SULEMAN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suleman Ansari, Karu Ansari @ Kalimuddin Ansari and Atabul @ Tabla @ Tabul Ansari were put on trial on the charge of committing murder of Imrana Khatoon and for causing disappearance of her dead body. In Sessions Trial Case No. 27 of 2009/400 of 2009, they are convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for life and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for 4 years under section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, with default stipulations.

(2.) On the basis of the fardbeyan of Md. Nazam Ansari which was recorded by Sidheshwar Sawaiyan, ASI of Basantrai OP on 02.06.2008 at about 11:30 AM, Pathargama (Basantrai) PS No. 95 of 2008 was registered under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Tabla Ansari, Suleman Ansari, Karu Ansari, Vilash Ansari, Anwar Ansari and Mangan Ansari. The informant has stated that in the night of 01.06.2008 while he was away from home the accused abducted his daughter from Bahiyar (open field) where she had gone with her younger brother to ease herself and next day morning her dead body was found in the well of Suleman Ansari, one of the abductors.

(3.) After the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against Suleman Ansari, Karu Ansari @ Kalimuddin Ansari and Atabul @ Tabla @ Tabul Ansari while the investigation against other accused remained pending. The trial against Anwar Ansari and the other accused who at some point in time had absconded faced the trial separately. In the sessions trial against the appellants the prosecution has examined nine witnesses out of whom PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7 are intimately related to Imrana Khatoon. The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination and the investigating officer were not examined during the trial, though postmortem report was proved through a compounder working at Sadar Hospital, Godda. In course of investigation, the crime weapon was not seized and a tourch or lantern in the light of which the child witness claimed to have identified the accused was not produced in the Court. It has come on record that the accused were residing in the middle of the village and at the time of the occurrence other brother and sister of the victim were present in the house but they were not examined by the investigating officer.