Girdhari Mahanty vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4236 Jhar

      Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 566 of 2018
                 with
      Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 348 of 2018
                 with
      Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 438 of 2018
                 with
      Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 511 of 2018

Against the judgment dated of conviction dated 30.01.2018 and order of
sentence dated 01.02.2018 passed by Sri Shesh Nath Singh, Additional
Sessions Judge IX, Jamshedpur in S. T. No. 304 of 2012.
                        ---

Girdhari Mahanty                           ...    ...     Appellant
                                    (in Cr. Appeal DB No. 566 of 2018)
Ashok Singh Sardar @ Pocha                 ...    ...     Appellant
                                    (in Cr. Appeal DB No. 348 of 2018)

1.Krishna Karmkar @ Sadhu
2.Pradeep Karmkar
3.Puchan Kamkar @ Fuchan Karmkar @ Raju
4.Ghanshyam Mahto @ Mamu               ...    ...     Appellant
                                (in Cr. Appeal DB No. 438 of 2018)

Arun Das @ Hakla @ Arun Das Sahu           ...    ...     Appellant
                                    (in Cr. Appeal DB No. 511 of 2018)



                     Versus
The State of Jharkhand                      ...     ...      Respondent
                                    (in all the cases)


                         ---
For the Appellant        : M/s. Anjani Kumar, Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar
                                & Aditya Kumar Jha, Advocate
                         : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate
                         : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate
                         : Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, Advocate
For the Respondent       : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Special P. P.
                         : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
                         : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Special P. P.

                   ---
                Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                   ---


C.A.V. on - 03.08.2022              Pronounced on - 18.10.2022

Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar, Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha, learned counsels for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 566 of 2018, Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 348 of 2018, Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 438 of 2018 and Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 511 of 2018 and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P. P. in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 566 of 2018 and 348 of 2018, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 438 of 2018 and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Special P. P. in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 511 of 2018.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2018 and order of sentence dated 01.02.2018 passed by Sri Shesh Nath Singh, Additional Sessions Judge IX, Jamshedpur in S. T. No. 304 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 147 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 148 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 323/149 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Sections 324/149 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/149 along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for further six months. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

3. The fard beyan of Jharna Dhibar was recorded on 02.04.2012 at TMH, Jamshedpur in which she has stated that her husband Bablu Dhibar used to work at Sameer Mobile Downloading. On 02.04.2012, a friend of her husband namely, Lalchand Turha was in his vegetable shop and at about 4:30 P.M. Girdhari Mahanty, Krishna Karmkar @ Sadhu, Pradeep Karmkar and Ashok Singh Sardar @ Pocha were having cold- drinks at a shop near the vegetable shop of Lalchand Turha. While having cold-drinks, they asked Lalchand Turha as to why he was looking at them and the same resulted in a quarrel and they were on the verge of committing assault, but due to intervention of others, the matter was pacified. The police came on information and asked to file a written

report at which her husband and Lalchand Turha went to Sonari police station and gave an application. When they were returning after giving application, they saw near Panchwati Nagar Girdhari Mahanty, Mithu Dhibar, Sumit Dhibar, Ashok Singh Sardar @ Pocha, Puchan Karmkar @ Raju, Krishna Karmkar @ Sadhu Karmkar, Pradeep Karmkar, Arun Das, Raghunath Majhi, Mamu were waiting for them and they were variously armed with lathi, danda, sword and knife. It has been alleged that her husband was caught by them and dragged towards the house of Kalyani Singh in an alley where they started assaulting him. She tried to rescue her husband by shielding him, but she was forcibly removed. They had also tried to assault Lalchand Turha, but he managed to save himself. Due to such indiscriminate assault, her husband became unconscious. It has been alleged that Girdhari Mahanty had assaulted her husband with sword, Mithu Dhibar with knife while the others have assaulted with fists, lathis and hammer. Her husband was later on taken to TMH, Jamshedpur where he died on the same day at 10:00 P.M.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sonari Police Station Case No. 35 of 2012 was instituted against 10 accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147. 148, 149, 323, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where it was registered as S. T. No. 304 of 2012. Charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 302/149 IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case.

