Jharkhand High Court
Dukhan Ganjhu vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 8 April, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:10720-DB )
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 24 of 1997(R)
(Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 04.12.1996 (sentence passed on 06.12.1996) passed by
Sri Sudarshan Upadhyay, learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Chatra in S.T. No. 351/94.)
1. Dukhan Ganjhu, S/o Late Mani Ganjhu. (Since deceased)
2. Begi Devi, W/o Dukhan Ganjhu.
3. Rina Ganjhu.
All residents of Vill- Kadale, P.S.- Chatra, Dist.- Chatra
... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand). ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Binod Kr. Dubey, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
----
CAV on : 16/10/2024 Pronounced on : 08/04/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 04.12.1996 (sentence passed on
06.12.1996) passed by Sri Sudarshan Upadhyay, learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Chatra in S.T. No. 351/94, whereby and whereunder
the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life.
3. Since the original appellant no. 1 Dukhan Ganjhu had died,
during the pendency of this appeal, this appeal, therefore, stood
abated so far as Dukhan Ganjhu is concerned vide order dated
15.10.2024. This appeal, however, survives so far as the appellants
Begi Devi and Rina Ganjhu are concerned.
4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Puran
Ganjhu recorded on 17.05.1994, in which it has been stated that on
16.05.1994, the son of the informant, namely, Bifa Ganjhu had gone
to the house of Dukhan Ganjhu to install tiles in the house and at
5:00P.M., he had returned back home. It has been stated that about
6:00-7:00P.M., the daughter of Dukhan Ganjhu, namely, Sundarwa
had invited the son of the informant for dinner, at which he left with
Sundarwa. When the son of the informant did not return at
10:00P.M., the wife of the informant Satia Devi had gone to the house
of Dukhan Ganjhu in search of her son. It has been alleged that Satia
Devi had seen Bifa Ganjhu lying unconscious in the house of Dukhan
Ganjhu and in spite of her efforts, when Bifa Ganjhu did not respond,
Satia Devi had come home and disclosed about the incident to the
informant. The informant reached the said place along with his wife
and several villagers and he found his son Bifa Ganjhu lying dead. It
has been alleged that Dukhan Ganjhu had fled away from his house
and the wife of Dukhan Ganjhu had disclosed that Dukhan Ganjhu,
his wife Rina Ganjhu and Bega Ganjhu had eaten food and had also
drunk liquor. When the informant and the others started wailing and
crying, the wife of Dukhan Ganjhu and Rina Ganjhu fled away from
the said place.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Chatra P.S. Case No. 87/94
was instituted under Sections 328/302/34 IPC. 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. 351/94. Charge was framed against the accused
under Section 302/34 IPC which was read over and explained to the
accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses in
support of its case:
P.W.1 Niro Mistry has proved the formal FIR which has been
marked as Exhibit-1.
P.W.2 Saraswati Devi is the mother of Bifa Ganjhu, who has
stated that her son was taken away by Sonarwa and he was fed by
Begi, Dukhan and Rina Ganjhu. After eating, her son started
2|Page
wriggling. She had a feeling of uneasiness, at which she went to the
house of Dukhan and saw her son in dire straits with froth coming
out from his mouth. He died after some time.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that her son used to
assist in installing of tiles and he did not take any money for his
labour. When she had gone to the house of Dukhan, she saw her son
dead and four persons having their food. Everybody was having their
food in separate plates.
P.W.3 Puran Ganjhu is the informant and the father of the
deceased Bifa Ganjhu, who has stated that his son had gone to the
house of Dukhan Ganjhu to install tiles and in the evening, he
returned back home. On the same day at 7:00PM, the son and
daughter of Dukhan Ganjhu had come and invited Bifa Ganjhu to
have dinner. After his son went, some persons had also come from the
house of Dukhan Ganjhu. When his son did not return, his wife went
in search of him and on return, she disclosed that Bifa Ganjhu is lying
on the ground in the house of Dukhan Ganjhu with foam and blood
coming out from his mouth and nose. At this information, he went to
the house of Dukhan Ganjhu and saw that there were four separate
plates and liquor was being served by Begi Devi which was being
consumed by Dukhan Ganjhu, Rina Ganjhu and Bifa Ganjhu. When
Bifa Ganjhu died, the accused persons fled away.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the house of Dukhan
Ganjhu is visible from his house. Only the house of his brother-in-
law, Pairan Ganjhu is situated between his house and the house of
Dukhan Ganjhu. When his son did not return, his wife had gone to
the house of Dukhan Ganjhu at 7:00PM and returned back within five
minutes and disclosed that Bifa Ganjhu has died. Only his son died
and those who were drinking liquor, survived. There was poison mixed
in the liquor served to Bifa Ganjhu. There was no previous enmity
between him and the accused persons.
P.W.4 Pairu Ganjhu has been tendered by the prosecution.
P.W.5 Sawan Ganjhu has stated that he, Rina Ganjhu and Bifa
Ganjhu had gone to the house of Dukhan Ganjhu to install tiles on
3|Page
his roof. In the evening, they went to each other's house and after
having dinner, he had gone to sleep. The mother of Bifa Ganjhu was
crying and he could hear it. He saw the dead body of Bifa Ganjhu. He
had also seen food kept in four utensils. He had heard that Bifa
Ganjhu was poisoned by the accused persons.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that when he reached the
house of Dukhan Ganjhu, people were seen crying. He had not seen
anyone committing the murder of Bifa Ganjhu.
