Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State Of J&K Through Sho Police Station vs Ishtiyaq Ali on 15 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 20.03.2025
Pronounced on: 15.04.2025
CRAA No. 155/2014
State of J&K through SHO Police Station, Ramban. .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, GA.
Vs
Ishtiyaq Ali, S/O Mukhtiyar Ali
R/O Chanderkot, District Ramban.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.
CORAM: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. Through the medium of the instant Criminal Acquittal
Appeal, the appellant-State (now UT) of J&K has
challenged the judgment dated 09.12.2013 (for short,
„impugned judgment‟) passed by the court of learned
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ramban (for short,
„trial court‟) in sessions trial case No. 115/2009 titled
“State Vs. Ishtiyaq Ali” whereby the respondent has
been acquitted despite commission of offence punishable
under section 306 RPC, in a case registered at Police
Station, Ramban vide FIR No. 94/2009 on a written
complaint by one Haider Ali S/O Chirag Ali R/O
2 CRAA No. 155/2014
Chanderkote, Tehsil Ramban alleging that his daughter
Rozina Begum, who had been married to the respondent-
accused Ishtiyaq Ali for about thirty years, was subjected
to cruelty and as a result of continuous beating, she had
committed suicide on 25.06.2009 by jumping into river
Chenab from Gugwal Bridge and that her dead body was
later found after three months at Dayangarh, Reasi.
02. The case of the prosecution before the trial court was that
on the basis of a written complaint filed on 26.06.2009,
by Haider Ali S/O Chirag Ali, R/O Chanderkote, Tehsil
Ramban, stating therein that his daughter Rozina
Begum, who had been married to respondent-accused
Ishtiyaq Ali about 30 years back, was subjected to cruelty
and as a result of continuous beating, his daughter
committed suicide on 25.06.2009 by jumping into river
Chenab from Gugwal Bridge, an FIR was got registered by
the Police Station, Ramban against the respondent
herein; that during investigation dead body of the
deceased-Rozina Begum was found at Dayangarh Reasi
from Salal Project Dam, after three months and her
postmortem was conducted on 01.10.2009 at District
Hospital, Reasi.
03. After investigation of the case, chargesheet was laid
against the respondent for the commission of offence
3 CRAA No. 155/2014
punishable under section 306 RPC; that the respondent
was chargesheeted by the trial court vide order dated
16.08.2010 for the commission of offences punishable
under sections 306/498-A RPC; that the prosecution in
order to prove its case to bring home charge against the
respondent examined eight witness, namely, Haider Ali,
Abbas Ali, Subara Begum, Arif Ali, Inshar Ali, Fatrqa
Bahadur, Muzafar Ali and Dr. Sudesh Raina. The
respondent, in defence, also examined one witness,
namely, Dr. Saifudin Khan.
04. The Trial Court, on conclusion of trial, however,
dismissed the charge-sheet and acquitted the
respondent-accused vide impugned judgment dated
09.12.2013.
05. The impugned judgment has been assailed on the
following grounds:
(i) That the impugned judgment is contrary to law and has
been passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating
the evidence available on record in its true and correct
perspective;
(ii) That the trial court has not appreciated the evidence led by
the prosecution properly and by ignoring the statement of
the witnesses has acquitted the respondent against the law
and facts of the case;
(iii) That there is sufficient material on record to convict the
respondent but the learned trial court has not appreciated
4 CRAA No. 155/2014the law and facts of the case, which has resulted into
acquittal of the respondent;
(iv) That the prosecution had established the case against the
respondent by adducing documentary as well as oral
evidence which, in ordinary course of nature, was sufficient
to prove guilt of the respondent;
06. Learned counsel for the appellant-State in line with the
memorandum of appeal and grounds taken therein,
argued that the trial court, while passing the impugned
judgment, has not appreciated the evidence properly and
by ignoring the statement of the witnesses, has acquitted
the respondent; that there is sufficient material on
record to convict the respondent but the learned trial
court has not appreciated the law and facts of the case
which has resulted into acquittal of the respondent; that
the prosecution had established the case against the
respondent by adducing documentary as well as oral
evidence which, in ordinary course of nature, was
sufficient to prove guilt of the respondent.