P.W. 1 - Ganga Dhibar is the father of the deceased Bablu Dhibar. He has stated that the incident had happened 10 months back. It was about 4:00 P.M., when Pradeep, Mithu Girdhari, Sumit, Sadhu, Kudru, Pocha had come to assault Lalchand who was in his vegetable shop. His son was also there and the accused persons quarreled with him. His son, daughter-in-law and Lalchand had gone to the police station and were returning at 7:00 P.M. When they reached near the mobile shop and he

also reached at the same place, he had seen 10 accused persons variously armed hiding and they started assaulting his son. When he and his daughter-in-law tried to save Bablu Dhibar, they were also assaulted. He has stated that Lalchand was also assaulted. The persons who are involved in the assault were Pradeep, Mithu, Sumit, Sadhu, Pocha, Kudru, Puchan, Girdhari and Arun. His son was taken to TMH, Jamshedpur where he died. He has proved his thumb impression on the fard beyan given by his daughter-in-law which has been marked as 'X' for identification. He has identified some of the accused persons in court except Ashok Singh Sardar @ Pocha, whom he had wrongly identified.

In cross-examination on behalf of Arun Das Sahu @ Hakla, he has deposed that he had disclosed to the police that in the first incident, his son was assaulted by the accused. He had also disclosed that in both the instances, he had reached the place of occurrence.

In cross-examination on behalf of Ghanshyam Mahto @ Mamu, he has deposed that the first incident had taken place near the shop of Lalchand. Even after the police came, the matter was not pacified as the accused persons were roaming around with deadly weapons. He has deposed that from the police station, when he and his son came back to his house, the second incident had taken place in front of his house. The house of this witness and the house of Kalyani Singh are in front of each other. In the second incident, all the accused persons have assaulted with sword, knife and kulhari. After the second incident, he had taken his son to the police station.

In cross-examination on behalf of Girdhari Mahanty, he has deposed that when the incident had taken place, he was in his house. He cannot say, whether the other accused persons were present at the place of occurrence or not. His son was taken on a motor-cycle to TMH, Jamshedpur. He has further stated that there were 10 assailants.

P.W. 2 - Jharna Dhibar is the informant and wife of the deceased. She has stated that the incident is of one and half years back and it was Ram Navami and he was returning home at 7:30 P.M. from the police station along with her husband and Lalchand Turha. When she reached near the mobile shop, Mithu, Pradeep, Sumit, Girdhari and the others totaling 10 in numbers assaulted her husband with knife and bhujali and

when she tried to save her husband, she was kicked at which she fell down. She and Lalchand Turha had taken her husband to the hospital and in course of treatment in TMH, he died. He has further stated that there was a quarrel between the accused persons and Lalchand Turha and her husband had intervened in the tussle.

In cross-examination on behalf of Ghanshyam Mahto, she has stated that he was in the side lines. The persons who have been named had assaulted her husband. The rest were with them, but they had not participated in the assault. She has deposed that the accused persons had an enmity with Lalchand Turha. She has further stated that four of the persons who had assaulted her husband had knives and bhujali.

In cross-examination on behalf of the rest accused persons, she has deposed that there was no enmity between her husband and the accused persons and the incident had taken place due to the enmity between Lalchand Turha and the accused persons.

P.W. 3 - Sunil Prasad and P.W. 4 - Sitaram Gorai have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W. 5 - Dr. Lalit Minz had examined Jharna Dhibar on 03.04.2012 and had found the following:

(i) Bruise left arm with bluish condensation size 4 cm x 2 cm.

(ii) Cut injury left ear lobule 1 cm long.

(iii) Swelling with pain on left hip joint Age of injuries - within 24 hours.

Mode of injury - hard blunt object.

The nature of injuries were found to be simple. He has proved the injury report which has been marked as Exhibit 15.

On the same day, he had examined Lalchand Turha and had found the following:

(i) Linear abrasion injuries three in number present on the lower back of sixe 2" long.

(ii) Linear abrasion over right arm 5 inch long. Age of injuries - within 24 hours.

Mode of injury - hard blunt object.

The nature of injuries were found to be simple. He has proved the injury report which has been marked as Exhibit 16.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the injuries may not be caused by fall.

P.W. 6 - Lalchand Turha has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W. 7 - Dr. A. K. Choudhary, was posted as Tutor in the FMT Department, M.G.M. Medical College, Jamshedpur and on 03.04.2012, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bablu Dhibar and had found the following injuries:

Group A - Stitched wound.

(i) 4 cm. long along outer aspial left mid chest.

(ii) 2 cm. long along left temporal scalp.

(iii) 4 cm. long over left posterior parietal scalp &

(iv) 4 cm. long along left posterior parietal scalp. Group B - Abrasion

(i) Multiple small over left upper face over scalp, left forehead, right side chin and two small along left scapular region of back.

