
whatever oral evidences have been produced in the
court are lacking corroboration and substantiation.
(v) The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the
evidence of P.W. 3 the informant who admitted in
his deposition that during the 12 years of the
married life of the appellant and deceased the
appellant never committed any torture or cruelty
on the deceased.
(vi) The learned trial court failed to appreciate that
there is no direct evidence to show that the
appellant ever assaulted the deceased on the
question of nose ring.
(vii) The ground has also been taken that according to
fardbeyan, the nose ring was lost about one year
prior to the occurrence and the same cannot be a
5
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
motive behind the occurrence, the circumstance
which happened about a year before cannot form
the motive or a circumstance after one year but the
learned trial court failed to appreciate this aspect
of the case.
(viii) The learned trial court did not consider that the
nose ring which was lost one year before the
occurrence cannot be used as a circumstance
leading to killing of a good wife.
(ix) For that the learned trial court did not consider
that U.D. case has not been proved in this case by
the prosecution and therefore the same cannot be
said to be a circumstance and cannot be used as a
circumstance against the accused/appellant.
(x) The learned trial court did not consider that the
evidence of P. W. 2 on point of sign of assault is
not corroborated by the evidence of doctor and as
such her evidence is not worthy of acceptance.
(xi) The ground has also been taken that P.W 1, 2, 3, 4
and 9 are all close relatives of the P.W. 3, who had
animosity with the appellant and as such they
have falsely and wrongly deposed after falsely
implicating the appellant: Moreover they have
deposed to have heard regarding the occurrence
but they did not disclose the name of the persons
from whom they heard and as such their entire
6
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
evidence is even not hearsay and the same is
inadmissible as evidence.
(xii) The learned court below has come to the finding in
para 9 of its judgment that the relation of the
deceased and appellant was good and there was no
immediate reason or motive or circumstances
leading to such occurrence by the appellant.
(xiii) Some of the interested witnesses have said to have
heard about the incidence from Shakur, but the
learned trial court did not consider that Shakur is
not examined in this case.
(xiv) The learned trial court did not consider that after
the death of his wife the appellant had sent his
man Shakur Mian to inform his in-laws regarding
her death and to participate in funeral which
shows bona fide of the appellant.
(xv) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the entire investigation of the case is
perfunctory in as much as the I.O. did not examine
any person of the vicinity as also he did not
prepare sketch of the scene of occurrence.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the
aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the trial court has not
taken in to consideration of the aforesaid facts as such
impugned judgment requires interference.
7
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
Submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for
the state:
15. While defending the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State raised the following arguments in response to the
grounds as referred hereinabove:
(i) The prosecution witnesses particularly P.W.2 and
P.W.3 had stated that appellant/accused used to
assault the deceased for the loss of gold nose ring
and further as per the post-mortem report injuries
were found on body of the deceased which has not
been satisfactorily explained by the appellant
husband.
(ii) Admittedly the instant case is based upon the
circumstantial evidence as there is no direct
evidence available herein but if the testimony of
prosecution witness will be taken in to entirety
along with the fact that the appellant had lodged
false UD case by saying that the deceased had
consumed poison, then the chain of
circumstances established against this
accused/appellant and the same has been taken
in to consideration by the learned trial court while
convicting the appellant, therefore impugned
judgment of conviction needs no interference.
8
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
(iii) Further, it is settled position of law that when the
husband and wife remained within the four walls
of a house and a death by homicide takes place
then it will be for the husband to explain the
circumstances in which she might have died.
16. Learned APP appearing for the State based upon the
aforesaid premise, has submitted that the impugned judgment
does not suffer from any error, hence the instant appeal is fit
to be dismissed.
Analysis
17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused
the documents available on record as also the finding recorded
by the trial court in the impugned judgment.
18. We have also gone through the testimonies of the
witnesses as available in the LCR as also the exhibits.
19. Learned trial court, based upon the testimonies of
witnesses as also chain of circumstances having been
complete, has passed the judgment of conviction convicting
the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence
under Section 302 of the IPC.
20. This Court before considering the argument advanced
on behalf of the parties is now proceeding to consider the
deposition of witnesses, as per the testimony as recorded by
learned trial Court.
9
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
21. In this case the prosecution has examined altogether
ten witnesses.
