Jharkhand High Court
Jyotindra Pandey Son Of Chandi Pandey vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 8 April, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12191-DB )
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 70 of 1999 (P)
Against the judgment of conviction dated 28.01.1999 and order of
sentence dated 01.02.1999 passed by Shri Prabodh Ranjan Dash, 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 79 of 1998.
---
Jyotindra Pandey son of Chandi Pandey, resident of village Mohalla
Saket Bihar (Barmasiya), PS. Deoghar, District Deoghar
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
---
For the Appellant : M/s. R. S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate
Naveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Special P.P.
---
Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---
C.A.V. on - 05.12.2024 Pronounced on - 08.04.2025
Per, R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Special P. P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
dated 28.01.1999 and order of sentence dated 01.02.1999 passed by Shri
Prabodh Ranjan Dash, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in
Sessions Case No. 79 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appellant has
been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201 of
I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for
3 years for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. along with a fine of Rs.
1,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fard beyan of Ram
Chandra Pandey recorded on 09.12.1997 in which it has been stated that
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12191-DB )
the informant had come to know that his sister Usha Devi has been
murdered by her husband Jyotindra Pandey (appellant) and his wife
Manju Devi and they had thrown the dead body into the well. On this
information, the informant went to the house of his maternal uncle,
Sukhdeo Pandey and thereafter to Saket Vihar, Barmasia, Deoghar where
he found the semi burnt, semi naked dead body of Usha Devi floating in
the well. The wife of the accused namely, Manju Devi was present, but
she could not give any satisfactory reply about the incident and when the
informant went inside, he got the smell of burning of kerosene oil and
empty plastic jar of kerosene oil was also found there. It has been stated
that the marriage of the sister of the informant was solemnized with
Jyotindra Pandey in the year 1991 and though Jyotindra Pandey had
solemnized marriage with Manju Devi after the death of his first wife,
but since he was issueless, therefore he solemnized another marriage. It
has been alleged that Jyotindra Pandey and Manju Devi used to torture
the sister of the informant. It has also been alleged that after three years
of marriage, the sister of the informant had given birth to a son which
was snatched from her custody by Manju Devi. The informant came to
know from the persons of the locality that on 08.12.1997, Usha Devi was
assaulted by the accused persons and after throttling her, they have
burnt her after sprinkling kerosene oil over her and thrown the dead
body into the well.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Deoghar P. S. Case No. 285 of
1987 was instituted. 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. 79 of 1998.
Charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 302/201
of I.P.C. 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 7 witnesses in
support of its case.
5. P.W. 1 - Kartik Nath Pandey has stated that on 09.12.1997,
Ram Chandra Pandey came to his house at 2:15 P.M. and asked him to
accompany him to Barmasia as his sister has been murdered by her in-
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12191-DB )
laws. On this information, Ram Chandra Pandey, Sukhdeo Pandey and
Kanchan Pandey had left for Deoghar and on reaching the house of
Jyotindra Pandey they saw the half burnt dead body of Usha Devi
floating in the well. On entering into the house of Jyotindra Pandey, he
has seen in the Verandah a 5 litre can, a bottle and a matches. Jyotindra
Pandey was not present in the house, but Manju Devi was present.
There was a cordial relationship between Jyotindra Pandey and Usha
Devi, but later on the relationship deteriorated and Jyotindra Pandey
used to regularly assault Usha Devi.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that Jyotindra Pandey and
Usha Devi had never quarrelled in his presence. There was no one
present near the well or in the courtyard or inside the house. They have
stayed for 15 minutes after which he left for his house with Kanchan
Pandey. The police has recorded his statement after one week of the
incident. The kerosene oil container was kept at the distance of 10 feet
from the well. The accused Manju Devi was also found sitting. He had
not seen the child of Usha Devi in the house.
6. P.W. 2 - Kanchan Pandey is the uncle of the deceased who
has stated that on 08.12.1997 in the night, he was in Bhitia when Sukhdeo
Pandey had informed him on the basis of disclosure made by Ram
Chandra Pandey that Usha Devi had been burnt and her dead body had
been thrown in the well by the accused persons. He, Ram Chandra
Pandey, Sukhdeo Pandey and Kartik Pandey thereafter went to the
house of Jyotindra Pandey, where they saw the dead body of Usha Devi
floating in the well. He had seen signs of burning in the house and a 5
liter kerosene oil container as well as a bottle. The dead body was taken
out of the well by the police.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that after marriage Usha
Devi used to continuously reside at her matrimonial house at Saket
Vihar, Deoghar. There were some houses adjacent to the house of
Jyotindra Pandey. He has seen Jyotindra Pandey committing assault
upon Usha Devi and when she was being assaulted, no one else was
present. He had not informed about the assault to anyone. He and his
three accomplices were present at the place of occurrence till 9:00 P.M.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12191-DB )
He has proved the signature of Ram Chandra Pandey on the FIR which
has been marked as Exhibit A on behalf of the defence. The child born to
Usha Devi was taken care of by Manju Devi.
