USMAN MIAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three appellants filed the present appeal questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court upholding their conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and the sentence of imprisonment for life as imposed by learned Sessions Judge, Gaya, Bihar in Sessions Trial No. 145 of 1983. It was pointed out that during pendency of the appeal before this Court appellant No. 2 has died and, therefore, appeal stands abated so far as he is concerned.

(2.) The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: Kalamuddin and Alauddin Mian of village Nasirpur informed Ishteaq Ahmed (PW-10) and other members of the prosecution party at their house in village Chatarghat in the early morning hours on 6-3-1981 that Saista Khatoon (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) has expired. He was told that some guests had come to the deceaseds house; after serving meal to them she went to bed. In the midnight her cries were heard and subsequently it was learnt that she had died.

(3.) On getting the above information, Ishteaq Ahmed (PW-10) (informant of the case) along with his father Anwarul Haque (PW-4), mother Nafisa Khatoon (PW-8), brother Rashid Hussain (PW-3), sister (not examined) and aunt Hasmat Khatoon (PW-7) proceeded to the house of the appellants in village Nasirpur reaching there at about 7 a.m. They saw the dead body of Saista Khatoon lying on a cot on the southern verandah of the house. The body was covered by cloth. By that time several persons of the two villages, namely, Chatarghat and Nasirpur had gathered there. They were talking in whispered tone that Saista Khatoon had been killed. With a view to have the last glimpse of the deceased the cloth from her face was removed. Marks of scratches and bluish stain on the neck and blacken stain on the right parental region were visible. The prosecution party after seeing the said marks became suspicious that the deceased had been killed by her husband and her step-sons i.e. present appellants.