Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Sohan Manjhi @ Murmu on 20 August, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Sanjay Prasad
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
(Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 18.08.2018 (sentence passed on 21.08.2018) passed by
Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned Sessions Judge,
Hazaribag in S.T. No. 185/15.)
.............
Death Reference No. 03 of 2018
The State of Jharkhand ... Appellant
Versus
1. Sohan Manjhi @ Murmu
2. Brijlal Murmu @ Manjhi
Both R/o Vill- Pasariya, Chirua, P.S.- Barkagaon, Dist.-
Hazaribag. ... Respondents
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1081 of 2018
1. Sohan Manjhi @ Murmu
2. Brijlal Murmu @ Manjhi
Both R/o Vill- Pasariya, Chirua, P.S.- Barkagaon, Dist.-
Hazaribag. ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----
In D. Ref. No. 03 of 2018.
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
For the Convicts : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Prasad, Adv.
In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1081 of 2018.
For the Appellant : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Prasad, Adv.
For the Resp. : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
----
Dated : 20/08/2025
CAV JUDGMENT
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants
and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. as well as Mrs. Nehala
Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and the order
of conviction and sentence dated 18-08-2018 (sentence passed
on 21-08-2018) passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned
Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in S.T. 185/15 whereby and
whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences
under Section 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and have been sentenced
to death along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence
under Section 302/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years
along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under Section
201/34 IPC and in default in payment of fine, to undergo 6
months additional simple imprisonment for the offence under
Section 201/34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Lekhlal
Manjhi recorded on 13-11-2014 in which it has been stated that
whenever somebody died in the family of Sohan Murmu and
Ratilal Murmu, they used to torture the father of the informant
by calling him a witch. A few days back, the son of Mohan Murmu
and the daughter of Mohan Manjhi had died and Rita Devi the
wife of Brijlal who practices black magic had disclosed that
Chhotelal was responsible for their death and if Chhotelal is not
murdered he will finish off the entire family. It has been stated
that about a month back, the wife of Sohan Besra and the wife
of Brijlal had assaulted Chhotelal and fractured his hand. It has
been alleged that on the same day, i.e., 13-11-2014 Chhotelal
was returning from the market when Naresh Murmu, Sohan
Manjhi, Ratilal Murmu, Brijlal, the wives of Brijlal, Naresh,
Ratilal, Mohan and Sohan came with swords and while the wives
of the accused persons tied the hands and legs of Chhotelal
Murmu, Brijlal Manjhi and Sohan Murmu with tangi and Naresh
Murmu and Ratilal Murmu with danda started committing
assault upon Chhotelal. The elder son of the informant Mukhlal
Manjhi had seen the accused going towards the jungle with
2|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
Chhotelal Murmu. The matter was reported to the Chowkidar
and thereafter to the Police.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Barkagaon (Urimari)
P.S. Case No. 172/14 was instituted under Section 302/201/34
IPC. 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 S.T. No. 185/15.
Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302/34,
201/34 IPC and Section 3/4 Prevention of Witch (Daain)
Practices Act which was read over and explained to the accused
in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses in
support of its case:
P.W.1 Ramdas Manjhi has stated that around 4:00PM, he
was in the jungle and when he returned at 6:00PM, his wife and
the villagers had disclosed about the assault committed upon
Chhotelal Manjhi by the accused persons. Later on, all the
accused persons were apprehended who had disclosed to the
Police that they had taken the body of Chhotelal Manjhi to the
jungle and had burnt it. The Police had thereafter recovered lathi
and danda with which the assault was committed as well as
bones etc.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not
witnessed the incident.
P.W.2 Babita Devi has stated that it was 4:30PM and she
was in her house when her father-in-law Chhotelal Kishkoo
came back from the market. Her family members were in the
house. Rita Devi and Sukurmani Devi came and started calling
her father-in-law a witch and began assaulting him which
resulted in a fractured hand of her father-in-law. After about a
month on 13-11-2014, nine persons had come armed with tangi
and danda and started searching for her father-in-law who had
3|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
gone to the market and at that moment he returned, at which
the accused persons tied him with a rope and started assaulting
him. She and her family members were also instigated by the
accused persons to commit assault upon Chhotelal Kishkoo
otherwise they will also be murdered. When she and the other
family members refused, they were also assaulted with danda.
