Jharkhand High Court
Latan Rana vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:12159-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2003 and the order of
sentence dated 20.02.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
(FTC-I), Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 276 of 1995)
----
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.359 of 2003
-----
1.Latan Rana, son of Bhuneshwar Rana
2.Laxman Rana, son of Karu Rana
Both residents of village Uta, PS Katkamsandi (OP Pelawal), District
Hazaribagh ... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
With
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.314 of 2003
-----
Bhikhan Rana, son of late Kolha Rana, resident of village Salgawa,
PS Katkamsandhi, District Hazaribagh, at present working as
Lalpaniya, Gomia, as a Jharkhand Army Police. ... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
With
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.315 of 2003
-----
Sushil Kumar Ojha, son of Sri Arjun Ojha, resident of village Nawadih,
PS Katkamsandi, District Hazaribagh ... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
------
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikharwar, Advocate
Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Shweta Singh, APP
.........
JUDGMENT
CAV on : 16.12.2024 Pronounced on : 24/ 04/ 2025
Per Ananda Sen, J.: These Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment of
conviction dated 18.02.2003 and the order of sentence dated
20.02.2003 in Sessions Trial No. 276 of 1995 whereby and
2025:JHHC:12159-DB
whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I),
Hazaribag convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 and
201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under
Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences
were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The learned counsels for the appellants submitted that
there is neither any eye witness to the occurrence nor any
evidence produced by the prosecution to the effect that the
appellants were in the company of the deceased soon before his
death. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence
and the chain of circumstances is not complete. Thus, he prays
for acquittal of the appellants.
3. The learned counsel for the State submitted that all the
accused persons had common intention to kill the deceased as
there was dispute in relation to land and a case was also filed in
this regard. The prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of
the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. On the aforesaid
grounds, he prays that these appeals may be dismissed.
4. The FIR is at the instance of Kishor Rana (informant), who
is the brother of the deceased Ghanshyam Rana. The prosecution
case in brief is that on 16.03.1995 at about 7:00 p.m, Latan Ram
and Laxman Rana came to the house of Ghanshyam Rana and
took him with them. When he did not return till 11:00 p.m.
informant started searching him but he neither found his brother
nor Latan Ram and Laxman Rana. On 17.03.1995, in course of
search one Umesh Prasad of village Luta told him that he had
seen Ghanshyam Rana along with Laxman Rana, Latan Ram,
Shushil Ojha and Bhikhan Rana going towards the dam. Then
2025:JHHC:12159-DB
the informant alongwith others proceeded towards east of the
dam where from some persons they come to know that one dead
body was lying inside the well, which was identified to be his
brother's Ghanshyam Rana, which was tied with rope in his
neck. The informant further alleged that there was land dispute
between the informant and Bhikhan Rana and a case is pending
in the Court in this regard. Due to enmity Bhikhan Rana called
the deceased with the help of Laxman Rana and Latan Ram and
killed him with the help of Shushil Ojha and had thrown the
dead body in the well to conceal the crime. On the basis of his
fardbeyan, FIR was registered being Katkamsandi (Pelawal) PS
Case No. 21 of 1995 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted
chargesheet against the appellants for the offence punishable
under Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
6. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on
record, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the
Court of Sessions where charges were framed under Sections
302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded.
7. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 15 witnesses
were examined by the prosecution, who are:-
i. PW1 :- Baleshwar Ram
ii. PW2 :- Rajendra Prasad Kushwaha
iii. PW3 :- Karu Mahto
iv. PW4 :- Umesh Prasad
v. PW5 :- Chhedi Mistry
vi. PW6:- Mahadev Mahto @ Prasad
vii. PW7:- Rohan Mahto
viii.PW8:- Dr. B. K. Verma
ix. PW9:- Prakash Thakur
x. PW10:- Basdev Rana
xi. PW11:- Bhikhani Devi
2025:JHHC:12159-DB
xii. PW12:- Kishor Rana (informant)
xiii.PW13:- Bechan Ram
xiv.PW14:- Ashok Mahto
xv.PW15:- Arun Kumar Singh (I.O.)
The Court also examined one witness on its own motion,
being CW1 (Magan Mahto).
8.(a) PW1 had stated that the incident happened about 2 years
ago. On the day of Holika Dahan (a day before Holi festival) at
about 7:30 PM Ghanshyam Rana and Sushil Ojha came to his
house. After 10 minutes Latan Ram and Laxman Rana came and
they asked for some snacks for consuming with the liquor. They
consumed liquor and had taken the snacks together. After some
time they went away but he is unaware where they had gone. On
the morning he came to know that Ghanshyam Rana was
missing. When the villagers asked Laxman and Latan they told
them that he might have fallen in the well. He further stated that
there was dispute between Bhikhan Rana and the family
members of Ghanshyam Rana.
