Jharkhand High Court

Tungir Korah Son Of Late Ladura Korah ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2025

                                                             2025:JHHC:12302




                Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 953 of 2006
                                          ......
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 09.05.2006 and Order of
sentence dated 11.05.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
(FTC-I) at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No.239 of 2004 arising out of
Goilkera P.S. Case No.14 of 2004 (G.R. Case No.109 of 2004)]
                                           ......
Tungir Korah son of late Ladura Korah resident of village -
Mohansai, P.S. Goilkera, District Singhbhum West at Chaibasa.
                                                  ...      Appellant

                                        Versus
The State of Jharkhand
                                                         ...     Respondent

                                        WITH

                Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 970 of 2006
                                          ......
Ram Rai Sirka son of Sri Landu Sirka resident of village - Mohansai,
P.S. Goilkera, P.O. Guida, District - Singhbhum West at Chaibasa
                                                   ...       Appellant

                                        Versus
The State of Jharkhand
                                                         ...     Respondent
                                          ......
For the Appellants               : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Adv.
                                   Mr. Birat Kumar, Adv.
                                   Mr. Abhinav Raj, Adv.
For the State                    : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
                                   Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, A.P.P.

                                          ......
                                 PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                                          ......
                                   JUDGMENT

Cr.A(SJ) Nos.953 of 2006 & 970 of 2006 Page | 1 2025:JHHC:12302

C.A.V. on 05.02.2025 Pronounced on 24.04.2025

1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by

Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants along with Mr. Birat Kumar and Mr. Abhinav Raj

as well as Mr. Jitendra Pandey and Mr. Naveen Kumar

Ganjhu, learned Addl. P.Ps. appearing for the State.

2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment

and order of conviction and sentence dated

09.05.2006/11.05.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge (FTC-I) West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial

Case No.239 of 2004 arising out of Goilkera P.S. Case No.14 of

2004 (G.R. Case No.109 of 2004) whereby and whereunder,

the appellants along with two co-accused persons, namely,

Naranga Sirka and Jogen Purty (now deceased), have been

held guilty for the offence under Section 304 (Part II) read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for seven years.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on

06.05.2004 at about 07:00 a.m., the informant Shanti Korah

was at her house, meanwhile, one Kanu Sirka came to her

house and asked about her husband, namely, Yadav Korah to

Cr.A(SJ) Nos.953 of 2006 & 970 of 2006 Page | 2 2025:JHHC:12302

attend a meeting scheduled to be held under the Tamarind

Tree. It is alleged that the informant was not aware about the

reason for convening the meeting but her husband went to

the place of meeting, wherein one Randai Kui made

allegation that her husband has stolen her hen on 05.05.2004.

It is further stated that reality is that informant killed and

cooked her own hen on preceding day. Her husband denied

the allegations. It is further alleged that the village meeting

was presided over by village Munda Ram Rai Sirka

(appellant in Cr.A.(S.J.) No.970 of 2006). It is further alleged

that on instruction of Ram Rai Sirka (appellant) her

husband's hands were tied from behind and he was hanged

with the branch of Tamarind Tree and all other accused

persons started assaulting to her husband on face, chest and

other parts of the body. Her husband was captured from

08:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. Thereafter, he was brought to his

home but due to injury sustained by him, he could not take

any food etc. and no treatment could be provided due to

paucity of fund. It is further alleged that on 08.05.2004, Yadav

Korah succumbed to his injuries.

Cr.A(SJ) Nos.953 of 2006 & 970 of 2006 Page | 3 2025:JHHC:12302

4. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant,

Goilkera P.S. Case No.14 of 2004 was registered for the

offences under Sections 341/342/323/304/34 of the I.P.C.

against the four accused persons including the appellants.

5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was

submitted against the appellants along with two co-accused

persons for the offences under Sections 341, 342, 304 of the

I.P.C. Accordingly, the case was committed to the Court of

Sessions where Sessions Trial Case No.239 of 2004 was

registered.