After committing the assault, the accused persons took him
towards the jungle and burnt him. The Chowkidar was informed,
who in turn informed the Police who came and searched out the
accused persons.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that the houses of
her relatives are adjacent to her house. Her parents-in-law had
gone to the market and when they returned, it was evening but
not dark. At the time of the incident, her husband, brother-in-
law, sisters-in-law were present in the house. There was no
dispute with the accused persons regarding landed property.
Sohan and Brijlal had tangi, while the rest accused persons had
danda in their possession. When she and the other inmates of
the house tried to save her father-in-law, they were also accosted.
At the time of the incident, an alarm was raised, but no one had
come to their rescue.
P.W.3 Mukhlal Manjhi has stated that on 13-11-2014, he
and his family members were inside the house. His parents had
gone to the market. When they returned, his father was caught
by the accused persons and after tying him, Brijlal and Sohan
started assaulting him with knife. He and the other inmates of
the house were also assaulted. After his father became
unconscious on account of the assault, he was dragged towards
the jungle where he was set ablaze. The Chowkidar was informed,
who in turn informed the Police after which the accused persons
were apprehended. On the next day, some bones were recovered
by the Police which were seized. He has proved his signature on
4|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the enmity with
the accused relating to practicing witchcraft was going on for the
last one year. When the assault was being committed, he and the
others had raised alarm but nobody had come to their rescue. No
blood was found at the place where his father was assaulted. His
father was not assaulted with the sharp end of the tangi.
P.W.4 Ritlal Manjhi was in his house on 13-11-2014 at
4:30 PM, when 9 accused persons came and alleged against his
father of practicing witchcraft. The females who had come, had
tied his father and thereafter, indiscriminate assault was
committed upon him. His father was dragged towards the jungle
and after committing his murder, the accused persons had set
ablaze the dead body. He has proved his signature on the
fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-2.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that there was an
enmity with the accused persons regarding practicing of
witchcraft. When he tried to save his father, he was also
assaulted. Blood was oozing out from the body of his father.
There were signs of dragging on the ground as his father was
dragged by the accused persons towards the jungle. At the time
of dragging also, he and the others had raised alarm but no one
had come to their rescue.
P.W.5 Saro Devi has stated that on the date of occurrence
at 4:00PM, Sohanlal Murmu, Brijlal Murmu, Rita Devi, Madhu,
Seema, Saraswati Devi, Sukurmani, Naresh Murmu and Ratilal
Murmu had taken her father-in-law inside the house and
assaulted him with tangi and lathi and had taken him towards
Golpahari and burnt him. The Police had recovered wood, ashes
and tangi from the canal.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that her statement
was never recorded earlier. She and the other inmates of the
5|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
house did not raise any alarm. Nobody of the village had seen the
assault except Talo Besra.
P.W.6 Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary was posted as a
Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine,
RIMS, Ranchi and on 17-11-2014, he had examined the skeletal
remains and had found the following:
List of Bones:
I. Skull one.
II. Mandible one.
III. Sternum one (in Two Pieces
manubrium sterni and body of
sternum).
IV. Scapula clavicle, humerus radius
ulna hip bones, femur tibia,
fibula, and patella each to in no.
of left right side.
V. Ribs. 24 in no.
VI. Vertebrae cervical 7 no. thoracic
12 nos. lulbra no. 5.
VII. Sacrum 1.
VIII. Small bones of hands and feed 38
in no. The composed soft tissues
and partially burnt soft tissues
and ligaments are attached with
the bones at places miss order a
person of skull bones lower
person of right side of
mentionable are particularity
burnt than right femur upper and
lower part of portion of left
scapula than left ulana the lower
part of left femur left tevia Lower
6|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
and upper part of fibula than
person of left patella person of left
hip bone and lower part of left
humerus completely burn and a
missing.
Skull:
The forehead is slopped, glabella
superciliary arches were
prominent upper orbital margins
were round and mastoid processes
were big. Permanent dentition 14
teeth were in position 3rd moler.
Attrition++, coronal and sagittal
sutures were internally united and
externally saggital suture were
united and union in coronal and
lamboital sutures were in advance
base spleroid and base occiput
united. There was crack fracture
on left pariteo temporal bones 11
cm long and another crack fracture
left parietal bone anterior part 9cm
long. There was a crack fracture of
left parental bone 7cm long with
infilteration of blood clot in the
bony tissue and diploe.
