The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1198 of 2022 ------ 1. Ehsan Ansari @ Insan Ansari 2. Sayuf Ansari 3. Manir Ansari @ Maniruddin Ansari 4. Padri Bibi @ Hasina Bibi 5. Muneza Bibi @ Manija Bibi 6. Kudu Mian @ Taiyab Ansari 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Akhtar Ansari 3. Nazma Bibi 4. Sahid Ansari Versus ----- … ... Petitioners … … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioners For the State For O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 4. -------- : Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, S.P.P. : Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocate ------- Order No. 05 / Dated: 21st June, 2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2, 3 & 4. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jamtara in connection with S.T. Case No. 46 of 2014, arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2013, G.R. No. 296 of 2013, whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the petition dated 24.08.2022 filed by the petitioners under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further prayed that the prosecution witnesses namely; P.W.-2, Nazma Bibi, P.S.-3, Sahid Ansari and P.W.- 7, Akhtar Ansari may be recalled for their further cross-examination, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jamtara. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that it is a dispute between the members of the In-laws family including the deceased wife and the husband. The petitioner No. 1 is the husband and other petitioners are members of the In-laws family of the deceased, whose brothers and mother are opposite party Nos. 2, 3 & 4. The petitioners are facing the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. -2- Cr. Revision No. 1198 of 2022 4. It has further been found that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and the deceased had taken place about 16 (sixteen) years back from the date of incident and after that there was an allegation of demand of dowry and for want of fulfillment of the demand of dowry the deceased is said to have been killed by the petitioners for want of fulfillment of the demand of dowry. 5. It has been pointed out that during the course of trial on 24.08.2022 a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recall of the prosecution witnesses namely; P.W.-2, Nazma Bibi, P.S.-3, Sahid Ansari and P.W.-7, Akhtar Ansari on the basis of the compromise petition. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that although it is a case of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but as a matter of fact no offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out as evident from the deposition of the witnesses also and further since the charges levelled against the petitioners was that due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry the deceased was killed but there was no such occasion for the petitioners to kill the deceased as it was a natural death and now compromise has taken place between both the parties. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has pointed out from the deposition of P.W.-6, Imfan Ansari, who is the son born out of the wedlock of the deceased and petitioner No. 1, where he has clearly stated that his maternal uncle (Mama) has wilfully instituted this false case and the father (petitioner No.1) had never demanded any dowry nor he had caused any cruelty or torture to his mother who has committed suicide by hanging herself and therefore, in this view of the matter, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that for the ends of justice it is necessary to recall the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution namely; P.W.-2, Nazma Bibi, mother, P.S.-3, Sahid Ansari, brother and P.W.-7, Akhtar Ansari, brother for the just decision of this case. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2, 3 & 4 who are P.W.-7, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 respectively did not raise any objection and submitted that basically it was a case of suicide as evident from the medical report and from the testimonies of the son of the deceased (P.W.-6) and as such for the just decision of this case it is necessary to recall the witnesses who have been examined on -3- Cr. Revision No. 1198 of 2022 behalf of the prosecution namely; P.W.-2, Nazma Bibi, mother, P.S.-3, Sahid Ansari, brother and P.W.-7, Akhtar Ansari, brother who are opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and 2 and particularly in the light of the deposition and the testimonies of the son of the deceased, P.W.-6, Imran Ansari, who has absolutely falsified the entire case of the prosecution. 8. Learned S.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that under the facts and circumstances of this case an appropriate order may be passed in the light of the submission advanced on behalf of both the parties. 9. Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case. 10. It is found that in the interest of justice it is necessary to recall and re- examine and cross-examine the witnesses namely; P.W.-2, Nazma Bibi, mother, P.S.-3, Sahid Ansari, brother and P.W.-7, Akhtar Ansari, brother who have already been examined during the course of trial in the learned Court below for the just decision of the case. 11. Accordingly, this criminal revision application is allowed and the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jamtara in connection with S.T. Case No. 46 of 2014, arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2013, G.R. No. 296 of 2013, is hereby set aside and the petitioners are granted four weeks’ time to get the witnesses examined and cross- examined. 12. The learned Court below is directed not to grant any adjournment for the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses if they are in attendance on the specified date in the learned Court below as this is a case of 2013 and further the learned Court below is directed to dispose of this case as early as preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. D.S./J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)