Case Background
The case arose from Sadar (Dagarua) P.S. Case No. 78 of 2009, District Purnea. An FIR under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against one Sk. Jamil on the basis of the fardbeyan of Dafadar-12, Luxman Prasad Yadav, recorded on 25.02.2009 at about 09:45 a.m. at Village Meera Fulpur by the Station House Officer, Dagarua.
According to the fardbeyan, on 25.02.2009 at around 07:30 a.m., the informant received information that the appellant had murdered his wife, Anwari Khatoon, at his house by assaulting her with a spade. He stated that he rushed to the spot and found the blood-soaked dead body of the deceased lying on a cot in the room, with injuries on her nose, cheek and head and profuse bleeding from her mouth and head. The appellant was said to be present there.
The informant also alleged that he learnt the appellant suspected his wife of having an extra-marital relationship with one Tawrej, who had allegedly visited her on the previous evening, leading to a quarrel. It was alleged that due to this suspicion and resulting ignominy, the appellant assaulted his wife around 06:00 a.m. on 25.02.2009 with a spade, causing her death. On questioning, the appellant was also stated in the fardbeyan to have confessed his guilt before the informant.
The police investigated the case, visited the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest report, recorded statements of witnesses and obtained the post-mortem report. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Ultimately, the case came before the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Purnea, as Sessions Trial No. 622 of 2009.
The trial court framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to him; he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, by judgment dated 16.07.2012 and order of sentence dated 23.07.2012, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with a further two years’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 936 of 2012 before the Patna High Court. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Dr. Justice Ravi Ranjan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prakash Chandra Jaiswal. Ms. Smriti Singh appeared as amicus curiae for the appellant, and Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, A.P.P., appeared for the State.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The main question before the Patna High Court was whether the prosecution had proved the charge of murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Court carefully examined the entire oral and documentary evidence recorded during the sessions trial.
The prosecution had examined twelve witnesses. Out of these, PWs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 turned hostile. They did not support the prosecution version. The remaining important witnesses were:
PW-3: Md. Zulfikar Ali, minor son of the deceased.
PW-8: Informant, Dafadar Luxman Prasad Yadav.
PW-9: Dr. Indra Narayan, who conducted the post-mortem.
PW-10: Investigating Officer, Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.
PW-11: Mehar Banu, mother of the deceased.
PW-12: Md. Kamruzama, father of the deceased.
The defence of the appellant, as recorded in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, was complete denial. He claimed innocence and did not examine any witness in defence.
The High Court noted that there was no independent, consistent eye-witness account supporting the prosecution story.
PW-3, the minor son, initially claimed in his examination-in-chief to be an eye witness. He stated that he was sleeping on a bed near his mother along with his two brothers at the time of occurrence. According to him, his father came armed with a “dabiya” and started assaulting his mother. On seeing this, PW-3 raised alarm and went out. A passerby, Asdul, came, took the appellant out of the house and snatched the weapon from him. PW-3 claimed that he locked the room from outside and went to bring a doctor. He further said that Asdul later released the appellant, who then took the key from PW-3 on the assurance that he would not kill his wife, but went back and again assaulted her with a spade.
PW-3 further alleged that thereafter several other persons, namely his uncles Jabbar and Tamij, his aunt Rehana, his cousin (son of uncle) Firoj, his “phupha” Hakim and others like Riyasat, Afzal and Gannu also assaulted his mother and kept assaulting her even after her death. He also spoke of a land dispute between his uncle Jabbar and his mother.
However, in cross-examination, PW-3 made a crucial statement in paragraph 9: he admitted that on the fateful morning he was playing near his village at the time of occurrence. The High Court held that this admission completely ruled him out as an eye witness to the actual assault inside the house. If he was playing elsewhere at the time of occurrence, his earlier detailed story of witnessing the assault could not be believed.
The Court also noted that, as per PW-3, besides the appellant, many of his relatives allegedly joined in assaulting the deceased and continued even after her death. Yet none of these persons were named as accused in the case. This omission, in the Court’s view, created serious doubt about the truthfulness of his version.
The trial court had tried to save PW-3’s testimony by observing that his statement about “playing near his village” related to the previous day, not the day of occurrence, and that PW-3 had clarified this in the dock but the clarification could not be recorded due to an uproar created by the defence. The High Court found this approach legally impermissible. It held that if such a clarification had indeed been made, the trial judge ought to have re-examined PW-3 on that very day or shortly thereafter, even as a court witness, and recorded the clarification formally. Keeping such an unrecorded statement “in memory” for later use was held to be against law. Therefore, the High Court rejected the trial court’s reasoning and treated PW-3’s contradiction as fatal to his credibility.
Turning to PW-8, the informant, the High Court compared his fardbeyan with his deposition in court. In the fardbeyan, he had clearly stated that he rushed to the appellant’s house after hearing about the murder, found the blood-soaked body of the deceased on the cot with injuries, saw the appellant present there, and heard him confess that he had killed his wife due to suspicion of her extra-marital affair with one Tawrej.
