Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment Of Conviction And ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2025
Bench: Ananda Sen, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:12164-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 189 of 2002
[Against the Judgment of conviction and order of
sentence both dated 30-04-2002 passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in
Sessions Case Nos. 90/1990 and 78/2001].
----
Shiv Shanker Uraon, son of Late Sawarna Uraon, resident of Village-
Masuria, P.S.- Meharma, District -Godda.
... ... APPELLANT
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... RESPONDENT
----
CORAM- SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
----
For the Appellant(s): Mr. A.S. Dayal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.
----
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. On 10.12.2024 Pronounced On 24/ 04/2025
Per Ananda Sen. J. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence both dated 30.4.2002 passed in Sessions
Case Nos.90/1990 and 78/2001 passed by Sri N.Mishra, learned First
Additional Sessions Judge Godda, by which appellant has been convicted
under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
Imprisonment for life. Further to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and further he was convicted
under section 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
Imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
informant (P.W.5) cannot be said to be an eyewitness as he himself has
stated that the distance from where assault took place being half kilometre
and it is not possible to view the occurrence.
The informant admittedly had not seen the appellant during the
2025:JHHC:12164-DB
deadly assault, due to which the deceased died. There were other accused
persons also, as such, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302
IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that P.W.1 and
P.W.2 have claimed themselves to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence,
but actually they were not present at the place of occurrence rather they
were the employees of the deceased. As an employee of the deceased, they
planted themselves to be eye witnesses. Their presence at the place of
occurrence is doubted and if these two witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are
discarded, the only witness remains is P.W.5 and except P.W.5, there is no
other witness on the point of assault.
It is argued that statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was recorded
under Section 161 Cr. P.C. after 90 days which itself creates doubt about
their presence.
The deceased and the other witnesses are the accused of murder
of the uncle of the appellant as there was previous enmity between them,
which led to false implication. Further, the investigating officer did not find
any blood-stain at the place of occurrence. It is argued that the informant
was on foot and the deceased was on bicycle, as such, they were not
together. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. there is no
reference of any other person and there is no whisper of use of axe. Further,
there is no evidence that the appellant was a member of Naxal or political
party, as tried to be projected by the prosecution.
3. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that P.W.1,
P.W.2 and P.W.5 are eyewitnesses of the occurrence. The distance is not
actually 500 meters as narrated by the eye witnesses, but actually is a few
meters. The deceased and the witnesses were travelling together as P.W.5
was on foot and the deceased was on bicycle. It is submitted that there is
specific averment that the appellant has killed the deceased. Further P.W.7
corroborates the statement of the informant. The I.O. had also proved the
place of occurrence.
4. The Prosecution story as per the fardbeyanof Ujjwal Kumar
2025:JHHC:12164-DB
Singh is that on 05.05.1987 at about 04.00 P.M. his uncle, Surendra Mohan
Singh (deceased) and he were going to their home from village Maweshi
hat. He further stated that his uncle was on bicycle and he was on foot and
that he started prior to his uncle Surendra Mohan Singh. When informant
was at a distance of about ½ Kilometerfrom the house of Shiv Shankar
Uraon, his uncle on bicycle entered the village of Shiv Shankar Uraon. Shiv
Shankar Uraon and some unknown persons who were his relatives, attacked
him. When informant went for his rescue, Shiv Shankar Uraon instructed his
men to beathim also. When they started chasing informant, he fled away to
the house of Dharamlal Upadhyay of village Sarkanda. He reached there at
6.30 P.M. and stayed there for whole of the night. There he told about the
occurrence and in the following morning he returned home and went to
lodge the written report at the police station.
5. Altogether ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the
prosecution who are as follows -
PW 1 - Sanji Devi stated that when she reached Mansuria
village she saw Shiv Shankar Uraon assaulting Surendra Babu with axe
(tangi) near his house. 10-12 other accused persons also assaulted him and
on seeing this she fled away towards her house. After reaching home she
came to know that Mukhiya Ji was thrown in a sugarcane field near Sugni
village.
PW 2 - Sobha Devi stated that when she and Sanji Devi were
coming from Hatia she saw Shiv Shankar and others surrounding Surendra
Singh. Shiv Shankar assaulted him with axe (tangi) and thereafter all others
also assaulted him. On seeing this she and Sanji Devi fled away.
PW 3 - Vijay Pratap Singh stated that his father went to hat
(village market) along with Ujjwal Singh and Upendra Narayan Singh.
When his father did not return, he started searching him and on the next day
Ujjwal Singh came and told him that Shiv Shankar and 10-12 others killed
his father in Mansuria Village. He further stated to him that on seeing the
incident he fled away towards Sarkanda. Munni Agnihotri of village Sugni
told him that the dead body is in the sugarcane field. When he reached there
he saw the dead body beheaded and the lower part of the body was tied in a
2025:JHHC:12164-DB
sack. Ujjwal Singh has informed the police. He further stated that he saw
injury on the back of the head and the cheek.
PW 4 - Ras Bihari Singh. Nothing relevant could be extracted
from his deposition.