Mandible:
Chin was squire angle for everted
16 permanent teeth erupted,
mental foramen was upper than
middle attrition++ there were
carries in third molar on both sides
angle for age was more than
7|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
right angle.
Hip bones:
Greater sciatic notch was narrow
and deep preauricula was not
prominent than ischial tuberosity
was everted foramaovale ischio
pubic rami everted. Accapabulum
big, syhephysesal were granular
with lipping of margins.
Sacrum:
It is uniform curvature long narrow
articular surface extends up to
third sacral verterae all sacral
vertebrae. All sacral vertebrae
were united with their respective
part.
Long bones:
The available ends of all long
bones were united with
irrespective shafts.
The bones were of human origin belonging to a male aged
55 years ±5 years. The assault was by hard and blunt substance
sufficient to cause death. The time elapsed since death was 1
year 2-3 months prior to the post-mortem examination. He has
proved the bone examination report which has been marked as
Exhibit-7.
P.W.7 Jitni Devi has stated that it was 4:00PM and she
was in her house. Sukurmani and Rita Devi used to call her
husband a witch and both had fractured the hands of her
husband. She and her husband Chhotelal had gone to the
market and when they came back, Brijlal, Ratilal, Naresh, Sohan,
Rita, Sukurmani, Madhu, Saraswati and Seema had entered into
her house and dragged away Chhotelal who was tied and all the
8|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
accused persons with various weapons in their hands started
committing assault upon Chhotelal. Her husband was thereafter
taken away. By that time, it was dark. The Police had come after
the Chowkidar had informed them about the incident. Before the
Police came, the accused had already burnt to death Chhotelal.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that all the accused
belonged to her locality. She has said whatever has been
disclosed to her by her son. It was dark and visibility was poor.
Because of darkness she could not see as to who had assaulted
her husband with what weapons. Out of fear, she had not entered
inside the house. When she raised a cry of alarm, nobody had
come. She had seen the dead body of her husband being burnt.
P.W.8 Talo Besra has stated that she was in her house
when Lekhlal Manjhi and Brijlal Kishkoo came crying to the
house of the Chowkidar and asked the Chowkidar to call the
Police. Lekhlal Manjhi had disclosed that nine persons had come
to his house and have brutally assaulted his father. Lekhlal
Manjhi had also disclosed the name of the assailants. The
accused persons had taken away the father of Lekhlal to a place
2 km away and had burnt him. When the Police came to the
house of the Chowkidar, she was also present. In the morning,
she had gone with the Police to the place where the burnt dead
body was recovered.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that there are 3-4
houses between his house and the house of Chhotelal Kishkoo.
He had not seen the assault committed upon Chhotelal Kishkoo
nor the incident of Chhotelal being set ablaze by the accused
persons. There was a fight between the accused and the deceased
about a month back. The Police had seized in his presence lathi
and kulhari from the accused persons.
P.W.9 Lekhlal Manjhi is the informant who has stated that
he was in his house when Sohan Murmu, Naresh Murmu,
9|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
Ratilal, Brijlal, Rita Devi, Sukurmani Devi, Seema Devi, Madhu
Devi and Saraswati Devi had come. After a minute, his father
returned from the market and he was caught by the accused
persons who alleged that he was a witch. All the accused persons
started committing assault upon him as a result of which his
father fell down on the ground unconscious. After tying him up
with his own lungi, the accused persons had dragged his father
towards the jungle. It was dark by then. He and his brother had
informed the Chowkidar who in turn informed the Police. When
the accused persons were returning, the male accused persons
were apprehended by the Police and axe and danda were seized.
He has proved his signature and the signature of his brother on
the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit- 4 and 4/1
respectively. On the disclosure of Naresh, kulhari was seized. The
Police had also seized wooden sticks and ashes and a seizure list
was prepared. He has proved his signature and the signature of
his brother on the said seizure list which have been marked as
Exhibit- 5 and 5/1 respectively. He has also proved his signature
on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit- 1/1.
After the incident, his fardbeyan was recorded by the Police. He
has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been
marked as Exhibit- 2/1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that Police had
recovered a tangi from his house. He had not witnessed his father
being set ablaze by the accused persons. The incident of assault
had continued for one hour. He also had a scuffle with the
accused persons. The accused persons were calling his father a
witch for the last one year. A panchayat was also held regarding
the said issue. His father became unconscious in his presence.
When his father was being dragged away by the accused persons,
he had gone to inform the chowkidar.