22. PW-1 Gaisuddin Ansari – This witness has deposed in
his examination-in-chief that the incident had happened
about two years ago. The deceased Magrum Bibi was married
to Sirajuddin in Bishrampur police station in Lalgarh. After
marriage, Sirajuddin used to beat his wife. Sirajuddin had
given nose ring of gold to his wife. The said nose ring was lost
for which Sirajuddin used to beat him saying that his wife
Magrum Bibi has given it to her parents. He has further
deposed that Sirajuddin has murdered Magrum Bibi. This
witness has identified the appellant in the court.
In the cross-examination, he has deposed that he got
information about the incident from Magrum Bibi’s brother.
Magrum Bibi’s brother told him about Magrum’s death. The
reason given is that she has lost the nose ring given by
Sirajuddin and that is why he has killed her. He has further
deposed that he has not seen any fight between Magrum Bibi
and her husband with his own eyes but the neighbors told
him. He has further deposed that it is not the case that they
have filed a case without any reason on the basis of suspicion
and have falsely implicated the accused.
23. PW-2 Kalo Bibi @ Kaloiya Bibi is the mother of the
deceased. She has deposed that the accused/appellant used
to beat her daughter, the deceased. She has stated that the
accused used to assault the deceased for losing the gold nose-
10
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
ring. She has deposed that she went to Lalgarh after getting
the news and saw the girl lying dead. While bathing the dead
body of the girl, she saw marks of assault on the arms, chest
and neck.
In her cross examination, she has deposed that her son-
in-law (accused) used to beat her daughter all the time. They
were not having good relationship that is why he used to beat
her. She has further deposed that her son-in-law used to beat
her daughter in front of her. She had seen her son-in-law
beating her daughter in her own house. She has further
deposed that she has never filed any case for assaulting her
daughter, nor Panchayati has ever been done. She has stated
that the marks she had seen on the body of her daughter were
marks of beating and due to this beating, her daughter has
died.
24. PW-3 Ahmad Ali – is the brother of the deceased and
informant of this case. He has deposed in his examination-in-
chief that that the incident is about two years old. Magrum
Bibi was married to Sirajuddin Ansari of Lalgarh. The
marriage took place about ten years ago. He has deposed that
the relationship between his sister and brother-in-law was
good but in between a gold nose ring was lost which Magrum
Bibi had given to her mother for keeping. The accused used to
beat her sister for the nose ring (lolo). He has deposed that
when he went to Sirajudin’s (my brother-in-law) house,
Lalgarh for a compromise, there Sirajudin beat him also.
11
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
Thereafter, Sirajuddin sent the deceased to her brother’s
house. When this witness assured Sirajuddin/appellant that
he will get the nose ring, then appellant took her sister back.
After two-four days Sirajuddin’s uncle Shakur came and told
that Magrum Bibi has died. After getting this news, he went to
Lalgarh Nihar Basti where people in the colony said that
Sirajuddin has killed Magrum Bibi. He has further deposed
that his mother told there were marks of beating on the neck
and on the urinary tract of Magrum Bibi. He went to the police
station and informed the police station in-charge Bishrampur.
This witness has recognized Sirajuddin Ansari, who was
present in the court.
In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the
married life of husband and wife i.e. Sirajuddin and his wife
(his sister) was happy till the gold nose ring (lolo) was not lost.
Earlier there was no fight or quarrel. He has deposed that he
did not see the fight between the husband and wife with his
own eyes. Some people from the neighbourhood told his
mother. He has deposed that he went and talked about it 15
days before the incident took place but cannot tell the date.
When he went to convince the accused, the accused has
beaten him up too. Despite this, he did not inform the police.
When Sirajuddin had sent my sister to her maternal home, my
sister told us about the beating. Even then, neither he nor his
sister informed the police station. Sirajuddin was counselled
in the village when he came to my village. He has further
12
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
deposed that information about the incident was received from
Shakoor Miya. Shakoor Miya also informed him about the
incident. His statement was recorded by the police three days
after the incident, after the deceased was buried.
He has also stated that he saw his sister after her death
and also saw marks on sister’s neck. He felt that there was a
mark of a rope tied around her neck. Her eyes were open at
that time, her mouth was open and there was blood on it.
25. PW-4 Amjad Ali – PW-4 Amjad Ali has deposed that he
knew Magrum Bibi. She was married to Sirajuddin in Lalgarh.
Sirajuddin and his wife had good relations earlier. The thing
about the incident is that there was a golden Lolo (nose ring).