(b) PW2 had stated that the occurrence is of 16.03.1995. At
about 9:00 PM when he was returning from his field and reached
near the dam he saw Bhikhan Rana and Sushil Ojha coming.
Near the village he saw Laxman Rana, Latan Rana and
Ghanshyam Rana and then he went to his house. Next day was
Holi festival. Mother and wife of Ghanshyam Rana came to his
house and told him that Laxman Rana and Latan Rana took
Ghanshyam Rana with them and since then he is missing.
(c) PW3, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW9 have been declared
hostile.
(d) PW4 had stated that the occurrence is of 16.03.1995. At
about 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. he was on the terrace of his house when
he saw Ghanshyam Rana, Laxman Rana and Latan Ram going
2025:JHHC:12159-DB
towards the dam but they did not return. Next morning Kishor
Rana who is the brother of Ghanshyam Rana came to his house
and inquired about Ghanshyam Rana then he told him that he
had seen Ghanshyam Rana along with Laxman Rana and Latan
Ram going towards dam. He further stated that with 3-4 persons
they went to the house of Laxman Rana and Latan Ram and
inquired about Ghanshyam Rana then they told that they have
thrown the death body of Ghanshyam Rana in the dam. Upon
beaten they told that along with them Bhikhan Rana and Sushil
Ojha were also there.
(e) PW8 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the
dead body of Ghanshyam Rana and found the following injuries:
(I) External - Ante-mortem injury, lacerated wound on right
side of head with hematoma 1" x ½" x bone deep with fracture
of right parietal bone. Abrasion on upper part of chest 1" x ½".
No froaths present in nostril or mouth. Ligature mark present
around neck upper part with narrow width without any knot
mark. Wall of tracheal normal.
(II) Internal - Tissue beneath ligature mark not ecchymosed or
brocised thyroid both intact. Blood clot on right part of brain.
Chest ribs normal, lungs intact and pale. Heart right chamber
blood clot, left empty. Liver, spleen, kidney all intact and pale.
Stomach half-digested food present about 4 ounce, bladder
empty.
In the opinion of the doctor cause of death is due to shock
and hemorrhage caused due to head injury by hard and blunt
substance. The injury report was marked as Exhibit-1.
(f) PW10 had stated that the occurrence is of five years ago.
He was at his home when Laxman and Latan Rana came and
asked for Ghanshyam Rana and when they learnt that
Ghanshyam Rana was at home, they called him and took him
along with them. When Ghanshyam Rana did not return at
night, next day morning upon search they came to know from
2025:JHHC:12159-DB
other persons that Latan Ram, Laxman Rana, Sushil Ojha and
Bhikhan Rana had killed Ghanshyam Rana and thrown the dead
body in the dam side.
(g) PW11 had also stated that the occurrence is of five years
ago when Latan and Laxman came and took Ghanshyam with
them. They were also accompanied by Sushil Ojha and Bhikhan.
On the next day on search they found dead body of Ghanshyam
in the dam side.
(h) PW12 is the informant of the case. He stated that the
occurrence is of five years ago. At about 7:00 PM Latan Ram and
Laxman Rana came to his house and took Ghanshyam Rana with
them. When Ghanshyam Rana did not returned, then on the next
day morning on search Laxman Rana and Latan Rana told that
the dead body of Ghanshyam Rana is in the dam side. The dead
body was roped in the neck and leg. He then informed about the
occurrence to the police.
(i) PW13 is the formal witness.
(j) PW14 is a hearsay witness.
(k) PW15 is the investigating officer. He stated that he had
recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Kishor Rana. He had
also taken re-statement of the informant and statement of other
witnesses. He had also inspected the place of occurrence and
described the whole area. He also prepared inquest report of the
deceased and sent the dead body for postmortem examination.
In his cross examination he had stated that he had not taken
statement of any eye witness.
(l) CW1 is a Court witness. Nothing important could be
extracted from his deposition.
9. Following documents have been exhibited :
i. Ext.1 - Postmortem Report
ii. Ext.2&2/1 - Signature on Fardbeyan
2025:JHHC:12159-DB
iii. Ext.3 - Fardbeyan
iv. Ext.4 - Endorsement of Fardbeyan
v. Ext.5 - Endorsement of Fardbeyan written by Arun
Kumar Tiwari, Officer In-charge, Katkamsandi
vi. Ext.6 - F.I.R.
vii. Ext.7 - Inquest Report
viii. Ext.7/1 - Signature of Magan Mahto on Inquest Report
ix. Ext.7/2 - Signature of Mithilesh Kumar on Inquest Report
10. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellants were recorded. The
Trial Court after hearing both the parties and considering the
evidence convicted the appellants and sentenced them as
aforesaid.
