Sita Ram Hazam vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
2025 Latest Caselaw 4611 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sita Ram Hazam vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 8 April, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                               Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11407-DB )


                    Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 209 of 1997(R)
         (Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
         dated 09.09.1997 (sentence passed on 12.09.1997) passed by
         Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned 8th Additional Judicial
         Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 265/81.)

         1. Sita Ram Hazam, S/o Kisto Hazam.
         2. Jeevan Hazam, S/o Late Latha Hazam.
         3. Bhundla Hazam, S/o Late Mansa Hazam.
         4. Matlu @ Mathan @ Matnu Hazam, S/o Mansa Hazam.
         5. Zari @ Lakhan Hazam, S/o Late Chuna Hazam.
            All residents of Vill- Jhabri, P.S.-Silli, Dist.- Ranchi.
                                                   ...          Appellants

                                     Versus

        The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)     ...       Respondent
                                    ----
                                 PRESENT
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                                    ----
        For the Appellants    : Mr. Chatur Prasad Singh, Amicus
        For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
                                    ----
    CAV on : 25/03/2025               Pronounced on : 08/04/2025

Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mr. Chatur Prasad Singh, learned amicus curiae and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.09.1997 (sentence passed on 12.09.1997) passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned 8th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 265/81 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11407-DB )

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Sujan Mandal recorded on 26.04.1974 in which it has been stated that about 18-19 days back, the brother of the informant Jagat Mandal and Nathu Hazam had an altercation over playing. The brother of the informant was assaulted by Bhondla Hazam with a stone and he was also slapped. The father of the informant being enraged, had slapped the son of Bhondla Hazam. It has been stated that today, i.e., 26.04.1974, the father of the informant had gone to defecate and he had also followed his father for the same purpose. When the father of the informant reached the designated spot, fourteen named accused persons surrounded him. Buchuwa Hazam had a spear, Kisto Hazam had a balua, while the rest were armed with lathis. Bhondla Hazam instigated the others to commit assault upon the father of the informant after which all the accused persons made a concerted assault upon him with various weapons they had in their possession. When the father of the informant died, the accused persons had left him and had gone towards their village. Apart from the informant, the other persons who had witnessed the assault were Megnath Koeri, Latika Devi and Sikanto Mandal. After the accused persons left, the informant, his sister and the others had taken his father to Silli Hospital, where he breathed his last after 15-20 minutes.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Silli P.S. Case No. 13(4)/74 was instituted. After cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No. 265/81. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 147, 148, 302/149 IPC which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case:

P.W.1 Megnath Koeri has stated that at about 6:00-7:00AM, he was ploughing his field when he saw Mansukh Mandal being assaulted by eight persons and there were no one else present. The persons who were assaulting were Jeevan Hazam, Chamu Hazam, Sita Ram Hazam, Bhondla Hazam, Buchuwa Hazam, Matlu Hazam,

2|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11407-DB )

Chano Hazam and Lakhan Hazam. Mansukh Mandal died on account of the assault committed upon him. The accused Buchuwa Hazam had a spear, while the others were armed with lathis.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that adjacent to him Charan Mahto was also ploughing his field. At the time of the assault, he did not intervene out of fear. After the assault, the accused persons had fled away with their weapons. He had not informed Sujan. Sujan had come with his sister and by the time they had come, Charan had already left.

P.W.2 Atul Chand Mandal has stated that at about 6:00- 7:00AM, he had gone to answer the call of nature when he saw Chamu Hazam, Sita Ram Hazam, Buchuwa Hazam, Matlu Hazam, Bhondla Hazam, Chano Hazam, Lakhan Hazam committing assault upon Mansukh. Buchuwa had a spear, while the rest had lathis. Mansukh was pleading for water.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that there were 10-15 persons present at the place when he had gone to defecate. His statement was recorded by the Police. The assault was witnessed by Ram, Megnath, Sujan and Latika. These persons were at a distance of 300-400 yards from the place of occurrence. The persons who were standing at a distance watching the assault did not ask him about the assailant as they had themselves seen the assailants. After seeing the assault, he went home and disclosed about it to Divakar. Sujan had disclosed that he had given the name of fourteen accused in his fardbeyan, at which he stated that he had seen only eight persons committing the assault.

P.W.3 Sujan Mandal is the informant and the son of the deceased who has stated that at 6:00-7:00A.M., his father had gone to the field to defecate. His brother was assaulted by Bhondla Hazam at which his father had admonished Chote Hazam. He had seen his father being assaulted by Chamu Hazam, Sita Ram Hazam, Bhondla Hazam, Buchuwa Hazam, Matlu Hazam, Chano Hazam and Lakhan Hazam. He has stated that Kisto Hazam, Ledha Hazam, Gopi Hazam, Domna Hazam, Tara Hazam and Kamna Hazam were instigating the

3|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11407-DB )

other eight accused persons. Buchuwa Hazam had a spear, Kisto Hazam had a tabla, while the rest were armed with lathis. Due to the assault, his father died. Apart from him, the occurrence was witnessed by Megnath Koeri, Atul Mandal, Shobha Mandal, Latika Devi, Shibulal Mandal, Sikanto Mandal and other villagers. His father was taken to Silli Hospital. The Police had come to the hospital where his fardbeyan was recorded. He has proved his signature in the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of the incident several persons were present in the vicinity working in their fields. There were some persons who had gone to defecate and who had also come to the place of occurrence. The said persons were Dhananjay Mandal, Harihar Mahto, Parasnath Koeri and Mahendra Mahto. These persons did not intervene when the assault was going on. He had taken the name of only Dhananjay before the Police.