P.W.6 Kuna Singh has been tendered by the prosecution.
P.W.7 Dukhan Ganjhu and P.W.8 Sita Ganjhu did not support
the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the
prosecution.
P.W.9 Dr. Nand Kishor Jaiswal was posted as a Civil Assistant
Surgeon in Sub-Divisional Hospital, Chatra and on 18.05.1994, he
had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bifa Ganjhu and had
found the following:
I. External:-
(i) Body was highly putrefied, whole body
blooded, foul smelling, blackish
discoloration of skin. Peeling of cuticle at
places. Multiple blebs willed with reddish
colored fluid.
(ii) Rigor mortis absent.
(iii) Face blotted, eyes fall soft and yielding to
the finger. Eyes opened. Pupil dilated.
Cornea milky white.
II. Internal:-
(i) Lungs- Both lungs congested soft and
blobby.
(ii) Heart- Left side empty, right side
contained dark fluid blood.
(iii) Liver- congested, soft blobby.
(iv) Spleen- congested soft and pulpy.
(v) Stomach- contained semi digested food
4|Page
particles with alcoholic smell.
(vi) Kidneys- congested.
The cause of death was opined to be on account of asphyxia. The
cause of asphyxia was uncertain. The viscera was preserved for
chemical analysis. He has opined that poisoning may cause asphyxia.
He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as
Exhibit-2.
P.W.10 Gopi Nath Tiwari was posted as a Sub-Inspector of
Police in Sadar P.S. and on 17.05.1994, he had recorded the
fardbeyan of Puran Ganjhu which has been proved and marked as
Exhibit-4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Chatra P.S. Case No. 87/94
was instituted. After taking over the investigation, he had recorded
the restatement of the informant and prepared the inquest report. The
inquest report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5. He had sent
the body for post-mortem examination and had also recorded the
statement of the witnesses. He had inspected the place of occurrence
which is at village Kadale in the mud house of Dukhan Ganjhu. The
dead body was found in a room situated on the eastern side. On
13.06.1994, he had received the post-mortem report and the viscera
was sent for chemical examination on 27.07.1994. On the orders of
his superior authority, he had submitted charge sheet.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seized any
article from the place of occurrence. He did not find any suspicious
object at the place of occurrence. The witness Satia Devi had never
stated before him that when she had gone to the house of Dukhan
Ganjhu, the accused persons were having dinner.
6. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the incident
regarding the death of Bifa Ganjhu.
7. It has been submitted by Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel for
the appellants that there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and
only on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence, the appellants have
been convicted. The accused/appellants and the informant are related
to each other and admittedly, there was no animosity between the
5|Page
parties. Though a chloro-organic pesticide was detected in the viscera
of the deceased, the accidental intake of the same cannot be ruled out.
8. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. has submitted that "Aldrin" was
detected in the viscera of the deceased and since liquor was consumed
at the house of the appellants, there is a strong suspicion about the
involvement of the appellants in poisoning the deceased.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and
have also perused the trial court records.
10. The appellants and the informant are related to each other
having a cordial relationship which can be deduced from the fact that
Bifa Ganjhu had willingly gone to the house of Dukhan Ganjhu to
install tiles without raising any claim for remuneration of his labour
and his and his family's readiness to send him to the house of Dukhan
Ganjhu, on being invited for dinner. Though it is the case of the
prosecution that the accused and the deceased were having liquor and
poison was mixed in the liquor served to the deceased, but the
postmortem report does not suggest any presence of alcohol in the
body of the deceased. The viscera report which has been marked as
Exhibit-3 reveals about presence of "Aldrin" which is a chloro-organic
pesticide widely used in agriculture for killing pests and is poisonous.
The incident had taken place in a village and it is not uncommon to
keep medicines/pesticides in the houses for sprinkling in the
agricultural fields. As we have enumerated above, the implication
seems to be on the basis of suspicion only. If at all any insinuation
can be cast, it would be primarily upon Dukhan Ganjhu, but as stated
above his death has led to abatement of his appeal. The present
appellants seems to have been implicated as they were the inmates of
the house and were having food and liquor with Bifa Ganjhu. It also
appears that the Investigating Officer had not seized any incriminating
article from the place of occurrence which would give a semblance of
strength to the case of the prosecution regarding the purported
poisoning of Bifa Ganjhu. The learned trial court, by drawing a
conclusion that the viscera report corroborates the postmortem
report, has convicted the appellants without exploring the other facts
6|Page
and circumstances arising out of the prosecution evidence. The
circumstances noted above, leaves no room for doubt that the benefit
of doubt should accrue to the appellants.
11. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove,
set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
04.1.2.1996 (sentence passed on 06.12.1996) passed by Sri
Sudarshan Upadhyay, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in
S.T. No. 351/94.
12. This appeal is allowed.
12. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the
liability of their bail bonds.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 08th Day of April, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
7|Page