P.W.10 Ram Narayan Thakur was posted at Urimari O.P.
10 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
as In-Charge and on 13-11-2014, he had received an information
from the Chowkidar that an assault has taken place at Pasariya
Tola. At this information, he proceeded towards the village and
came to know that Chhotelal Kishkoo has been murdered. He
had recorded the fardbeyan of Lekhlal Manjhi and had taken over
the investigation of the case. He has proved the signature of other
witnesses, except Lekhlal Manjhi and Ratilal Manjhi which has
been marked as Exhibit- 2/2. After taking over investigation, he
had recorded the restatement of the informant and had also
recorded the statement of other witnesses. He had inspected the
place of occurrence which is at village Pasariya Tola, Chirua in a
mud-tiled house. In the veranda, the deceased was sitting and
he was dragged out and assaulted besides the road which led to
his death. He had found a broken door and a broken wall which
occurred in course of dragging. The accused Brijlal was arrested
who confessed and based on his confession, a half-burnt dead
body was recovered. An inquest report was prepared. After a
photography of the dead body was done, it was sent for post-
mortem. The carbon copy of the inquest report has been proved
and marked as Exhibit- 1/2. The second place of occurrence is a
drain in the jungle at Mauja Khairat where the half-burnt dead
body was recovered. On the confessional statement of Sohan
Manjhi, an iron tangi was recovered. The tangi has been marked
as Material Exhibit-I, the burnt two wooden logs as Material
Exhibit-II & III, the ashes kept in a polythene bag has been
marked as Material Exhibit-IV. The seizure list of seized tangi
and ashes have been proved and marked as Exhibit-4/2 and 5/2
respectively. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as
Exhibit-6.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not
recorded the statement of the Chowkidar. He had not seized the
11 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
broken door. He had not seized any blood from the first place of
occurrence. The houses of the accused persons are situated at a
distance of 50 meters from the house of the informant.
5. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the
commission of murder of Chhotelal Murmu.
6. The defence has examined three witnesses in support of its
case:
D.W.1 Manish Ram Kishkoo has stated that there was a
dispute between Sohan Manjhi and Lekhlal Manjhi and Mukhlal
Manjhi about 2½-3 years back over mining of coal. Lekhlal
Manjhi and Mukhlal Manjhi had threatened Sohan Manjhi of dire
consequences.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not have
any proof that Lekhlal Manjhi and Mukhlal Manjhi were doing
the business of coal.
D.W.2 Jitan Ram Manjhi has stated that Chhotelal
Kishkoo died of illness and his sons had cremated him. Chhotelal
did not die of any assault committed upon him.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that Chhotelal was
suffering from tuberculosis, but he had not seen any prescription
indicating his treatment.
D.W.3 Sohan Manjhi has stated that Chhotelal Kishkoo
died of illness. The villagers had gone to cremate Chhotelal
Kishkoo in the Burning Ghat.
He had not stated to anyone about the cause of death of
Chhotelal Kishkoo.
7. It has been submitted by Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants that there are major contradictions
in the evidence of the witnesses. There is not a single eyewitness
to the murder and setting the body of Chhotelal Kishkoo on fire
and only on the basis of surmises, the appellants have been
12 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
convicted. The entire case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence which is also weak in nature.
8. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. as well as Mrs.
Nehala Sharmin, Learned Spl. P.P. have submitted that there are
overwhelming materials on record to indicate that it was the
appellants who were instrumental in committing assault upon
Chhotelal Kishkoo and thereafter, dragging him towards the
forest where he was burnt alive. On the confession of the
appellant Brijlal Murmu, the burnt portion of the dead body of
Chhotelal Kishkoo was recovered, while on the confession of
Sohan Manjhi, an iron tangi used in the assault was recovered.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides
and have also perused the trial court records.
10. On the allegation of practicing witchcraft which led to the
death of the son of Mohan Murmu and daughter of Mohan
Manjhi, the accused persons had singled out Chhotelal Kishkoo
who was accosted, brutally assaulted and dragged towards the
forest where he was set ablaze. In the first place of occurrence
which is the house of Chhotelal Kishkoo and where an
indiscriminate assault was resorted to by the accused persons,
there are several eyewitnesses to such occurrence, all being the
inmates of the house. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to
the incident of setting ablaze Chhotelal Kishkoo which was inside
the jungle. P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 are
the inmates of the house who all have consistently stated about
the manner of occurrence and the presence of the appellants
indulging in committing assault upon Chhotelal Kishkoo.