7. P.W. 3 - Sukhdeo Pandey has stated that he had come to
know about the incident through Ram Chandra Pandey on 09.12.1997 at
3-3:30 P.M. and at that point of time, he was in his house. He had
thereafter gone to the house of the accused with Kartik Pandey and
Kanchan Pandey and when they reached the place of occurrence, several
other persons of the locality were found already present. They had seen
the dead body of Usha Devi floating in the well. Later on, they had taken
the dead body out of the well which was found to be fully naked and
except the face and sole, the entire body was burnt. In the room, a 5 litre
kerosene oil jar and a glass bottle was found. A seizure list was prepared
in which he had signed as a witness. He has identified his signature on
the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit 1. He had signed on
the inquest report which has been proved and marked as Exhibit 2. The
son of Usha Devi was given custody to Ram Chandra Pandey. He has
proved his signature on Jimmanama which has been marked as Exhibit
2/1. He has also proved the photograph of the dead body floating inside
the well and photograph of the dead body after it was taken out of the
well which have been marked as X to X/3 for identification. The
relationship between Usha Devi and Jyotindra Pandey was cordial for six
months after which it deteriorated.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that Ram Chandra Pandey
had not disclosed the name of any person who has witnessed the
incident. When they reached Saket Vihar, there were 15-20 persons
present and 7-8 police officials as well. The son of Usha Devi was
sleeping on a cot while Manju Devi was sleeping in another room.
Manju Devi had snatched the child of Usha Devi when he was six
months old and it was Manju Devi who looked after the child. No
Panchayati was ever held for the torture committed to Usha Devi by
Jyotindra Pandey and Manju Devi.
8. P.W. 4 - Nirmala Devia has stated that on hearing that Usha
Devi has died, she had gone to the house of Jyotindra Pandey where she
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12191-DB )
found the dead body of Usha Devi floating in the well. After seeing the
dead body, she returned back to her home. Her daughter was kept well
for 6 months after the marriage and thereafter Jyotindra Pandey and
Manju Devi started committing torture upon her. The police has seized 5
liter jar of kerosene oil and a bottle in her presence.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that from the time of his
birth, the son of Usha Devi used to stay with Manju Devi. When she
reached the place of occurrence, the police were already present. She
does not remember the name of the person who has disclosed about the
incident. When she reached, she found that Manju Devi was inside the
house, but she had not questioned her.
9. P.W. 5 - Ram Chandra Pandey is the informant and the
brother of the deceased who has not supported the case of the
prosecution and has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
10. P.W. 6 - Dr. Ashok Kumar Chatterjee was posted as Civil
Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and on 10.12.1997, he had
conducted autopsy on the dead body of Usha Devi and found the
following:
"1. The hairs of the skull of the front portion were cut, the eyes
were closed, the face was swollen, the tongue was swollen
and slightly portended and bitten between the teeth.
There was evidence of evacuation around anal region. The
whole body from face to ankles deeply burnt except both feet. The
burns were very deep on chest abdomen both thigh, buttock and
back of chest.
2. There was signing of hairs of public region. The skin of
chest and back of chest and abdomen were slightly
blackened.
3. On opening of skull brain and manages were congested.
4. On opening of chest a mucus membrane of trachea and
bronchia were congested and contained fine frothy mucus.
Plumas were congested. Both the lungs were congested
slightly enlarged and edematous.
5. Heart - right side contained dark blood and left side was
empty.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12191-DB )
6. On opening of abdomen stomach contained undigested food
materials and two to three ounce of water. Liver spleen and
kidneys were congested. Bladder was empty. Uterus and
external genetilia no abnormality was detected. Time
elapsed since death within 24 hours at the time P.M.
examination."
The cause of death was opined to be shock as a result of
extensive burn injuries and asphyxia due to drowning. The post mortem
report has been proved and marked as Exhibit 3.
11. P.W. 7 - Ram Sharan Yadav was posted as an Officer-in-
Charge of Deoghar Police Station and on 09.12.1997, he had received an
anonymous call that in the house of Jyotindra Pandey in the well, the
dead body of his wife is floating. After receiving this information, a
station diary entry was made and thereafter he along with other police
personnel reached the place of occurrence at Barmasia at Saket Vihar.
