Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment Of Conviction And ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:12163-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 676 of 2003
----
[Against the Judgment of conviction and order
of sentence both dated 30.04.2003, passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No.2, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 183
of 2000].
----
Tipan Kole, S/o Late Dhaneshwar Kole, R/o Village- Manikpur
(Sarasani), P.S.- Jasidih, Sub-Division and District- Deoghar.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
----
For the Appellant : Ms. Vani Kumari (Amicus Curiae)
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.
----
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
JUDGMENT
C.A.V On: 16/12/2024 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 30.4.2003, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Deoghar, in
Sessions Case No. 183 of 2000, by which the appellant has been convicted
under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years under Section 201 of the Indian
Penal Code and imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and further to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for One Year.
2. Learned amicus appearing for the appellant argued that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of mere
suspicion. She further pleaded that no motive has been proved by the
prosecution to establish the guilt of the appellant. She also contended that
the appellant and the deceased were drinking together and there is no
reason as to why the appellant would kill the deceased. She submitted that
the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence which is a
very weak piece of evidence in absence of motive having been proved by the
prosecution. She relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
2025:JHHC:12163-DB
case of Nandu Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022
SCC OnLine 1454.
3. Learned counsel for the State defended the judgment of learned Trial
Court. He contended that the prosecution has proved the charges against the
appellant with cogent evidence and sufficient materials, thus the Trial Court
has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. He submitted that P.W.2,
P.W.3 and P.W.5 have been consistent in their statements, supporting the
case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the statements of
witnesses are corroborated by the medical evidence.
4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant,
Mangan Manjhi (PW5) recorded by S.I. CP Tiwari on 30.12.1999 at about
04:30 P.M., wherein it has been alleged that the accused Tipan Kole on
29.12.1999 at 7 P.M. came to the house of the informant and offered to sell
pork for New Year. On which the informant, wife of the deceased and his
neighbour Bhagirath contributed Rs.20/- each. After taking money Tipan Kole
asked the deceased to drop him at his home and they left the house at 7:30
P.M. He stated that his brother did not return the whole night and on the next
morning wife of the deceased went to the house of appellant where he said
that the deceased slept at his home in night, but he is unaware when he left.
During search Jitan Das told him that Tipan Kole and the deceased were
walking near his house at night at 10 P.M. He said that during search he
found the body of his brother in the well of Suren Kole. He said that the blood
was oozing out from nose and mouth and from below the left eye.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Jasidih Police Station
Case No. 210 of 1999 was registered under Sections 302/201 of the Indian
Penal Code. Police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet dated
19.05.2000 against the appellant for offences under Sections 302 & 201 of
the Indian Penal Code. The Court took cognizance of the offence and the
case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed for
offences under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges so
framed were read over and explained to the appellant, to which, he pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges against the
appellant, has examined 7 witnesses.
P.W.-1, Jaikant Turi, has stated that Tipan Kole came to the
house of the deceased at 7 P.M on 29.12.1999. He stated that he had also
given Rs.20/- to the accused for pork after that he went to from there. He also
2025:JHHC:12163-DB
admitted the fact that he was present during the search of the deceased and
he was present there when the body was recovered from the well.
P.W.2, Dip Narain Kole, deposed that Tipan Kole took the
deceased to his house and after that he did not see the deceased and next
he saw his dead body.
P.W.3, Adena Devi, is the wife of the deceased. She in her
deposition also stated that the accused Tipan Kole came to his house and
took her husband with him and thereafter her husband did not return. She
further stated that next day during search his dead body was found from the
well of Tipan Kole which was taken out. She stated that she saw that her
husband was bleeding from nose and eyes and his hands were tied.
P.W.4, Manoj Kumar Yadav, stated that the dead body of the
deceased was recovered from the well situated near the house of Tipan. He
stated that he did not see anyone committing murder.
P.W.5, Mangan Manjhi, is the informant as well as the brother of
the deceased. He stated that the accused Tipan Kole on 29.12.1999 came to
the house of the appellant and offered to sell pork to the deceased. The
deceased gave Rs.60/- to the appellant and told to give three kilogram of
pork. After that the appellant asked the deceased to drop him to his house.