07. Learned counsel for the respondent, ex adverso, argued
that the trial court has decided the case very
meticulously appreciating all aspects of the evidence and
the impugned judgment does not call for any
interference. He has further argued that the prosecution
had miserably failed to bring home the charge against the
accused as it was simply a case of committing suicide by
5 CRAA No. 155/2014
the deceased Rozina Begum, who happened to be the one
of the wives of the respondent and there was not even an
iota of evidence against the respondent to have in any
manner abetted the commission of suicide by the
deceased.
08. Shorn of minute details, the facts of case are that on
26.06.2009 one Haider Ali R/O Chanderkot Tehsil
Ramban moved a written complaint at Police Station,
Ramban, stating that his daughter Rozina Begum
married to the respondent Ishtiyaq Ali about thirty years
back was subjected to cruelty and as a result thereof, she
had committed suicide on 25.06.2009 by jumping into
river Chenab from Gugwal Bridge; that on the basis of
this complaint, a case was registered vide FIR No.
94/2009 under section 306 RPC and the dead body of
the deceased was later recovered at Dayangarh, Reasi
from Salal Project Dam, after three months and her
postmortem was conducted on 01.10.2009 at District
Hospital, Reasi; that during investigation, it was revealed
that the accused-respondent had contracted two
marriages and his relations with the deceased were
strained as he harassed the deceased on trivial issues
and caused physical and mental torture to her; that on
25.06.2009 he had beaten the deceased, who fed up with
6 CRAA No. 155/2014
the continuous torture, jumped into river Chenab on
25.06.2009; that the police after investigation laid the
chargesheet for the commission of offences punishable
under sections 306/498-A RPC and on denial of the
charge by the accused, prosecution examined PW-1
Haider Ali (complainant), PW-3 Abbas Ali, PW-5 Sufara
Begum, PW-6 Arif Ali, PW-7 Inshar Ali, PW-9 Khadka
Bahadur, PW-11 Muzafar Ali and PW-Dr. Sudesh Raina
as prosecution witnesses.
09. The complainant-Haider Ali, father of the deceased, PW-
11 Muzaffar Ali is the brother of the deceased and PW-3
Abbas Ali and PW-6 Arif Ali, two sons of the deceased and
accused were cited as prosecution witnesses. Father and
brother of the deceased, who have been cited as
witnesses, were found by the trial court as hearsay
witnesses as their depositions were based on hypothesis.
PWs Arif Ali and Abbas Ali, sons of the deceased and
accused categorically refuted the allegations made in the
chargesheet that the deceased was instigated to commit
suicide as she was physically and mentally tortured by
the accused after second marriage and both of them were
declared hostile by the prosecution and on cross-
examination they denied that the deceased and the
accused ever quarreled prior to the occurrence. PW-
7 CRAA No. 155/2014
Abbas Ali had even stated that the second child was born
after second marriage of the accused. The two
independent witnesses namely Inshar Ali and Khadka
Bahadur were also declared hostile, as both of them
resiled from their earlier depositions but nothing
incriminating could be extracted despite subjecting them
to cross-examination.
10. It was clear from the statements of the prosecution
witnesses that the deceased and the accused were
married for about thirty years and even after the second
marriage, the deceased had been living with the accused
and the second wife for last 12 years and there being no
complaint lodged in those long years with regard to any
torture etc. by the respondent-accused. Also there being
no incriminating statement made by any of the witnesses
that the deceased was instigated to commit suicide due to
continuous harassment and torture by the respondent
did not inspire confidence. Thus, the trial court in a very
lucid and reasoned judgment recorded acquittal of the
respondent, for want of sufficient evidence.
11. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions, this court is of the considered opinion that
impugned judgment does not call for any interference by
8 CRAA No. 155/2014
this court which is hereby upheld. Resultantly, the
appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
15.04.2025
Naresh/Secy
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
…..
Naresh Kumar
2025.04.15 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document