11. The doctor is PW8 who has conducted the postmortem.
From his report, I find that he found several injuries which
would suggest that the death is homicidal.
12. Now the question is about the involvement of these
appellants. Considering the aforesaid facts and the submissions
made by the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the view
that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The
circumstances are of last seen and that of land dispute.
Admittedly there is no eye witness to the occurrence of murder.
It is the prosecution case that there was land dispute with
the deceased and Bhikhan Rana, thus Bhikhan Rana with the
help of Sushil Kumar Ojha, Latan Rana and Laxman Rana called
the deceased from his house and got him murdered.
So far as the last seen evidence is concerned, I find that
PW1 stated that Sushil Kumar Ojha had come to the house with
the deceased and thereafter Laxman and Latan also came and the
deceased went with them. PW4 stated that Laxman and Latan
were seen going towards the dam along with the deceased. PW2
saw Bhikhan Rana and Sushil Kumar Ojha were coming from the
2025:JHHC:12159-DB
dam and near the village he saw Laxman and Latan with the
deceased. The informant PW12 stated that Latan and Laxman
came and called the deceased Ghanshyam and took him with
them. In this case the dead body of the deceased was found near
the dam in a well. Though PW1 and PW2 had said that Bhikhan
Rana and Sushil Kumar Ojha were also seen but from the
evidence of PW4 it is clear that these two were not last seen with
the deceased. I am coming to this conclusion because PW4 stated
that at night when he was going to sleep, he was on his terrace
when he saw the deceased in the company of Latan and Laxman.
He has not whispered about the presence of Bhikhan and Sushil.
Thus, so far as last seen theory is concerned, I find that the
deceased was not lastly seen in the company of Bhikhan and
Sushil rather he was lastly seen with Latan and Laxman. Last
seen evidence for conviction against these two appellants i.e.
Bhikhan and Sushil, fails.
13. The next question is motive. It has been stated by the
prosecution that there was a dispute between Bhikhan Rana and
the deceased as a result of which Bhikhan Rana committed
murder with the help of Sushil Kumar Ojha, Latan Rana and
Laxman Rana. To substantiate the aforesaid theory, there is no
definite evidence. Merely, orally the witnesses have stated that
there was some land dispute. What was the nature of the land
and what was the dispute has not been stated nor any document
was brought to substantiate the same. Admittedly from the
evidence, I find no dispute between the deceased and Latan,
Laxman or with Sushil Kumar Ojha.
14. From the evidence also, I could not find any material to
suggest that there was any conspiracy hatched among these
appellants to commit murder of the deceased. So far as recovery
2025:JHHC:12159-DB
of the dead body is concerned, the same was found near the dam
in a well. The witnesses had stated that Latan and Laxman had
confessed that they had committed murder of the deceased on
the instruction of Bhikhan Rana and thrown the dead body in the
well. Thereafter the body was recovered. The prosecution tried
to establish that on this extra judicial confession the body was
recovered and these two appellants Latan Rana and Laxman
Rana confessed their guilt. When, I go through the evidence of
PW4, he states that these two appellants namely, Latan and
Laxman were beaten up by the villagers and then they said that
along with Bhikhan Rana and Sushil Kumar Ojha they have
committed this murder. This fact clearly suggests that if there
was any statement of confession the same was not voluntary. On
being assaulted, this statement was extracted by the villagers.
Thus, this extra judicial confession does not inspire confidence.
15. From the evidence discussed above, I find that the
prosecution has not been able to prove each chain of
circumstances, neither the chain is complete. Solely on the basis
that the deceased was last seen with Latan and Laxman by PW4,
there cannot be conviction of these two appellants also, because
so far as these two appellants are concerned there was no enmity
between them and the prosecution has not been able to prove
that a conspiracy was hatched by Bhikhan Rana to commit
murder of the deceased with the help of Sushil Kumar Ojha,
Latan Rana and Laxman Rana.
16. Thus, by giving benefit of doubt, these appeals are
allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2003 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC-I), Hazaribag in
Sessions Trial No. 276 of 1995, is hereby set aside and,
2025:JHHC:12159-DB
accordingly, the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court
vide order of sentence dated 20.02.2003 is also set aside.
17. The appellants are on bail. They discharged of the liabilities
of the bail bonds, so are the bailors.
18. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court
Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. - I agree.
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated : 24 / 04 / 2025
Tanuj/
N .A.F.R.