(ii) Left apical lope of lung punctured and contiguous margins of left 3rd and 4th ribs having sharp cut fracture. Left chest cavity full of blood.

All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and injuries in Group C was caused by sharp cutting pointed light weapon. Injuries in Group B were caused by hard and blunt substance, while opinion regarding injuries in Group A can be obtained from surgeon who attended the deceased first.

The death was due to haemorrhage and shock. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has proved the post mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit 18.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not received any information from the surgeon regarding the injuries in Group A.

P.W. 8 - Chandan Kumar Prasad, P.W. 9 - Jitendra Tiwary and P.W. 10 Gulab Turha did not support the case of prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W. 11 - Nand Kishore Ram was posted as Officer Incharge of Sonari police station and on 02.04.2012, he had recorded the fard beyan of Jharna Dhibar. He has proved the fard beyan which has been marked as Exhibit 19. He has proved the endorsement on the fard beyan which has been marked as Exhibit 19/1. He had taken over the investigation of

the case. In course of investigation, he had prepared the inquest report of Babloo Dhibar. He had prepared the seizure list of blood stained saree and blouse of the informant Jharna Dhibar. He has identified his hand- writing and signature in the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit 5/2. He had recorded the statements of Jharna Dhibar, Lalchand Turha, Ganga Dhibar, Sunil Prasad, Jaidev Dhibar, Gulab Turha, Chandan Kumar and Sitaram Gorai. He had inspected the places of occurrence; the first being at Panchwati Nagar in front of the shop of Suresh Prasad in the PCC road and the second being the PCC road at Panchwati Nagar adjoining the house of Prafull Kumar Patnaik. This was the place where the deceased was dragged from the first place of occurrence and was assaulted with knife, bricks and hammer. He had seized the blood on the road and prepared a seizure list which has been earlier marked as Exhibit 4. He has proved his hand-writing and signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit 4/2. The accused persons were arrested and arrest memos were prepared which have been marked as Exhibits 6 to 14 and his signature on the same have been marked as Exhibits 6/2, 7/2, 8/2, 9/2, 10/2, 11/2, 12/2, 13/2 and 14/2. He has seized the wearing apparels of Girdhari Mahanty, Sumit Dhibar, Mithu Dhibar, Fuchan Karmkar @ Raju which was blood stained and he proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit 3/2. He had also recorded the confessional statements of Sumit Dhibar, Mithu Dhibar and Girdhari Mahanty. He has proved these confessional statements which have been marked as Exhibits 20, 21 and

22. On such confessions, a blood stained sword and a blood stained knife were recovered and the seizure list was prepared which has previously been marked as Exhibit 2. He has identified his hand-writing and signature over the same which has been marked as Exhibit 2/2. He had also seized a white coloured half shirt in which TMH was written and a seizure list was prepared which has been marked as Exhibit 1/2. On 09.05.2012, he had obtained the post mortem report of Bablu Dhibar and on 30.05.2012, he had obtained the injuries report of Jharna Dhibar and Lalchand Turha. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against 10 accused persons.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that with respect to the first incident, no written report was received from anyone. He had not prepared the sketch map of the places of occurrence. The blood stained clothes were sent to FSL, Ranchi.

P.W. 12 - Satyanarayan Mahato has produced the material exhibits in court on the order of the Officer Incharge. He has proved the forwarding report of the material exhibits which has been marked as Exhibit 18. The sword which was produced has been marked as Material Exhibit M while the knife has been marked as Material Exhibit M-1. The carton covered with cloth was opened which contained 8 sealed envelopes. The same have been marked as Material Exhibits M-2. A blood stained blouse has been marked as Material Exhibit M-3, a white bandage has been marked as Material Exhibit M-4, a t-shirt has been marked as Material Exhibit M-5, a half shirt has been marked as Material Exhibit M-6, a half pant has been marked as Material Exhibit M-7, a full shirt has been marked as Material Exhibit M-8, a full t-shirt has been marked as Material Exhibit M-9 and a shirt has been marked as Material Exhibit M-10.

6. The statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their involvement in the murder.

7. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 566 of 2018 has submitted that P.W. 2 is the only eye-witness to the occurrence, but her evidence suffers from infirmities and contradictions. He has submitted that the incident had not taken place in a secluded place, but on a road, but even then none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. He has further submitted that there was no motive for committing the murder of Bablu Dhibar as even P.W. 2 has stated that there was no enmity between the accused persons and the deceased. He has also submitted that there was no common object prior to the commission of the murder and therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC and as also under Sections 323 and 324 IPC by taking the aid of Section 149 I.P.C.

8. Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 348 of 2018, apart from adopting the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 566 of 2018, has submitted that though P.W. 1 claims to have reached the place of occurrence at the time of the initial scuffle as well as the concerted assault leading to the murder of his son Bablu Dhibar, but P.W. 2 in her testimony has not noted the presence of P.W. 1 at both the places. He has referred to the evidence of P.W. 1 who has wrongly identified the appellant and which according to him further dilutes the case of the prosecution. Mr. Upadhyay has taken us through the testimony of P.W. 2 who in her cross-examination has stated that only those persons who have been named by her had committed the assault which rules out the participation of the appellant in the assault.

9. Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 438 of 2018 has submitted that so far as the appellants are concerned barring appellant no. 2, the others have not been assigned any specific role of assault and only their presence were noted. The recovery of blood stained sword and blood stained knife were made on the basis of the confessional statements of Mithu Dhibar, Sumit Dhibar and Girdhari Mahanty. He has further submitted that in the absence of any common object, none of the appellants could have been convicted under Sections 323, 324 and 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC.

10. Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 511 of 2018 has submitted that the appellant has not been specifically attributed to have committed assault upon Babloo Dhibar.

11. The learned State counsels have supported the impugned judgment and have stated that some appellants have been specifically named to have committed the assault while the others were present and even if it is assumed that they have not taken part in the assault, they cannot escape the rigors of Section 149 IPC, as common object has been clearly established by virtue of their presence at both the stages of the incident.

12. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the lower court records.

13. The actual incident of murder was preceded by a scuffle when Babloo Dhibar had intervened and tried to pacify both the warring sides - Lalchand Turha on one side and the accused persons on the other. The enmity existing between Lalchand Turha and the accused persons has been established by virtue of the evidence of P.W. 2. She has also admitted about absence of enmity between her husband and the accused persons.

14. P.W. 2 in her fard beyan has specifically stated about the names of the accused who were involved in the initial incident and in the subsequent assault also. She has also named some of the assailants and has also made a sweeping statement including all the appellants. So far as the present appellants are concerned, P.W. 2 has claimed the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 566 of 2018 and the appellant no. 2 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 438 of 2018 as the persons who had committed assault upon the deceased. So far as the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 566 of 2018 is concerned, he has been fastened with an additional source of incriminating material which is by way of recovery of weapon of assault on his confession.

15. P.W. 1 who is the father of the deceased has claimed himself to be an eye-witness who was present at both the places of occurrence and after the first incident, he and his son had come back to the house and when the incident of assault had occurred, he was inside the house. He has also stated that after the deadly assault was committed upon his son, he had taken his son to the police station.

16. The evidence of P.W. 1 throws up several contradictions when compared with the evidence of P.W. 2.

17. P.W. 2 has nowhere stated either in her fard beyan or in her testimony about the presence of P.W. 1 in either of the places of occurrence. In the evidence of P.W. 2, she has stated about returning from police station along with her husband and Lalchand Turha. Lalchand Turha who has been examined as P.W. 6 has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The evidence of P.W. 2 is consistent with her fard beyan with respect to the manner of occurrence. Her presence is

further substantiated by the fact that she had suffered injuries though simple in nature as well as Lalchand Turha, but there is no injury report of P.W. 1 though, he also claims that he had been assaulted which therefore connotes that P.W. 1 is not an eye-witness to either of the incidents. The evidence on the other hand of P.W. 2 inspires confidence and is trustworthy and reliable.

18. The other incriminating substance is the FSL report which has been marked as Exhibit 17 and 17/1 by taking recourse to Section 293 Cr.P.C. Exhibit 17.1 reveals the result of the blood found on the weapon seized, the saree and blouse of P.W. 2 as well as the wearing apparels of some of the accused persons. From the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 566 of 2018, blood stained mehendi coloured Ganji was seized, from the appellant no. 3 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 438 of 2018, a blood stained katha coloured full sleeve t-shirt was seized and the report of the FSL (Exhibit 17/1) reveals that both contained blood of human origin. The circumstances noted above solidifies the ocular evidence and therefore, the participation of Girdhari Mahanty (appellant in Criminal Appeal DB No. 566 of 2018), Pradeep Karmkar and Puchan Kamkar @ Fuchan Karmkar @ Raju (appellant nos. 2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 2018) in the murder of Babloo Dhibar is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. So far as the rest appellants are concerned, neither they have been fastened with any specific allegation by P.W. 2 nor any incriminating article was recovered from their possession. Their conviction is primarily based on the common object as held by the learned trial court. It is to be seen as to whether these appellants have indeed shared a common object or not in committing the murder of Babloo Dhibar.

