Jharkhand High Court
Babudhan Baskey vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 8 April, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11747-DB )
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 34 of 1999(P)
(Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 04.12.1998 (sentence passed on 15.12.1998) passed by
Sri Hari Shanker Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in
S.T. No. 185/1996.)
Babudhan Baskey, S/o Bhola Baskey,
R/o Vill- Bandanpahari,, P.S.- Jama, Dist.- Dumka.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
----
For the Appellant : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.
----
CAV on : 26/03/2025 Pronounced on : 08/04/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 04.12.1998 (sentence passed on
15.12.1998) passed by Sri Hari Shanker Prasad, learned Sessions
Judge, Santhal Parganas, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 185/1996
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence
under Section 302/34 IPC. No separate sentence has been passed
for the offence under Section 201 IPC.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Udip
Singh recorded on 19.04.1996 in which it has been stated that
Dipak Yadav was his friend who, apart from being a contractor, had
a grocery shop and a flour mill at village Ambachatar. On
19.04.1996, the informant met Dipak Yadav at about 8:00AM who
requested him to take him to his flour mill and after some time
Dipak Yadav asked the informant to return to Dumka. In the
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11747-DB )
meantime, Dipak Yadav saw Somai Baskey and demanded his dues
from him who agreed to pay and asked him to accompany him to
his house. At this, the informant, Dipak Yadav and Somai Baskey
left on the same motorcycle and on the way, they met Sona Marandi
and Dipak Yadav sat in front of the house of Sona Marandi on a cot
and asked Somai Baskey to bring the money. The dues of Rs. 130/-
having been received by Dipak Yadav, he demanded a cock as
earlier promised by Somai Baskey, who instead gave him half bottle
of liquor. It has been alleged that while they were drinking liquor,
four persons arrived and wanted liquor which led to Dipak Yadav
giving them the bottle of liquor. When these persons made further
demand of liquor, Dipak Yadav refused at which a scuffle broke out
and Dipak Yadav had asked the informant to intimate the labourers
in his mill. The informant accordingly informed the labourers as
also contacted others about the incident including the family
members of Dipak Yadav and when he returned to the mill, he came
to know that Dipak Yadav has been murdered. On search, the body
of Dipak Yadav was located in a field with several marks of injury
on his body.
Based on the afforded allegations, Jama P.S. Case No. 27/96
was instituted under Section 302/34 IPC and 201 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 Sessions Case No. 185/1996.
Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302/34 IPC
and 201 IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses
in support of its case:
P.W.1 Gopal Prasad Yadav has stated that on 19.04.1996,
he had come to know that his son has been murdered. At this
information, he had gone to Bandanpahari along with Binod Yadav,
Anil Yadav, Anup Yadav and Birendra Yadav. He reached the house
2|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11747-DB )
of Sona Marandi at Bandanpahari and found blood at the doorstep.
The body was dragged and it was conceived in a hillock. They had
located the body by following the signs of dragging. He had met
Udip Singh, Ashok Thakur and Jageshwar Rai who had disclosed
that Dipak Yadav was murdered by Paneshwar Baskey, Paltan
Baskey, Somai Baskey and others. They had disclosed about two
other persons whom they did not know. They had also disclosed
about the manner of occurrence.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that someone from the
locality had given him the information about the murder. He had
not witnessed the occurrence.
P.W.2 Udip Singh is the informant who has stated that it was
a Friday and he was with Dipak. He had met Dipak at 8:00AM, who
had asked him to go to his mill at Ambachatar. Both had thereafter
gone to Dumka where he purchased some grocery items and
thereafter, Dipak had loaded some barbed wires and sent it through
an ox-cart for delivery. He has stated that Dipak again asked him
to go to Dumka when his eyes fell on Somai and by riding up to
where Somai was present, Dipak demanded Rs. 130/- which was
earlier taken on loan by Somai. Somai was trying to vacillate, but
Dipak insisted for the money to be given then and there. Somai
capitulated and said that he will give the money at his house for
which he, Dipak and Somai went on his motorcycle towards the
house of Somai. Dipak stopped the motorcycle in front of the house
of Sona Marandi and asked Somai to bring the money. He and
Dipak sat on a cot, while Somai went home to bring the money.