The dead body was found floating in the well and several persons had
already assembled there. He had recorded the fard beyan of Ram
Chandra Pandey which was been proved and marked as Exhibit 4. He
had taken over the investigation of the case. He had recorded the re-
statement of the informant and had also prepared the inquest report.
Photography was also done of the dead body and the place of
occurrence. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as
Exhibit 5. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is in Saket
Vihar, Barmasia in the house of Jyotindra Pandey. The household
articles, beds etc. were found to be in normal condition. There was smell
of kerosene oil and a 5 liter jerrycan and a bottle were found. There were
signs of burning on the ground which has been tried to be covered up.
There was an oven which seems not to have been lit up for two days. In
the north-eastern side of the house a well was found situated. The bottle
and jerrycan found at the place of occurrence were seized. The child -
Pankaj Pandey was given custody to his maternal uncle - Ram Chandra
Pandey. The accused Manju Devi was arrested and her confessional
statement was recorded in which she denied the allegations levelled
against her. He had recorded the statement of Sukhdeo Pandey,
Kanchan Pandey and others. On completion of investigation, he had
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12191-DB )
submitted charge-sheet.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had recorded the
statement of Chandra Shekhar Singh, Ravindra Kumar Singh and
Krishna Modi, but had not made them charge-sheet witnesses as they
had not thrown any light upon the case. The oven found in the house
was coal powered. Sukhdeo Pandey has stated before him that he had
come to know about the incident from the persons of the locality.
12. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the murder of Usha
Devi.
13. The defence has examined 5 witnesses in support of its case.
14. D.W. 1 - Saryu Prasad Mishra was a priest who has stated
that 'Head Tonsuring Ceremony' (Mundan) of the son of Jyotindra
Pandey was done by him. The said ceremony was conducted at Kali
Mandir, Pathrol. He had gone at 6:00 A.M. with Vasudeo Singh from
Madhupur by a local train where in the same compartment, he had met
Jyotindra Pandey with his wife and the child. He had returned with
other persons at 1-1:30 P.M.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is performing puja in
the house of Jyotindra Pandey for the last 10-12 years. Jyotindra Pandey
had come to his house on Sunday. Jyotindra Pandey had given the
expenses for the ticket.
15. D.W. 2 - Vasudeo Prasad Singh has stated that he had
participated in the 'Mundan Ceremony' of the son of Jyotindra Pandey
which had been held in Pathrol Kali Mandir on 09.12.1997. He had gone
by DMU train to Madhupur and in the same compartment he had met
Jyotindra Pandey and his wife and his child.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that Jyotindra Pandey had
stated that the mother of Pankaj had not come because she was facing
menstrual cycle.
16. D.W. 3 - Kapildeo Pandey is the neighbour of Jyotindra
Pandey and is brother-in-law of the informant - Ram Chandra Pandey.
He has stated that on 09.12.1997, he was going to duty by DMU train and
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12191-DB )
in the bogey, he had met Jyotindra Pandey, his wife and his son. They
were going to Madhupur for 'Mundan' of his son at Pathrol.
In his cross-examination, he has submitted that he works as a
Gangman in Railways. He does not remember the name of other
Gangmen who were working with him on that day.
17. D.W. 4 - Garib Singh has stated that his house is situated at
the distance of 40-50 feet. On 09.12.1997 at about 3-3:30 P.M., Jyotindra
Pandey was knocking at his door and when the door was not opened, he
and Jyotindra Pandey had jumped over the wall and entered into the
campus where they saw the body of the wife of Jyotindra Pandey
floating in the well. When an alarm was raised, several persons of the
locality had assembled. Jyotindra Pandey went to call the police and he
after 5 minutes left the place of occurrence.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had gone to the place
of occurrence on hearing the cry of alarm of Jyotindra Pandey.
18. D.W. 5 - Jyotindra Pandey is the accused who has stated that
he was thrice married. After the death of his first wife, he had married
Manju Devi and since Manju Devi did not have any issue, he had
solemnized marriage with Usha Devi. Usha Devi had given birth to a
child on 01.12.1994. He had solemnized marriage with Usha Devi with
the consent of Manju Devi. There was indeed no dispute in the family
and all lived peacefully. His son was looked after by Manju Devi with
the consent of Usha Devi. On 09.12.1997 to perform the 'Mundan
Ceremony' of his son, he and his son along with Manju Devi had gone to
Satsangnagar Halt station to catch the DMU train. Usha Devi did not
accompany them as she was having a menstrual cycle. He had boarded
the train with Kapildeo Pandey and he had meet Saryu Mishra and
Vasudeo Prasad Singh. When he had returned back, he had found the
door of the campus closed from inside. He has raised an alarm at which
his neighbour Dilip Singh came and both climbed the wall and entered
into the campus where they did not find Usha Devi but saw ashes from
the Verandah to the well and when he looked into the well, he found the
dead body of Usha Devi floating in the well. When they raised an alarm,
several persons had assembled. He had informed the police and
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12191-DB )
thereafter his brother-in-law and mother-in-law. He has returned back
home at Saket Vihar on foot. When he came, he learnt that the police had
arrested Manju Devi and had also taken the dead body to the police
station. He also came to know that police were searching for him.