Sirajuddin asked Magrum Bibi about the Lolo. He has further
deposed that when he heard the conversation between
Sirajuddin and Magrum Bibi, he asked them not to fight
among yourselves and be content. He has deposed that
Sirajudin’s uncle Shakur Mian came to his village and told
him that Sirajudin’s wife Magrum Bibi has died. So he asked
Ahmed to go and find out what the matter was. Ahmed went to
find out and then he went to the police station. I came to know
that Ahmed’s younger brother said that Ahmed has gone to
the police station, so he followed him to the police station. He
has recognized the accused Sirajuddin in the court.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not
see the fight between the deceased and the accused (husband
and wife) with my own eyes. He had not seen the gold nose
13
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
ring (lolo) but he had heard that it was lost. He came to know
about this incident from Sakur Mian in Godama village. He
has further deposed that when he reached to the police
station, by that time Ahmed’s statement had already been
written.
26. PW-5 Anup Kumar – PW-5 Anup Kumar has deposed
that he was posted as Probation S.I. in Bishrampur Police
Station on 15.04.93. That day he recorded the statement of
informant Ahmed Ali. He proved his handwriting and
signature marked as Exhibit-2.
27. PW-6 Ram Chandra Choudhary – This witness has
deposed that the incident took place two years ago. People told
that Sirajuddin’s wife had died after consuming poison. Later
it was found out that Sirajuddin killed his wife. He identified
the accused Sirajuddin in the court.
28. PW-7 Rajmani Singh – PW-7 has deposed that the
incident happened about two years ago. He heard a rumour
that Sirajuddin’s wife had consumed poison and died. Later it
was learnt that Sirajuddin had beaten her to death.
In his cross examination he has deposed that his house
is at a distance of 100-150 meters from Siraj’s house. He
cannot say the name of the person from whom he heard about
the incident.
29. PW-8 Raghubans Narayan Singh – PW-8 Rabhubans
Narayan Singh is the Doctor who had conducted post mortem
on the body of the deceased. He has deposed in his
14
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
examination-in-Chief that on 14.04.1994 he was posted as
CAS Sadar Hospital Daltonganj. On that date he conducted
post mortem examination of Magroom Bibi wife of Sirajuddin
Mian of Village Lalgarh P.S. Bishrampur, Distt. Palamau and
found following ante mortem injuries on her body:
(1) Abrasion on upper lip 1/2" x 3/4" in
diameter.
(2) Hematoma below chin about 1" diameter.
(3) On dissection of the skull there was
hematoma beneath the right temporal region
along with the fracture of the same bone. On
opening the skull subdural hematoma was
found present. The stomach of the deceased
contained about 200 gm undigested food and
in his opinion death was due to shock and
hemorrhage following had injury caused by
hard blunt substance 6 to 36 hours
This P.M. examination is in his pen and signature is
marked as Ext.
He has deposed that the injury was sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that
all the injuries can be by fall when in motion on high
momentum then only such injury can be possible. The gap
between the time of injury and time of death can be
ascertained or estimated. He has further deposed that he
cannot say the gap between the time of injury and time of
death.
15
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
He has deposed that Injury no.1 & 2 may be possible by
fall. He did not find any blood mark.
30. PW-9 Md. Jalil – This witness has been tendered by the
prosecution.
31. PW-10 Kameshwar Thakur – PW-10 Kameshwar
Thakur is the I.O. of the case. He has deposed that on
15.04.94 he was posted as SHO in Bishrampur Police Station.
He registered the case on the statement of informant Ahmed
Ali.
This is in his signature and is in the handwriting of
literate constable Vijay Kumar Singh. It was marked as
Exhibit-4. The fardbeyan is in the handwriting of PSI
(Probation SI) Anup Kumar on the statement of the informant.
It was marked as Exhibit-1/2..
He has deposed that he started the investigation and
inspected the crime scene. He stated that since in this case
UD case number 3/94 was already registered in Bishrampur
police station, the body of the deceased was sent for
postmortem from the crime scene by sub-inspector Anup
Kumar after the death review report. Later, this case was
registered on the basis of the statement given by the informant
at the police station. The UD case was registered on the basis
of the application of the accused Sirajudin. This murder case
was registered on the basis of the statement of the informant.