After some time, Somai came and gave Rs. 150/- to Dipak and
Dipak returned back Rs. 20/- to Somai. Dipak wanted a cock from
Somai which was promised earlier, but Somai showed his inability
to meet such demand and instead offered liquor. Somai purchased
a bottle of liquor from the shop of Sona Marandi and while Somai
and Dipak were consuming liquor, four other persons came.
Paneshwar asked Dipak for liquor and all four had liquor from
3|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11747-DB )
whatever was left in the bottle. When Dipak refused to give them
more liquor, as demanded, Paneshwar caught hold of the hand of
Dipak and a scuffle took place between Paneshwar Paltan, Somai
with Dipak. Dipak, in a breathless state, asked him to inform the
workers in the mill. He went to the mill and informed about the
incident and thereafter, he informed Ram Rai. When he returned
back from the mill, he came to know that the accused persons had
dragged away Dipak after assaulting him with tangi. He had
informed about the incident to the father of Dipak after which he,
the father of Dipak, Ram Rai and some villagers went in search of
Dipak. The body of Dipak was located and there were injuries all
over the body. After the Police came, his fardbeyan was recorded.
He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of
consuming liquor, there was a scuffle as a result of which he had
fallen down from the cot. He had not participated in the Test
Identification Parade. He had disclosed about the incident to the
father of Dipak. He had not gone with the father of Dipak to
Bandanpahari.
P.W.3 Jageshwar Rai has stated that on 19.04.1996 he was
going to the house of Mukhia to inform him about the distribution
of old age pension. At Bandanpahari, Dipak Yadav called him in
front of the house of Sona Marandi where he was sitting. He had
seen Dipak, Udip and Somai sitting and after sometime, Paltan,
Paneshwar Babudhan and one Tudu had come. He was making
preparation to leave when some quarrel took place. Dipak had
objected to the demand of Paneshwar to purchase more liquor and
this led to a scuffle and assault. When the fight showed no signs of
receding, he fled away to his house and raised an alarm. When he
came back with others to the place where the fight had taken place,
they did not find anyone. The dead body of Dipak Yadav was located
at some distance with injuries on his person.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that neither he, nor
4|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11747-DB )
Ashok had drunk liquor. After the fight had started, Ashok had left
and so had Udip.
P.W.4 Ashok Thakur has stated that he was going from his
house and as he reached Bandanpahari, he saw Dipak Yadav, Udip,
Somai Baskey, Paltan Baskey, Paneshwar Baskey, Babudhan
Baskey and Sona Marandi. Dipak had called him and Jageshwar
Rai and wanted to know where they were going and both replied
that they are going to meet Mukhiya Ji for the purposes of
distribution of old age pension. All the said persons were
consuming liquor. Dipak refused to buy liquor, when Paneshwar
demanded, on the pretext that he does not have any money at
which the accused persons started checking the pockets of Dipak
and when Dipak objected, all the accused persons started
committing assault upon him. Paltan Baskey had assaulted Udip
also and Udip fled from the said place and he had also fled. He went
to Amlachatar and then to Bandanpahari and when the villagers
came, he saw the dead body of Dipak. He had not seen any weapons
in the hand of the accused persons.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the accused
persons did not demand money from him. He cannot say since how
long they were drinking liquor. He was apprehending that the
accused would also demand money from him. He had fled towards
the village on his bicycle. He knows Babudhan Baskey since he lives
in the adjacent village. He had fled away along with Jageshwar and
Udip. Dipak had asked him to call other persons, but due to fear,
he had fled to his village. Dipak could have freed himself from the
accused persons, but he instead had asked him and others to call
some persons to the said place.