6. After Commitment of the case, charges were framed

against the accused appellants and two other co-accused

persons under Sections 341/34, 342/34 and 304/34 of the

I.P.C. which were read over and explained to them, to which

they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In the course of trial, altogether 12 witnesses were

examined by prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of

witnesses, following documentary evidence were adduced:

     Exhibit 1                 :        Post Mortem Report

     Exhibit 2                :        Signature of Bipin Boipai on

                                       Fardbeyan


              Cr.A(SJ) Nos.953 of 2006 & 970 of 2006                 Page | 4
                                                       2025:JHHC:12302




     Exhibit 3             :         Signature of Bipin Boipai on

                                     Inquest Report

     Exhibit 4             :         Fardbeyan

     Exhibit 5             :         F.I.R.

     Exhibit 6             :         Inquest Report

8. After conclusion of trial, all the accused persons

including the appellants were held guilty and sentenced for

the offence under Section 304 (Part II) read with Section 34 of

the I.P.C. which has been assailed in this appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the

impugned judgment and order has submitted that there was

dispute about theft of hen between the deceased and Randai

Kui. The appellant Tungir Korah is not associated with the

alleged occurrence in any manner and no cogent or reliable

evidence has been brought on record against him. Similarly,

appellant Ram Rai Sirka being Village Munda was obliged to

call meeting to settle the dispute but he was not involved in

assaulting or directing the other co-accused persons to assault

the deceased. The present appellants have been involved in

this case only on the ground that they were responsible for

holding meeting and were present in the meeting to resolve

Cr.A(SJ) Nos.953 of 2006 & 970 of 2006 Page | 5 2025:JHHC:12302

the dispute. The village men suddenly got excited and the

deceased was assaulted by hands and fists without any

intention to kill him for which the appellants are not

responsible at all. The learned Trial Court has miserably

failed to consider that out of 12 witnesses examined by

prosecution, none have attributed any specific overt act

against the appellants. The main accused is alleged to be

Jogen Purty who had been died and another accused

Naranga Sirka who was the main assailant all along remained

in custody and has been released after sustaining entire

period of sentence which has been reported in this case by

Officer-In-Charge Goilkera P.S. vide letter dated 28.01.2025.

The present appellants deserve to be acquitted from the

charges levelled against them. Therefore, impugned

judgment and order is liable to be set aside by allowing this

appeal.

10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public

Prosecutors appearing for the State defending the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the

appellants has contended that the learned trial court has very

wisely and aptly analyzed, scanned and appreciated the

Cr.A(SJ) Nos.953 of 2006 & 970 of 2006 Page | 6 2025:JHHC:12302

prosecution evidence and arrived at right conclusion about

guilt of the appellants. The prosecution has proved the

charges levelled against the appellants beyond all shadow of

reasonable doubt. There is no substance in the points of

argument raised on behalf of the appellants, therefore, there

is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence of the appellants and there

is no merit in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed.

11. I have gone through the record of the case along with

impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions

raised on behalf of both side.

12. It appears that in the course of trial altogether twelve

witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

P.W.1 Shanti Korah is the informant of this case and

corroborated the contents of her fardbeyan. According to her

evidence Kanu Sirka called her husband Yadav Korah and

took him away in front of the house of Randai Kui for

Panchayati where Jogen Purty and others assaulted her

husband by tying him with Tamarind tree from morning to

evening 05:00 p.m. Thereafter, Jogen Purty, Narang and

Cr.A(SJ) Nos.953 of 2006 & 970 of 2006 Page | 7 2025:JHHC:12302

others brought her husband to the house and due to injury,

her husband died.

In her cross-examination, she has specifically stated that

on the date of meeting, she had gone to हाट (market) and she

was not present at the time of meeting and has not seen the

occurrence.

P.W.2 Krishna Korah is the son of the informant. He

has also stated that Kanu Sirka came to his house and went

with his father for Panchayati. He was also present there

where Randai Kui told that her hen has been stolen by his

father. It was denied by his father, thereafter, Village Munda

Ram Rai Sirka ordered to assault his father then Tungir

Korah, Jogen Purty and Naranga Sirka tied hands of his

father and hanged on the Tamarind tree and started

assaulting him. His father was assaulted by sticks, fats and

fists.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that the

occurrence continued from 08:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. but he

was there only for half an hour. Thereafter, he went away and

did not inform to anyone rather he informed to his mother.