He has deposed that he inspected the site of the
incident. The site of the incident of this crime is the thatched
16
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
house of Sirajudin Ansari located in village Lalgarh. He was
told that the dead body was found in the courtyard land
adjacent to the north-east of the house. Adjacent to the south
of this place is the house of the accused and 8-10 yards to the
north is a village road. To the east is the land of Hussaini
Mian and to the west is the under-construction concrete
house of Prakash Chaudhary. It was told that the deceased
had gone to the farm of the accused which is one kilometer
away.
In his cross examination this witness has deposed that
he had not prepared map of the house. He has deposed that
no eyewitness to the occurrence was found.
32. This Court, after having considered the testimony of
witnesses is now proceeding to consider the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. The ground has
been agitated on behalf of appellant that there is no eye
witness and the judgment is based upon the principle of
circumstantial evidence.
33. It has further been contended that the I.O. did not find
anything material on the place of occurrence, i.e., no sign of
disturbance or no blood drop. There is no seizure of material
exhibit, nor anything was found establishing the place of
occurrence.
34. The ground has also been taken that according to
Fardbeyan, the nose ring was lost about one year prior to the
occurrence and the same cannot be a motive behind the
17
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
occurrence the circumstance which happened about a year
before cannot form the motive or a circumstance after one year
but the learned trial court failed to appreciate this aspect of
the case.
35. Per contra the learned counsel for the state has
submitted that admittedly the instant case is based upon the
circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence available
herein but if the testimony of prosecution witness will be
taken in its entirety along with the fact that the appellant had
lodged false UD case by saying that the deceased had
consumed poison, then the chain of circumstances said to be
established against this accused/appellant and if the same
has been taken in to consideration by the learned trial court
while convicting the appellant, the impugned judgment of
conviction needs no interference.
36. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contention this Court is
now adverting to factual aspect of the case. Admittedly, it is
not a case of direct evidence as such this Court is now
proceeding to examine as to whether it is a case of
circumstantial evidence completing the chain of the
circumstances in order to prove the guilt of the appellant
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
37. Before appreciating the aforesaid issue, it would be apt
to refer settled proposition of law relating to circumstantial
evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the year 1952, in the
judgment rendered in Hanumant Son of Govind
18
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
Nargundkar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC
343] has laid down the parameters under which, the case of
circumstantial evidence is to be evaluated, which suggests
that: “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence
is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first
instance be fully established, and all the facts so established
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to
exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.
In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it
must be such as to show that within all human probability the
act must have been done by the accused. ……”
38. The judgment referred in Hanumant (supra) has been
consistently followed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment
rendered in Tufail (Alias) Simmi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
[(1969) 3 SCC 198]; Ram Gopal Vs. State of Maharashtra
[(1972) 4 SCC 625] and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.
State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116 and also in
Musheer Khan alias Badshah Khan & Anr. Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 2 SCC 748.
39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Musheer Khan (Supra)
while discussing the nature of circumstantial evidence and the
19
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
burden of proof of prosecution has held as under paragraph
nos. 39 to 46 as under:
“39. In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look
for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped
and scattered links which do not make a complete
sequence. This Court finds that this case is entirely
based on circumstantial evidence. While appreciating
circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious
approach as circumstantial evidence is “inferential
evidence” and proof in such a case is derivable by
inference from circumstances.
40.Chief Justice Fletcher Moulton once observed that
“proof does not mean rigid mathematical formula” since
“that is impossible”. However, proof must mean such
evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a
definite conclusion. Circumstantial evidence, on the other
hand, has been compared by Lord Coleridge “like a
gossamer thread, light and as unsubstantial as the air
itself and may vanish with the merest of touches”. The
learned Judge also observed that such evidence may be
strong in parts but it may also leave great gaps and rents
through which the accused may escape. Therefore,
certain rules have been judicially evolved for appreciation
of circumstantial evidence.
41. To my mind, the first rule is that the facts alleged as
the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial
evidence must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable
doubt. If conviction rests solely on circumstantial
evidence, it must create a network from which there is no
escape for the accused. The facts evolving out of such
circumstantial evidence must be such as not to admit of
any inference except that of guilt of the accused. (See
Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P. [AIR 1963 SC
74 : (1963) 1 Cri LJ 70] )
42. The second principle is that all the links in the chain
of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and
they must exclude the evidence of guilt of any other
person than the accused. (See State of U.P. v. Dr.20
2025:JHHC:17456-DBRavindra Prakash Mittal [(1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC
(Cri) 642 : 1992 Cri LJ 3693] , SCC p. 309, para 20.)
43. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, we must
remember the principle laid down in Ashraf Ali v. King
Emperor [21 CWN 1152 : 43 IC 241] (IC at para 14) that
when in a criminal case there is conflict between
presumption of innocence and any other presumption,
the former must prevail.
44. The next principle is that in order to justify the
inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused and are
incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable
hypothesis except his guilt.
45. When a murder charge is to be proved solely on
circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of
innocence of the accused must have a dominant role. In
Nibaran Chandra Roy v. King Emperor [11 CWN 1085] it
was held that the fact that an accused person was found
with a gun in his hand immediately after a gun was fired
and a man was killed on the spot from which the gun
was fired may be strong circumstantial evidence against
the accused, but it is an error of law to hold that the
burden of proving innocence lies upon the accused under
such circumstances. It seems, therefore, to follow that
whatever force a presumption arising under Section 106
of the Evidence Act may have in civil or in less serious
criminal cases, in a trial for murder it is extremely weak
in comparison with the dominant presumption of
innocence.
46. The same principles have been followed by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Govinda Reddy v.
State of Mysore [AIR 1960 SC 29 : 1960 Cri LJ 137]
where the learned Judges quoted the principles laid down
in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. [(1952)
2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] The ratio
in Govind [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri
LJ 129] quoted in AIR para 5, p. 30 of the Report in
Govinda Reddy [AIR 1960 SC 29 : 1960 Cri LJ 137] are:
“5. … „10. … in cases where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature, the circumstances [which lead to21
2025:JHHC:17456-DBthe conclusion of guilt should be in the first instance]
fully established, and all the facts so established should
be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such
as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence
so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for
a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and it must be [shown] that within all human
probability the act must have been [committed] by the
accused.‟ [ As observed in Hanumant Govind
Nargundkar v. State of M.P., (1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952
SC 343 at pp. 345-46, para 10.] ” The same principle has
also been followed by this Court in Mohan Lal Pangasa v.
State of U.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 607 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 643 :
AIR 1974 SC 1144] ”
40. Thus, it is evident that for proving the charge on the
basis of circumstantial evidence, it would be necessary that
evidence so available must induce a reasonable man to come
to a definite conclusion of proving of guilt; meaning thereby
there must be a chain of evidence so far it is complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.
41. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position
this Court is going to revisit the testimony of the witnesses in
order to come to the conclusion that whether the charge on
the basis of circumstantial evidence against the present
appellant has been established or not.
22
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
42. PW-1 Gaisuddin Ansari – has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that the deceased Magrum Bibi was
married to Sirajuddin and after marriage, Sirajuddin used to
beat his wife. He had further deposed that Sirajuddin had
given nose ring of gold to his wife and the said nose ring was
lost for which Sirajuddin used to beat him saying that his wife
Magrum Bibi has given it to her parents.
In the cross-examination, he had deposed that Magrum
Bibi’s brother told him about Magrum’s death and the reason
given is that she has lost the nose ring given by Sirajuddin
and that is why he has killed her. He has further deposed that
he has not seen any fight between Magrum Bibi and her
husband with his own eyes but the neighbors told him.
43. Thus, this witness has only substantiated the fact of
marriage between deceased and appellant because on the
point of the occurrence he had deposed that P.W.3 had
informed him about the alleged occurrence and also the
reason behind the alleged occurrence.
44. PW-2 Kalo Bibi @ Kaloiya Bibi is the mother of the
deceased, has deposed that the accused/appellant used to
beat her daughter/the deceased for losing the gold nose-ring.
She has further deposed that while bathing the dead body of
the deceased, she saw marks of assault on the arms, chest
and neck.
In her cross examination, she has deposed that her son-
in-law (accused) used to beat her daughter all the time and
23
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
they were not having good relationship that is why he used to
beat her. She has further deposed that her son-in-law used to
beat her daughter in front of her. She had seen her son-in-
law beating her daughter in her own house. She has stated
that the marks she had seen on the body of her daughter were
marks of beating and due to this beating, her daughter has
died.
45. Thus, from the testimony of this witness it is evident
that the appellant used to beat the deceased and even
appellant beat her daughter in front of her. In her testimony
she had substantiated the fact that the accused/appellant
used to beat her daughter/the deceased for losing the gold
nose-ring and she had seen the marks of beating on the body
of her daughter while bathing the dead body of the
deceased/her daughter.