P.W.5 Ramphal Rai and P.W.6 Sona Marandi have been
declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.7 Guru Charan Singh was posted as Sub-Inspector of
Police in Jama P.S. and on 19.04.1996, he had heard a rumour
that a person has been murdered in Bandanpahari. After making a
5|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11747-DB )
station diary entry, he had proceeded to Bandanpahari. He has
proved the Sanha which has been marked as Exhibit-2. He had
recorded the fardbeyan of Udip Singh in front of the house of Sona
Marandi. The fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1.
The endorsement on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as
Exhibit-3. The endorsement for registering a case has been marked
as Exhibit-4. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as
Exhibit-5. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at
village Bandanpahari in the northern side of the boundary wall of
Sona Marandi. The land where the incident took place belongs to
Vikram Pasi. There was a pool of blood found at the place of
occurrence and signs of scuffle were also detected. He had seized
some articles at the place of occurrence and prepared a seizure list
which has been marked as Exhibit-6. The second place of
occurrence is a lonely place half a kilometre on the eastern side of
village Bandanpahari. There were specks of blood and signs of
dragging in the entire distance from the first place of occurrence to
the second place of occurrence. He had recorded the restatement of
the informant. He had prepared the inquest report. He had recorded
the statements of other witnesses and had sent the body for post-
mortem examination. On completion of investigation, he had
submitted charge sheet.
In cross-examination he has deposed that he had recorded
the statement of Ramphal Rai, who had stated that Udip Singh had
come running and disclosed that Paltan Baskey, Paneshwar
Baskey, Tudu Baskey, Babudan Baskey and Somai Baskey are
committing assault upon Dipak Yadav. The witness Sona Marandi
had stated about Somai Baskey clearing the dues of Rs. 130/- to
Dipak Yadav and all had started drinking after she supplied a bottle
of liquor for Rs. 10/-.Sona Marandi had thereafter left for the field
and when she came back, no one was present there.
P.W.8 Anil Kumar Yadav has proved his signature on the
seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-6.
6|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11747-DB )
P.W.9 Saligram Singh has stated that he had brought the
articles deposited in the Malkhana. The same included a chocolate-
coloured slipper, a white coloured bottle, a small container made of
leaves, one shirt and a 50 Rupee note which have been marked as
Material Exhibit Nos. M to M/4. He has proved the handwriting of
Ram Balak Singh on the documents showing the materials brought
from the Malkhana which has been marked as Exhibit-8. He has
also proved the contents of the diary from para-1 to para-42 which
has been marked as Exhibit-9 with objection.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that none of the articles
were seized in his presence.
P.W.10 Satya Narayan Mandal has stated that he had signed
on the seizure list and in his presence Anil Yadav had signed which
has been earlier proved and marked as Exhibit-6. He has also
identified the signature of Birendra Yadav in the Inquest Report
which has already been marked as Exhibit-7.
P.W.11 Dr. Sita Ram Sao was posted as a Civil Assistant
Surgeon in Sadar Hospital, Dumka and on 19.04.1996, he had
conducted autopsy on the dead body of Dipak Yadav and had found
the following:
(i) Incised wound 1" x ½" x muscle deep
over face just near to right lobule area.
(ii) Incised wound 1" x ½" x muscle deep
over right cheek near angle of right side
of mouth.
(iii) Incised wound 1" x ¼" x muscle deep
over right cheek in middle.
(iv) Incised wound 1"x 1" x scalp deep over
right parietal region of scalp.
(v) Incised wound 2"x 1" two in number
over occipital region. On dissection- there
was linear fracture right parietal and
fracture of occipital bone. On further
dissection, brain and meninges were
found congested and blood clot found
inside cranium.
(vi) Incised wound 4" x 1" x deep to bone
7|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11747-DB )
over back of the neck situated behind
hair living starting from left ear to right
ear. On dissection underneath vertebra
and cervical region and spinal cord was
cut.