PW 5 - Ujjwal Kumar Singh stated that when he went to the
hat, he saw his uncle (Surendra Singh) returning in a bicycle. When his
uncle reached the house of Shiv Shankar, he along with 8-10 accused
stopped him. Shiv Shankar assaulted him with tangi (axe) in his head due to
which he started shouting. On seeing that he also started shouting to which
Shiv Shankar directed the other accused to catch him also. On seeing the
incident he ran away to Sarkanda village and reached the house of Dharmlal
Upadhyay and told his son Vijay Kant about the incident. Thereafter the
villagers assembled but they stopped him from going there due to Naxalite
problem. On the next day he reached his house and told that Shiv Shankar
killed his uncle. Thereafter the police was informed.
PW 6 - Chandra Moleshwar Singh is a hearsay witness, who
got the information about the incident through Ujjwal Singh.
PW 7 -Vijay Kant Upadhyay stated that on the date of
incident Ujjwal Singh came to his house and told him that his uncle was
killed. He refrained him from going anywhere and in the morning he left.
PW 8 - Banarasi Prasad Yadav is a hearsay witness.
PW 9 - Dr. Ashok Kumar is the doctor who conducted the
post-mortem examination of the deceased and found the following
antemortem injuries-
i. Lacerated wound 3" x 1" x brain matter deep
on the right temporal area of the scalp.
ii.Lacerated wound 1 ½ " x 1/2 " x bone deep on
the left temporal region.
iii. Incised wound 2 ½ " x ¾ " x brain matter
deep 1" below and in front of the injury no. 1.
iv. Incised wound 3'' x ½ " x ½ " on right cheek
extending from angle of wounds towards the right
ear.
v. Incised wound 1 ½ " x ½ "x bone deep on left
parietal region of scalp on the interior position.
On dissection he found brain pale, head completely severed off
2025:JHHC:12164-DB
rest of the body at the point of hyoid bone ongoing posteriorly with all the
major vessels. There was depressed trachea of scalp on both temporal
regions. Muscle trachea and bony structure of the neck were cut. Heart
empty, lunge, liver and spleen pale. Stomach contains half ounce of juicy
material.
The doctor opined that the injury Nos.i and ii were caused by
hard and blunt object and rest of the injuries were caused by sharp weapon.
As per his opinion the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to
above mentioned injuries. The postmortem report was marked as exhibit 3.
PW 10 - Motilal Mishra is the investigating officer of this
case. He stated that at 7 AM Ujjwal Kumar Singh came and gave a written
application on the basis of which investigation started. He exhibited the
formal FIR. He had recorded the statement of Ujjwal Kumar Singh, Sanju
Devi, Sobha Devi, Gopal Singh and other witnesses. He went to the place of
occurrence for inspection and sketched a detailed map of the same. He
found the dead body whose head was severed from the body and the body
was kept in a sack. He prepared the inquest report.
6. The prosecution has produced the following documents which
were marked as exhibits-
Exhibit 1- Letter given by Suresh Mohan Singh to the OC
Exhibit 2 - Written Application
Exhibit 3 - Post-mortem report
Exhibit 4 - Formal FIR
Exhibit 5 - Inquest Report
The defence has also produced certified copy of case being
Sessions Trial no. 51 of 1996 which was marked as Exhibit A.
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant was
examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties and
considering the evidence the trial court convicted the appellant and
sentenced him as aforesaid.
8. We had heard the counsel for the parties and also gone through
the evidence. From the evidence we find that there are three eye witness to
the occurrence. PW 1 and PW 2 both stated that when they reached the place
of occurrence, they saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with an axe.
There were other persons also who have assaulted the deceased. On seeing
2025:JHHC:12164-DB
the assault both of them fled away from there. Statement of each of these
two prosecution witnesses corroborates with each other. Their presence at
the place of occurrence is also established. There is nothing to disbelieve
them.
9. PW 5 is also an eye witness to the occurrence. He stated that
when his uncle reached near the house of the appellant, the appellant and 8-
10 other accused stopped his uncle. The appellant assaulted him in his head
with tangi and other accused also assaulted him. Seeing this he started
shouting upon which the accused persons started chasing him. He ran
towards the house of Vijay Kant Upadhyay and told him about the incident.
PW 7- Vijay Kant Yadav also corroborated the fact that PW 5 reached his
house and stated about the occurrence. The fact that the assault was with axe
is also corroborated by P.W.1 and P.W.2.
10. After analyzing the evidence of these eyewitnesses, we find
that their evidence is consistent and corroborates with each other and the
defence could not able to shake their credit.
11. Further PW-3 who is the son of the deceased also stated that
PW-5 who went with his father, told him that the appellant and others killed
his father and when they reached to the place of occurrence they saw the
dead body beheaded and lower part of the body was tied in a sack. P.W.7
also corroborates the statement of the informant.
12. In this case the medical evidence also corroborates the ocular
evidence of the eye witnesses as there are injuries in the head and face.
From analysis of the evidence we also find that there is a previous enmity
between the appellant and the deceased.
13. In view of the fact discussed above we are of the opinion that
the prosecution has successfully prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
shadow of doubt. The Trial Court has correctly assessed the evidence and
has arrived at a correct conclusion to which we also agree. Thus the
judgment of the trial court needs no interference. Accordingly, this Criminal
Appeal is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
14. Appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender forthwith
2025:JHHC:12164-DB
before the Court below to serve the remaining part of the sentence, failing
which Trial Court is directed to take all steps for taking him in custody.
15. Let the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment
be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J: I agree.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated 24/ 04/2025
NAFR /R.S./ Cp 03.