Cr.A(SJ) Nos.953 of 2006 & 970 of 2006 Page | 8 2025:JHHC:12302

He has also stated that after death of his father, next day the

police came to his village and his statement was recorded.

P.W.3 Pradhan Korah is not eye witness of the

occurrence rather when Police arrived at village then he came

out of his house and came to know about the death of Yadav

Korah. He has also stated that he has no knowledge about

any Panchayati.

P.W.4 Shiv Kumar Korah has also been declared hostile

by the prosecution and has not supported the prosecution

case.

P.W.5 Sado Korah has also deposed that he was not

present at the time of occurrence rather he has gone to

discharge his duty as a labour and returned in the evening.

He came to know from the villagers that Yadav Korah has

been died. This witness has also been declared hostile by the

prosecution.

P.W.6 Randai Hembram has also stated that she had

gone to her parental home on the date of occurrence and her

husband has also gone outside for work. She has alleged that

her hen was stolen by Yadav Korah then she informed to

Village Munda but she has not attended the Panchayati and

Cr.A(SJ) Nos.953 of 2006 & 970 of 2006 Page | 9 2025:JHHC:12302

she does not know about any incident of assault to the

deceased. She has also been declared hostile by the

prosecution.

P.W.7 Kanu Sirka has also spread no knowledge about

the occurrence. He has also been declared hostile by the

prosecution.

P.W.8 Manta Korah has stated that the deceased died

due to ailment of tuberculosis and also stated that deceased

was her younger brother in village relation. She has also been

declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.9 Dr. Umendra Prasad examined the dead body of

Yadav Korah aged about 50 years on 10.05.2004 at about 12:00

noon and found following:

External Injuries:

Swelling abdomen and face. Tongue protruded

between the lips. Blister present on chest and faul smelling

coming out. Bruise on both wrist in oblique direction

encircled in wrists. Bruise black in colour. Fracture of left

forearm at middle with swelling 4"x3". Bruise on right ribs

elbow 3"x1" and ½". Fracture of all ribs of left side below the

Cr.A(SJ) Nos.953 of 2006 & 970 of 2006 Page | 10 2025:JHHC:12302

second intercostal space and fracture of all ribs of right side

below the 5th intercostal space.

Internal Injuries:

Head and Neck: N.A.D. Chest and Abdomen: dark red

blood in chest cavity. Heart: both chambers empty. Liver and

Lung: lacerated. Stomach and Bladder: empty. Time Since

Death: 24 hours to 48 hours.

Cause of death is opined to be due to hemorrhage and

shock, caused by hard blunt object.

P.W.10 Bipin Boipai is the Manki of Kuldihapir Village.

He has stated that he was informed by Village Munda about

the death of Yadav Korah then came to know that in the

course of Panchayati, he was assaulted by some villagers. The

wife of deceased was interrogated by police and her

fardbeyan was recorded and he has also signed on that

fardbeyan marked as Ext.2. This witness is also not an eye

witness of the occurrence.

P.W.11 Dibru Marla is also not an eye witness of the

occurrence rather had gone to work and returned in the

evening then came to know from children that Yadav Korah

Cr.A(SJ) Nos.953 of 2006 & 970 of 2006 Page | 11 2025:JHHC:12302

had died. This witness has also been declared hostile by the

prosecution.

P.W.12 Francis Topno is the Investigating Officer of the

case who received rumour on 09.05.2004 at about 14:45 hours

that a person of Village Mohansai has been murdered the he

recorded Sanha 138 of 2004 and proceeded to Village

Mohansai Tola at about 16:30 hours, where he recorded

statement of Shanti Korah (P.W.1) and proved her fardbeyan

as Ext.4 and formal F.I.R. as Ext.5. Dead body was sent for

post-mortem examination. He also inspected the place of

occurrence and came to know that the Panchayati was held

near the Tamarind Tree and one branch of which was

projected about 10 ft. high and it was disclosed by the

informant that deceased was tied with rope on the said

branch and assaulted. He also recorded the restatement of

informant and statement of Krishna Korah and others and

received P.M. Report of the deceased and filed charge-sheet

against the accused persons.