(vii) Scalp burn reddish in colour consisting
sesius fluid over ¾ of the first of
abdomen and 1/4th longer part of chest.
On dissection of thoracic, there was
fracture of 4th ribs to 5th ribs on both and
7th to 9th on right side of chest. On further
dissection of chest, nothing abnormality
was found.
(viii) Sealed sum multiple in number over right
arm fracture, left arm fracture, right
thigh and left thigh and legs whole back
over chest gluteal region in both sides.
The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of scalp injuries (iv), (v) and (vi). The post-
mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-10.
P.W.12 Birendra Yadav is one of the witnesses to the Inquest
Report.
P.W.13 Anup Lal Yadav has proved his signature upon the
Inquest Report which has been marked as Exhibit-7.
5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the commission of
the murder.
6. Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the informant has not named the appellant as one
of the persons who was instrumental in committing assault upon
Dipak Yadav. It has been submitted that there are no eye witnesses
to the occurrence and no incriminating articles were recovered from
the possession of the appellant. Mere presence of the appellant
would not elevate his status to that of one of the perpetrators of the
murder.
7. Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the
deceased was dragged from near the house of Sona Marandi to the
8|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11747-DB )
place where the dead body was ultimately recovered and since the
appellant was one of the initiators of the fight, the same would incur
his active role in the murder.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and have also perused the trial court records.
9. Though in the fardbeyan of Udip Singh (P.W.2) the name of
the appellant does not figure but in course of investigation, the
name of the appellant had surfaced leading to submission of charge
sheet against him as well. What could be gathered from the
evidence of the witnesses is that there are two places of occurrence;
the first being in front of the door of the house of Sona Marandi
where the accused and the deceased were consuming liquor and
where the fight had started while the second place of occurrence is
a lonely place where the body of Dipak Yadav was finally located.
P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the eyewitnesses to the quarrel and the initial
skirmish between the appellant and the other accused persons with
Dipak Yadav after which they left the said place. In fact, P.W.2 is
also a witness to the scuffle and though he has not named the
appellant, but has stated about another person present apart from
Paneshwar, Paltan and Somai. The prosecution has, therefore,
established beyond any reasonable doubt about the involvement of
the appellant in the scuffle which had taken place at the time of
consumption of liquor in front of the house of Sona Marandi. So far
as the actual assault upon the deceased with various weapons is
concerned, admittedly nobody had seen such assault but at the
same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the dead body of
Dipak Yadav was recovered not far from the first place of occurrence
and the close proximity of the recovery from the time of the initial
assault. This is a very strong circumstance against the appellant
and the defence has failed to highlight any other angle which would
lead to discarding the complicity of the appellant in the murder of
Dipak Yadav. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the accused persons were not armed, the same
9|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11747-DB )
would hardly be of any consequence in absence of any eyewitness
to the actual incident of murder and having dragged the deceased
from the front of the house of Sona Marandi to the place where it
was finally located, procurement of weapons of assault specially axe
which is a common instrument in the villages and which, according
to the post-mortem report, was the primary weapon causing sharp
cut injuries on the person of the deceased would not have been of
much labour. Another interesting feature of the case is the brutal
and grotesque manner in which the assault was committed as apart
from sharp cut injuries on various parts of the body, fractures of
hands and legs, it also appears that hot water was also poured
upon the deceased. On an overall conspectus of the evidence of the
prosecution, it clearly transpires that the involvement of the
appellant in association with the other accused persons and
sharing a common intention is apparent and since the learned trial
court had appropriately considered the evidence on record while
recording an order of conviction against the appellant under
Section 302/34 IPC and Section 201 IPC, we do not find any reason
to interfere in the same and consequently, we dismiss this appeal.
10. Since the appellant is on bail, he is directed to surrender
immediately and forthwith to serve out the remaining part of his
sentence.
11. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 8th Day of April, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
10 | P a g e