46. PW-3 Ahmad Ali – is the brother of the deceased and
informant of this case. He has deposed in his examination-in-
chief that that the relationship between his sister(deceased)
and brother-in-law(appellant) was good but in between a gold
nose ring was lost and the accused used to beat her sister for
the nose ring (lolo). He has deposed that when he went to
Sirajudin’s (his brother-in-law) house, Lalgarh for a
compromise, then Sirajudin has beaten him also thereafter,
Sirajuddin sent the deceased to maternal house and when
P.W.3 assured Sirajuddin that he will get the nose ring then
the appellant took her sister back. After two-four days
24
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
Sirajuddin’s uncle Shakur came and told that Magrum Bibi
has died. After getting this news, he went to Lalgarh Nihar
Basti where people in the colony said that Sirajuddin has
killed Magrum Bibi. He has further deposed that his mother
told there were marks of beating on the neck and on the
urinary tract of Magrum Bibi.
In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the
married life of husband and wife i.e. Sirajuddin and his wife
(his sister) was happy till the gold nose ring (lolo) was not lost.
Earlier there was no fight or quarrel. He has deposed that he
did not see the fight between the husband and wife with his
own eyes. Some people from the neighbourhood told his
mother. He has deposed that when Sirajuddin had sent my
sister to her maternal home, my sister told us about the
beating. He has further deposed that information about the
incident was received from Shakoor Miya.
47. Thus, from the testimony of this witness it is evident
that in his examination-in-chief, he had fully substantiated
the testimony of P.W.2 and in his testimony, he categorically
corroborated the fact after loss of the nose ring (lolo)
accused/appellant used to beat her sister. He has deposed
that when Sirajuddin had sent his sister to her maternal
home, his sister told them about the beating.
48. PW-4 Amjad Ali has deposed that the incident is due to
loss of golden Lolo (nose ring). He, has further deposed that
when he heard the conversation between Sirajuddin and
25
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
Magrum Bibi, he asked them not to fight among yourselves
and be relaxed.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not
seen the gold nose ring (lolo) but he had heard that it was lost.
He came to know about this incident from Sakur Mian in
Godama village.
49. Thus, from the testimony of this witness it is evident
that he fully substantiated the fact of strain relationship
between the deceased and appellant due to loss of nose ring.
50. PW-8 Raghubans Narayan Singh is the Doctor who had
conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and
found ante mortem injuries on her body i.e. Abrasion on upper
lip 1/2″ x 3/4″ in diameter, Hematoma below chin about 1″
diameter. On dissection he further found hematoma beneath
the right temporal region of skull along with the fracture of the
same bone and on opening the skull subdural hematoma was
found present. In his opinion death was due to shock and
hemorrhage following head injury caused by hard blunt
substance.
51. Thus, this witness has specifically found that
hematoma beneath the right temporal region of skull along
with the fracture of the same bone and he categorically opined
that death was due to shock and hemorrhage following head
injury caused by hard blunt substance.
52. It needs to refer herein that hematomas can be caused
by blunt force trauma, including assaults with hard and blunt
26
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
objects. When a blunt object strikes the body, it can damage
blood vessels, causing them to leak blood into the surrounding
tissues, which then collects and forms a hematoma. Generally,
there is two types of hematomas, i.e. subdural hematoma and
epidural hematoma.
53. A subdural hematoma is a type of bleeding near the
brain that can happen after a head injury. An epidural
hematoma (EDH) is a collection of blood that forms between
the skull and the dura mater, the outermost protective
membrane covering the brain. The cause is usually an artery
that gets torn by a skull fracture.
54. PW-10 Kameshwar Thakur is the I.O. of the case has
deposed that since in this case UD case number 3/94 was
already registered in Bishrampur police station, the body of
the deceased was sent for postmortem from the crime scene by
sub-inspector Anup Kumar after the death review report.
Later, this case was registered on the basis of the statement
given by the informant at the police station. The UD case was
registered on the basis of the application of the
accused/appellant Sirajudin. This murder case was registered
on the basis of the statement of the informant (P.W.3).
He has deposed that he inspected the site of the
incident and the site of the incident of this crime is the
thatched house of Sirajudin Ansari (appellant) located in
village Lalgarh. He was told that the dead body was found in
the courtyard land adjacent to the north-east of the house. It
27
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
was told that the deceased had gone to the farm of the
accused which is one kilometer away.