P.W.4 Latika Devi is the daughter of the deceased who has stated that her father had gone to Jobhia to defecate. She had gone to fetch water, when she saw Jeevan, Chamu, Sitaram, Matlu, Gadi, Bhondla Hazam, Buchuwa and Chano committing the murder of her father. All the accused persons were armed with spear, axe etc. Her father died at the hospital and prior to his death, he had disclosed the name of the assailants. On her raising an alarm, Megha, Atul and Sujan had come along with other persons. The assault had taken place due to a quarrel between the children.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that Jobhia is nearby to her house. There are several houses in between. At the time of the assault, some people had gathered in pockets. Atul Mandal, who had gone to defecate had also come and tried to intervene in the assault. At the time of the incident, she had become unconscious.

P.W.5 Dr. R.S. Prasad was posted as a Professor, Forensic Medicine, R.M.C.H., Ranchi and on 27.04.1974, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mansukh Mandal and had found the following:

(i) Rigor mortis was present in the limbs and

4|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11407-DB )

abdomen was distended with gases of decomposition.

(ii)    Small fragments of Chana (gram) were
        present in the stomach and urinary
        bladder was empty.

(iii) Lacerated wounds 2 x 1 cm on the back of the left elbow.

(iv) Abrasions:-

(a) 2 x 1 cm on the back side of the left index finger with fracture of bones.

(b) 1 x 1 cm on the back of the right forearm.

(c) 1 x 1 cm, 2 x 1 cm on the back of the right elbow.

(d) ½ x ½ cm on the region of the spleen.

(e) 2 x 1 cm, 1 x 1 cm on the front part of the left knee with fracture of the left tibiya.

(f) 3 x 2 cm, 1 x 1 cm on the front part of the left leg.

(g) 2 x 1 cm on the inner side of the right leg.

(v) Bruises:-

(a) 7 x 2 cm, 5 x 2 cm- since the P.M report is torn at that place, he can't say on which part these bruises were found.

(vi) Punctured wounds which were stitched- 8 x 3 cm, 3 x 1 cm on the front part of the right leg.

(vii) Internal findings- (a) laceration of spleen and liver, (b) fracture of left 4 th to 8th ribs

5|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11407-DB )

and right thigh bone.

The cause of death was opined to be due to bleeding and vascular shock which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2.

5. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their involvement in the murder of the father of the informant.

6. It has been submitted by Mr. Chatur Prasad Singh, learned amicus curiae that though several witnesses claim themselves to have seen the occurrence but there are major contradictions in their evidence regarding the participation in the actual assault. Some of the co-accused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial court without any justifiable reasons and the appellants also deserve to be treated similarly.

7. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP has submitted that the evidence of the witnesses reveals about the brutal manner in which the appellants had committed the assault and various weapons in their hands suggest the pre-planned manner in which the assault was devised.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records.

9. A trivial quarrel between the children while playing, as per the prosecution case, converted into a major issue culminating in a concerted assault upon the father of the informant by the accused persons. The fardbeyan reveals that there were fourteen persons who had taken part in the assault resulting in the death of Mansukh Mandal. However, the informant in his evidence as P.W.3, has diluted the said allegations and confined the assault to eight persons and six persons have been alleged to be instigating the assault. Kisto Hazam, who is one of the accused and as per the fardbeyan, had taken part in the assault with a tabla has been acquitted by the learned trial court on the ground that he was merely instigating the assailants. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 are the other eyewitnesses who, however, has

6|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11407-DB )

not stated about the presence of the instigators. In fact, there appears to be some major contradictions as to whether the eyewitnesses have actually seen the incident or not. P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased, who has stated that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to the place of occurrence when she had raised a cry of alarm. She had also stated that it takes about 10 minutes to reach the place of occurrence from her house and considering the short span of time the assault had taken place the vivid description given by P.W.3 seems to be an afterthought, more so when we consider the dilution in the evidence as compared to the fardbeyan in which fourteen persons were alleged to have taken part in the assault. It is indeed surprising that despite the presence of several persons in the vicinity, none had intervened except perhaps P.W.2 and all continued to watch the assault from a safe distance. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 does not disclose about the presence of fourteen accused persons at the place of occurrence. As per the cross-examination of P.W.1, Charan Mahato was ploughing the field adjacent to the place of occurrence when the assault was taking place, but when P.W.3 and P.W.4 came to the place of occurrence Charan had already left by then which would indicate that P.W.3 had come to the place of occurrence after the assault had taken place which would further strengthen the evidence of P.W.4 regarding the delayed appearance of P.W.3 at the place of occurrence. The evidence of P.W.3 further becomes questionable on going through the evidence of P.W.2 in which he has stated about categorically asking P.W.3 as to how he had given the name of fourteen persons, when P.W.2 himself had seen the presence of eight persons taking part in the assault. The Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution. Several persons present in the vicinity have also not been examined. In view of the apparent contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses, the presence of the appellants and taking an active part in committing assault upon Mansukh Mandal becomes doubtful. The learned trial court has not made an in-depth analysis of the evidence of the witnesses while arriving at a finding of guilt against them.

7|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11407-DB )

10. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.09.1997 (sentence passed on 12.09.1997) passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned 8th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 265/81.

11. This appeal is allowed.

12. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

13. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.

14. Before parting with this order, we take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Chatur Prasad Singh, learned amicus curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees to Mr. Singh within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this Order is served to Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 08th Day of April, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.

8|Page