20. Section 149 IPC has been explained in the case of "Rajendra Shantaram Todankar Vs. State of Maharashtra" reported in (2003) 2 SCC 257, wherein it was held as follows:

14. "Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 provides that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the

same assembly is guilty of that offence. The two clauses of Section 149 vary in degree of certainty. The first clause contemplates the commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly which can be held to have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. The second clause embraces within its fold the commission of an act which may not necessarily be the common object of the assembly, nevertheless, the members of the assembly had knowledge of likelihood of the commission of that offence in prosecution of the common object. The common object may be commission of one offence while there may be likelihood of the commission of yet another offence, the knowledge whereof is capable of being safely attributable to the members of the unlawful assembly. In either case, every member of the assembly would be vicariously liable for the offence actually committed by any other member of the assembly. A mere possibility of the commission of the offence would not necessarily enable the court to draw an inference that the likelihood of commission of such offence was within the knowledge of every member of the unlawful assembly. It is difficult indeed, though not impossible, to collect direct evidence of such knowledge. An inference may be drawn from circumstances such as the background of the incident, the motive, the nature of the assembly, the nature of the arms carried by the members of the assembly, their common object and the behaviour of the members soon before, at or after the actual commission of the crime. Unless the applicability of Section 149 -- either clause -- is attracted and the court is convinced, on facts and in law, both, of liability capable of being fastened vicariously by reference to either clause of Section 149 IPC, merely because a criminal act was committed by a member of the assembly every other member thereof would not necessarily become liable for such criminal act. The inference as to likelihood of the commission of the given criminal act must be capable of being held to be within the knowledge of another member of the assembly who is sought to be held vicariously liable for the said criminal act. These principles are settled. Applying these tests to the facts found proved beyond reasonable doubt, Accused 1 to 5 can be held liable for the offence under Sections 302/149 IPC for the assault resulting in the death of Gopikrishna while Accused 6 and 7 can be held liable for their individual acts of assault committed on Sanjay Patil."

21. In the case of "Joseph v. State, represented by inspector of police" reported in (2018) 12 SCC 283, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:

14. "Whether the members of the unlawful assembly really had the common object to cause the murder of the deceased has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of weapons used by such members, the manner and sequence of attack made by those members on the deceased and the

circumstances under which the occurrence took place. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case (vide Lalji v. State of U.P.; Ranbir Yadav v. State of Bihar; Rachamreddi Chenna Reddy v. State of A.P.)."

22. In the background of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we now venture to consider the role played by the rest of the appellants.

23. As per P.W. 2, these appellants had not committed any assault upon her husband. She has also not stated as to whether these appellants were armed or not. So far as the first incident is concerned, she has stated about a quarrel between the accused persons and Lalchand Turha in which her husband had intervened. The enmity was with Lalchand Turha and not with the deceased. A common object must not necessarily mean an active participation in the assault, but mere presence at the place of occurrence would not attract a common object if the other factors are not proved. The prosecution has failed to elicit any response from the witnesses regarding presence of arms with the appellants. There is nothing on record to suggest that they had exhorted others to commit the murder or had taken active part in the initial incident. Mere presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence would not attract an inference that the likelihood of the commission of the offence was within their knowledge. The learned trial court has not properly appreciated the intricacies of Section 149 IPC based on the factual aspect of the case and in such circumstances, we have no hesitation, but to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2018 and order of sentence dated 01.02.2018 passed by Sri Shesh Nath Singh, Additional Sessions Judge IX, Jamshedpur in S. T. No. 304 of 2012, so far as the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 348 of 2018, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 511 of 2018 and appellant nos. 1 & 4 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 438 of 2018 are concerned. Since these appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.

24. As regards, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 566 of 2018 and the appellant nos. 2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 438 of 2018 are concerned, these appeals stand dismissed. Since the appellant nos. 2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 438 of 2018 are on bail, they are directed to surrender forthwith before the learned trial court to serve out

their sentences. All these appeals are disposed of in terms of the above. Pending I.A., if any also stands disposed of.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 18th day of October, 2022 R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3