55. From testimony of this witness, it is apparent that a UD
case number 3/94 was already registered in Bishrampur
police station, the body of the deceased was sent for
postmortem from the crime scene and the said UD case was
registered on the basis of the application of the
accused/appellant Sirajudin. It is further evident that later,
this case was registered on the basis of the statement given by
the informant at the police station and consequently, murder
case was registered on the basis of the statement of the
informant (P.W.3). From testimony of this witness, it is further
evident that place of occurrence was thatched house of
Sirajudin Ansari (appellant) located in village Lalgarh.
56. At this juncture. it needs to refer herein that Section
106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 speaks that when any
fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the
burden of proving that fact is upon him. For ready reference,
Section 106 of the Evidence Act is reproduced as under:
106.Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. –
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any
person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
57. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in
Joshinder Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 4
SCC 42 has held at paragraphs 16 considering the implication
of the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as under:
28
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
“16. In our opinion, the prosecution having established
that the accused treated the deceased with cruelty and
that they subjected her to harassment for dowry, the
accused ought to have disclosed the facts which were in
their personal and special knowledge to disprove the
prosecution case that they murdered Bindula Devi. Section
106 of the Evidence Act covers such a situation. The
burden which had shifted to the accused was not
discharged by them. In this connection, we may usefully
refer to the judgment of this Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra
v. State of Ajmer [Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer,
AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794] wherein this Court
explained how – Section 101 and Section 106 of the
Evidence Act operate. Relevant portion of the said
judgment reads thus : (AIR p. 406, paras 10-11) “10.
Section 106 is an exception to Section 101. Section 101
lays down the general rule about the burden of proof.
„101.Burden of proof.–Whoever desires any court to give
judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the
existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those
facts exist.‟ Illustration (a) says– “A desires a court to
give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A
says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed
the crime.‟
58. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case
the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is
certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the
contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in
which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately
difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are
“especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which he
could prove without difficulty or inconvenience.
59. In Balram Prasad Agrawal v. State of Bihar [(1997) 9
SCC 338] the prosecution had established the cruel conduct
29
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
of the accused i.e. her husband and members of his family
and the sufferings undergone by the deceased at their hands.
The unbearable conduct of the accused ultimately resulted in
her death by drowning in the well in the courtyard of the
accused’s house. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that what
happened on the fateful night and what led to the deceased’s
falling in the well was wholly within the personal and special
knowledge of the accused. But they kept mum on this aspect.
The Court observed that it is true that the burden is on the
prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. But
once the prosecution is found to have shown that the accused
were guilty of persistent conduct of cruelty qua the deceased
spread over years as was well established from the unshaken
testimony of father of the deceased, the facts which were in
the personal knowledge of the accused who were present in
the house on that fateful night could have been revealed by
them to disprove the prosecution case.
60. Further, reference, in this regard be made to the
judgment rendered in Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi &
Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 10 SCC
373 at paragraph 22 held as under:
“22. The evidence led in by the prosecution also shows
that at the relevant point of time, the deceased was living
with all the three accused. In other words, the appellants,
their son A-3 and the deceased were the only occupants
of the house and it was, therefore, incumbent on the
appellants to have tendered some explanation in order to
avoid any suspicion as to their guilt. All the factors30
2025:JHHC:17456-DBreferred above are undoubtedly circumstances which
constitute a chain even stronger than the account of an
eyewitness and, therefore, we are of the opinion that
conviction of the appellants is fully justified.” The
proposition of law as laid down in the cases referred
hereinabove is regarding implication of the provision of
Section 106 which clarifies that the burden which has
shifted to the accused if not discharged by him he will be
liable to be punished by drawing inference against the
accused that he failed to explain that how the deceased
was found dead.
61. In the backdrop of the settled legal position and the
aforesaid discussed factual aspect it is a considered view of
this Court that in the instant case prosecution evidence has
two parts. First, part include all the transaction including the
assault and torture prior to the death and secondly. the aspect
of murder itself. The First part of torture and assault has fully
been substantiated by the P.W.2, 3 and 4. From the testimony
of P.W.2 which has been discussed in preceding paragraph it
is evident that the accused/appellant used to beat her
daughter/the deceased for losing the gold nose-ring and the
said fact has been emphatically corroborated by
P.W.3/informant.