In cross-examination, he has stated that he called the police from a
pay-booth and thereafter he took an auto-rickshaw to Rohini and
returned back to Saket Vihar in the evening at 6:00 P.M. He had
surrendered in court on 17.12.1997.
19. It has been submitted by Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior
counsel for the appellant that the evidences of the witnesses does not
indicate that the appellant was involved in the death of his wife. The
learned trial court has not taken into consideration the defence evidence
which has to be given the same importance and according to him the
appellant was not present when the incident had happened.
20. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Special P. P. for the State has
submitted that plea of alibi taken by the learned senior counsel is not
tenable as wife of the appellant was present in the house when the
informant and others arrived at the place of occurrence. Several
incriminating articles were recovered and the manner of occurrence
emanates strong circumstances cementing the allegation of committing
murder of Usha Devi.
21. We have heard the learned counsels for the respective sides
and have also perused the trial court records.
22. The accused/appellant was examined as D.W. 5 and he has
sought a prayer of alibi that on 09.12.1997 he had gone to Pathrol to
perform the 'Mundan Ceremony' of his son and on returning back, he
found the dead body of Usha Devi floating in the well. His raising of
alarm alerted Dilip Singh who had also climbed the wall and entered
inside. Dilip Singh has not been examined by the prosecution or by the
defence and instead Garib Singh has been examined as D.W. 4 who has
deposed that he and the appellant after climbing the wall entered into the
campus, but who left the place of occurrence after 5 minutes. The wife of
the appellant namely, Manju Devi though had expired during the
pendency of the appeal, has not been examined as a defence witness and
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12191-DB )
in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she has not given any
statement about the occurrence. Moreover, as per D.W. 5, after calling
the police over the phone from a pay-booth, he had returned back to his
house as he had gone to Rohini to inform the incident to his brother-in-
law and mother-in-law and though Ram Chandra Pandey, the informant
and brother-in-law of the appellant has been declared hostile by the
prosecution, but P.W. 4 - the mother-in-law of the appellant has not
stated about getting the information about the death of his daughter
from the appellant. Moreover, P.W. 5 has been declared hostile by the
prosecution, but the testimonies of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 reveal that
on the information given by P.W. 5, all three had accompanied P.W. 5 to
the house of the appellant where the dead body of Usha Devi was found.
As per P.W. 7 (Investigating Officer) he had come to know about the
incident after he received an anonymous call. On the appellant claiming
his innocence on the alibi of the appellant during the incident, there was
no occasion for the appellant to leave his house and the excuses given by
him is futile considering the fact that the incident occurred on 09.12.1997
and the appellant who was absconding had surrendered on 17.12.1997.
The evidences of the witnesses suggest a volatile relationship
between the appellant and the deceased. The post mortem report reveals
about the deceased suffering from extensive burn injuries before being
thrown in the well. There were signs of burning in the courtyard and
presence of ashes. The place of burning has been already cleaned though
traces of such burning were evident. The Investigating Officer - P.W. 7
has seized a jerrycan and a bottle which was of kerosene oil from the
place of occurrence. The place of occurrence as described by P.W. 7
seems to suggest that there are houses adjacent to the house of the
appellant, but none seems to have appeared at the place of occurrence
and if it is the case of the appellant that the deceased Usha Devi had
committed suicide by immolating herself and jumping into the well, it
would be quite natural that her cries would have attracted attention from
the neighbourhood. The surreptitious manner in which the incident had
taken place and the plea of alibi taken by the appellant, does not invoke
confidence in the case of the defence.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12191-DB )
23. The learned trial court has correctly appreciated the entire
evidences on record and has categorized the circumstances pointing to
the guilt of the appellant. We in view of the discussions made
hereinabove do not find any reason to differ with such findings and
consequently we dismiss this appeal.
24. Since the appellant is on bail, he is directed to surrender before the
learned trial court immediately and forthwith to serve out the rest part of
his sentence.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 8th day of April, 2025
R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3