The deceased stayed in appellants house whole night. Next morning when
wife of the deceased went to the house of the appellant to ask about her
husband, the appellant told her that the deceased had left his house. He
stated that Jitan Das who is the neighbour of the appellant told him that the
decease and Tipan Kole were roaming near his house at 10 P.M. During
search he found the dead body in the well of Puran Kole. He also stated that
after the incidence Tipan Kole had fled away from the village. He further
stated that blood was oozing out from the mouth and ear of the deceased,
and there was also cut mark near the eyes. In his cross examination at
paragraph no: 4 he stated that the slippers and torch of the deceased were
recovered from the house of the appellant.
P.W.6 is Dr. Rameshwar Mahto, had conducted postmortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found the following ante
mortem injuries:-
(i) Perforated wound just below left eye and on further dissection
the pointed wound was passed through left eye with evidence of
penetration in the base of the skull with fracture of the base of the
temporal and orbital parts of the left frontal bone with effusion of
2025:JHHC:12163-DB
the blood in the sub-conjunctival tissues and sub-occipital region.
There were bleeding from the nose and right ear and mouth.
(ii) On opening of the skull the occipital cavity was full of blood.
The brain and meninges were pale. On opening of chest, both
lungs pale heart empty.
(iii) On opening of the abdomen stomach contents undigested
food material about 100 m.l. Liver, spleen and kidneys were pale
urinary bladder was empty.
Doctor opined that the death was caused due to haemorrhage and
shock as a result of the antemortem injuries caused by penetrating weapon.
PW.7, Chandra Prakash Tiwari, is the investigating officer of the
case. He proved the fardbeyan (Exibit.3/1), formal FIR (Exhibit.4) and the
carbon copy of inquest report (Exhibit.5). He also stated that he had
prepared the seizure list which was marked as Exihibit-6. Further in his
cross examination he stated that he has mentioned in case diary that there
was no enmity between the deceased and the accused.
The prosecution also produced following documents to
substantiate its case, which were marked exhibits:-
Exihibit1- Signature of witness in inquest report
Exihibit1/1:Signature of witness on written statement
Exhibit1/2:Signature of Magnu Manjhi on the fardbeyan
Exhibit2:Signature of Magnu Manjhi on the inquest report
Exihibit3:Postmortem Report
EXihibit3/1:Fardbeyan
Exihibit4:Formal FIR
Exihibit5:Carbon copy of inquest report
Exihibit6: Seizure List
Exihibit7: Case Diary
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, appellant was examined
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he claimed to
be innocent. Appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence.
8. After hearing both the parties and considering the evidence the
trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid.
9. From the evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that there is no
eye witness to the occurrence of murder. There is evidence that the
deceased went with the appellant, but this is not enough to substantiate that
this appellant has committed the murder. There is no witness who has seen
both the appellant and the deceased going towards the place where the
body was found. P.W.-5 only stated that one Jitan Das saw both the
deceased and the appellant roaming near his house at 10.00 P.M. This Jitan
Das was also not produced by the prosecution to prove the aforesaid fact.
2025:JHHC:12163-DB
10. Further, the prosecution also failed to prove the motive behind the
occurrence as none said that there was enmity between the appellant and
the deceased.
11. From analyzing the evidence of the prosecution witness, I find that
neither anyone saw how the deceased reached the place of occurrence and
nor anyone saw both the appellant and the deceased near the place where
the body was found. Further as per P.W.-5, body was found in the well of
Puran Kole. This Puran Kole is not a witness in this case. On the basis of
conjecture and surmises the appellant cannot be held guilty, which has been
done here.
12. We find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case
beyond shadow of doubt. Thus, giving benefit of doubt, we acquit the
appellant of the charges accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence, both dated 30.04.2003, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No.
183 of 2000 is set aside. This Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
13. Interlocutory application, if any, stand disposed of.
14. The appellant, if is in custody is released forthwith, however, if he
is on bail, he and his bailors are discharge of the liabilities of the bail bond.
15. We had requested Ms. Vani Kumari, the learned counsel and had
appointed her as learned Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. Considering
her assistance, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services
Committee to pay remuneration of Rs.7,500/- to Ms. Vani Kumari, the
learned Amicus Curiae.
16. Let Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be sent
to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J: I agree.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated 24/04/2025
NAFR /R.S./ Cp 03.