62. Further the testimony of P.W.2 and 3 has well been
supported by the medical evidence i.e. post-mortem report of
the deceased wherein P.W.8 has categorically stated that
found ante mortem injuries on her body i.e. Abrasion on upper
lip 1/2″ x 3/4″ in diameter, Hematoma below chin about 1″
diameter. On dissection he further found hematoma beneath
the right temporal region of skull along with the fracture of the
31
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
same bone and on opening the skull subdural hematoma was
found present. In his opinion death was due to shock and
hemorrhage following the head injury caused by hard blunt
substance. The aforesaid finding of the doctor i.e. P.W.8 has
amply proved and substantiated the testimony of P.W.2 and
P.W.3 wherein assault caused by the accused/appellant upon
deceased for the nose-ring has been alleged.
63. So far, the second part is concerned i.e. murder of
deceased, it is evident that the testimony of P.W.10 i.e.
investigating officer of the case which has been discussed in
the preceding paragraph, wherein he had stated that before
lodging the case of murder of deceased, a UD case number
3/94 was registered in Bishrampur police station and the
body of the deceased had already been sent for postmortem
from the crime scene and the said UD case was registered on
the basis of the application of the accused/appellant
Sirajudin. Thus, it is evident that the instant case was
registered on the basis of the statement given by the informant
(P.W.3) at the police station and consequently, murder case
was registered on the basis of the statement of the informant
(P.W.3).
64. Admittedly for the second part i.e. murder of deceased
there is no direct evidence available on record but at the same
time it is pertinent to mention that prior to lodging the instant
case, a UD case was registered on the basis of the application
of the accused/appellant Sirajudin wherein he had stated that
32
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
his wife (deceased) has committed suicide by taking poisonous
substance. But from the medical evidence it is evident that
cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and
hemorrhage following head injury caused by hard blunt
substance. Thus, from the aforesaid evident that
appellant/accused has tried to conceal the actual incident and
tried to misleading the prosecution agency by saying that his
wife/deceased has committed suicide.
65. Thus, the conduct of the accused/appellant after the
occurrence is an important circumstance going further to
complete the chain of event leading towards the irresistible
conclusion regaling the guilt of the accused/appellant. Further
from the statement of the appellant which has been recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C. it is evident that when the question
about the lodging of UD case has been asked, he simply
denied the said fact by saying that he had not lodged the said
UD case. Thus, the simple and abrupt denial of the
accused/appellant does not come in to the aid of him rather it
creates more doubt/suspicion that he tried conceal the actual
event.
66. It is apparent herein that the prosecution evidence on
first part also substantiates the second part and the conduct
of the accused prior to the death which manifested in the
shape of assault and altercation for the nose-ring are relevant
circumstances in the chain of events. Thus, the aforesaid
circumstances unerringly point towards the guilt of the
33
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
accused/appellant and these circumstances incapable of any
other explanation other than the guilt of the accused and the
said circumstances formed a chain so complete that there is
no other conclusion that the alleged crime was committed by
the accused/appellant. Therefore, the charge of murder of the
wife against the accused husband/appellant has fully been
proved with the help of the evidence as aforesaid.
67. It needs to refer herein that it has been contended that
prosecution witnesses are kith and kin of the deceased, as
such their testimony is not fit to be fully reliable.
68. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein the
settled proposition of law that the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses cannot be brushed aside only because they are a
relative of the deceased. It is well settled that evidence of
relative witnesses should not be discarded merely on account
of relationship.
69. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect
and legal position and considering the finding recorded by the
learned trial Court, is of the view that the learned trial Court
after giving its thoughtful consideration to the testimony of
prosecution witnesses has come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all
shadow of doubt against the present appellant, therefore,
order impugned requires no interference by this Court.
70. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal stands
dismissed.
34
2025:JHHC:17456-DB
71. Consequent upon dismissal of the appeal preferred by
the appellant, since the appellant is enjoying the suspension
of sentence after the order being passed by this Court
directing to release him during pendency of the appeal, his
bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before
the learned trial Court for serving out the sentence inflicted
upon him.
72. Needless to say, that if the appellant will not surrender,
the trial Court will take endeavors for securing custody of the
appellant to serve out the sentence as inflicted by the learned
trial court.
73. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
74. Let this order/judgment be communicated forthwith to
the court concerned along with the Lower Court Records.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 1st July, 2025.
Birendra / A.F.R.
35