However, in his evidence before the court, PW-8 departed from this version. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of his examination-in-chief, he expressed ignorance about the identity of the assailant and the cause of the murder. In paragraph 5, he refused to identify the appellant in the dock. In cross-examination, he went even further: he said he had never seen the appellant before and did not know his name or address. He also stated that he had signed his fardbeyan at the instruction of the SHO at the police station without reading it and that it had not been read over to him. He even stated that he heard the name of the deceased, “Anwari Khatoon”, for the first time at the police station.
These statements made it clear, in the High Court’s view, that PW-8 did not support the prosecution’s story recorded in the FIR and that his earlier fardbeyan could not be treated as reliable evidence of the appellant’s presence or alleged confession.
The parents of the deceased, PW-11 and PW-12, were also examined. They were not present at the place of occurrence. Both stated in their examination-in-chief that at the time of the incident they were at their house at Katihar, and their grandson PW-3 telephoned them on mobile, informing them that his father (the appellant) had killed his mother with “dabiya” and “kudal” (spade). On receiving this information, they came to the place of occurrence.
But PW-3 himself never stated in his evidence that he had telephoned his grandparents to give such information. Because of this lack of corroboration, the High Court held that even their hearsay evidence was not admissible and could not be safely relied upon.
Moreover, PW-11 made another inconsistent statement in cross-examination. While she initially said that she received information directly from her grandson on mobile, she later stated that her grandson had given the information on the mobile phone of the PCO owner, Md. Server, through the Gram Pradhan of Fulpur. Neither the Gram Pradhan nor the PCO owner was examined by the prosecution. These contradictions further weakened the prosecution case and the credibility of PW-11 and PW-12.
The medical evidence also did not comfortably fit the prosecution’s version. PW-9, Dr. Indra Narayan, who conducted the post-mortem (Ext. 4), found only three injuries on the deceased’s body: one sharp cut injury on the cheek, another injury on the head, and a third sharp cut injury on the right forearm near the wrist. According to PW-3’s version, the appellant along with 8–9 other persons had repeatedly assaulted the deceased and kept beating her even after her death. The Court observed that such a brutal, multi-person assault should ordinarily have resulted in more injuries than the three actually found. This mismatch meant that the ocular version did not stand corroborated by medical evidence.
Considering all these aspects together, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had “utterly and miserably failed” to prove the charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. There was no trustworthy eye witness. The informant resiled from his earlier statement. The hearsay testimonies of the parents were inconsistent and uncorroborated. The medical evidence did not fit the alleged manner of assault. The trial court’s attempt to rely on an unrecorded “clarification” of PW-3 was held unsustainable in law.
Consequently, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Purnea, in Sessions Trial No. 622 of 2009. The appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. As he was in custody, the Court directed that he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
The appeal was allowed. The Court also directed that a copy of the first and last pages of the judgment be given to the amicus curiae, Ms. Smriti Singh, and that she be paid the prescribed fee by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for criminal trials dealing with serious charges like murder. The Patna High Court reaffirmed that a conviction cannot rest on shaky, contradictory or uncorroborated testimony, especially where witnesses change their versions in court.
For ordinary citizens, it underlines that even in grave and emotional cases, the law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, hearsay, or unrecorded explanations cannot replace solid evidence. If key witnesses contradict themselves or are not supported by medical evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
The judgment also sends an important message to trial courts. If there is confusion or alleged clarification in a witness’s statement, it must be formally recorded through proper re-examination. Judges cannot rely on what they remember a witness having said informally but did not record. This safeguards fairness for both the accused and the prosecution.
For families of victims, the case shows the importance of giving clear, consistent statements and ensuring that all relevant persons, like alleged co-assailants or intermediary informants, are properly examined in court. Otherwise, even serious allegations may fail for want of reliable evidence.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant murdered his wife under Section 302 IPC?
Answer: No. Due to contradictions in the eye-witness account, the informant turning hostile, unreliable hearsay evidence, non-examination of material persons, and lack of medical corroboration, the Patna High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant.
Issue: Could the trial court rely on an unrecorded “clarification” supposedly given by PW-3 to remove a major contradiction in his testimony?
Answer: No. The High Court held that the trial court’s reliance on a clarification not recorded in evidence was against law. If such a clarification was needed, PW-3 should have been formally re-examined. In absence of that, his contradiction remained fatal to his credibility.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No previous judgments or case law have been expressly cited or relied upon in the text of this decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 936 of 2012; arising out of Sadar (Dagarua) P.S. Case No. 78 of 2009; Sessions Trial No. 622 of 2009, District Purnea.
Case Title: Sk. Jamil v. The State of Bihar.
Citation: 2019 (3) PLJR 218.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna.
Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Ravi Ranjan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prakash Chandra Jaiswal.
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 25.01.2018.
Trial Court: Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Purnea.
Statutory Provision Involved: Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for the statement of the accused).
Advocates: Ms. Smriti Singh (Amicus Curiae) for the appellant; Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, A.P.P., for the State.
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeal (Division Bench) against conviction and sentence for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC.
Outcome: Conviction and life sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Link to Full Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in Cr. App (DB) No. 936 of 2012
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
