MAKBUL ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) It has been alleged that the accused persons had come to the house of the informant and had abducted her husband. Subsequently, dead body of her husband was recovered.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial of Mariam Bibi had progressed and said Yusuf Mian @ Yusuf Ansari was examined as P.W-8 and although he has stated similar to what he had stated in the statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. but the same had been disbelieved by the learned trial court while acquitting Mariam Bibi. Learned counsel has submitted that according to the prosecution, the incident is said to have taken place in the house of the present informant and there are large number of houses in the nearby but none of the witnesses have stated witnessing any such occurrence. It has further been submitted that as per the version of Yusuf Mian @ Yusuf Ansari, Mariam Bibi was equally responsible for the murder. It has also been submitted that although Yusuf Mian @ Yusuf Ansari had stated about two gun shot being fired at the deceased but the postmortem report reveals otherwise as in the statement of P.W-16-Dr. Vinod Kumar Saha, in the trial of Mariam Bibi, there was gun one shot injury found on the person of the deceased.