Jharkhand HC Upholds Life Terms For Son And His Father-In-Law In Stepmother’s Murder Over Half-Share Land Demand

On 22 April 2007, a dispute arose over the division of land when appellant Md. Mustafa, accompanied by appellant Md. Salim and another person, allegedly threatened the informant, Anwar Ali, and his second wife, Sadika Khatoon, while they were working in their field.

Later that morning, Sadika was shot and wounded with a sharp weapon while returning home.

The informant said he saw the accused fleeing and that villagers apprehended Mustafa with a pistol; a knife was found near the body.

The trial court convicted both appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine.

They appealed, challenging the reliability of the informant and the sufficiency of the evidence.

The court considered the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC and common intention under Section 34 IPC.

It also referred to Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, treating the accused’s conduct in fleeing after the incident as relevant conduct.

The judgment cited no precedents.

It further observed that defects in investigation or evidentiary lapses do not, by themselves, entitle the defence to an acquittal.

The court found the informant’s testimony credible and materially consistent with his earlier account, notwithstanding some deviations and the hostile testimony of several other witnesses.

The informant described the prior threat arising from the land dispute, heard the gunshot, and saw the accused fleeing; his account was corroborated by the post-mortem evidence of firearm and sharp-force injuries.

The court treated the flight and apprehension of Mustafa with a pistol, together with the knife recovered near the body, as supporting the prosecution case.

It held that the defence documents did not undermine the prosecution evidence: the contents of the informant’s application had not been proved, and Mustafa’s acquittal in the separate Arms Act case was not determinative of the murder charge.

The appeal was dismissed, leaving the convictions under Sections 302/34 IPC and the sentences of life imprisonment and fine undisturbed.