Though the said witnesses are related to the deceased, but that
by itself would not throw a spanner in their evidence as their
evidence is clear, cogent and without any exaggeration. The pre-
dominant role in the entire episode seems to have been essayed
by the present appellants. It was on the confession of Brijlal
13 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
Murmu the half-burnt dead body of Chhotelal Kishkoo was
recovered and on the confession of Sohan Manjhi an Iron tangi
was recovered. There is an active participation of both the
appellants in the murder of Chhotelal Kishkoo which stems from
the ocular evidence, the medical evidence and the recoveries
effected on the confession of both the appellants. It has,
therefore, been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that both
the appellants were instrumental in committing the murder of
Chhotelal Kishkoo and setting him ablaze. The learned trial court
has appropriately considered and analyzed the evidence on
record while recording a finding of guilt against the appellants.
We endorse such finding and affirm the judgment of conviction
passed against the appellants.
11. So far as the point of sentence is concerned, submission
has been advanced that capital punishment in the facts and
circumstances of the case is unwarranted. The case is not the
"rarest of rare cases" and there is every possibility that on
release, the appellants will seamlessly merge with the society. It
has been submitted that a lesser punishment be imposed upon
the appellants.
12. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. as well as Mrs.
Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that the
grotesque nature of the offence does attract capital punishment
which has rightly been imposed by the learned trial court after
proper appreciation of the aggravating and the mitigating
circumstances.
13. In the case of Deen Dayal Tiwari v. State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 237, it has been
held as follows:
"19. Aggravating Factors.
19.1 Brutal multiple murders: The
Appellant has been found guilty of
14 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
murdering five persons--his own wife
and four minor daughters. This crime,
by its very nature, is undeniably grave
and horrific.
19.2 Position of trust and
vulnerability of victims: The
deceased were defenseless,
particularly the four minor daughters,
placing a moral onus on the Appellant
to protect them. Instead, they were
brutally killed in their own home.
19.3 Impact on societal
conscience: Undeniably, such a crime
of multiple homicides within a family
can shock the collective conscience of
the society.
20. Mitigating Factors
20.1 Absence of previous criminal
antecedents: The record does not
disclose any prior conviction or past
criminal history on the part of the
Appellant.
20.2 Reports suggesting scope for
reformation: In compliance with our
directions, the State has placed on
record the report of the Superintendent
of District Jail, Ayodhya. It indicates
that the Appellant's behavior in
custody has been "satisfactory" and
"normal," noting that he has been
performing assigned duties (such as
15 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
cleaning/sweeper tasks) without any
adverse conduct. While prison conduct
alone is not determinative, it is a factor
supportive of the possibility of
reformation.
20.3 Socio-economic and personal
circumstances: Nothing on record
suggests that the Appellant is
incapable of rehabilitation. He does not
appear to be a hardened criminal who
poses an enduring menace to society.
20.4 Possibility of commutation- In
several cases involving multiple
homicides, this Court has nonetheless
commuted the death penalty to life
imprisonment, acknowledging the
potential for reformation or considering
other mitigating factors. In State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master, (2010)
12 SCC 324, the accused wiped out
almost an entire family, six persons on
the ground of saving "honour." Despite
the heinous nature of the crime, this
Court commuted the death sentence to
rigorous imprisonment for life along
with a fine. Similarly, in Prakash
Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of
Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 35, the
Appellant therein had annihilated his
brother's entire family, but this Court
held that although the crime was
heinous, it could not be classified as
16 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24418-DB )
'rarest of rare.' It was emphasized that
there existed a possibility of reforming
the offender."
14. The incident had occurred due to the superstitious beliefs
still prevalent in some pockets of the State concerning witchcraft,
black magic and occult practices. The present case is an example
wherein due to the death of the children of Mohan Murmu and
Mohan Manjhi and on the advice of an occult practitioner,
Chhotelal Kishkoo was brutally assaulted and was burnt. The
background of the assault, as highlighted by us, would not put
this case in the pedestal of of "rarest of rare cases" attracting
capital punishment. There is nothing to suggest that the
appellants will not be reformed or rehabilitated in society. The
mitigating circumstances far outweighs the aggravating
circumstances and consequently, we modify the sentence
imposed upon the appellants from capital punishment to
rigorous imprisonment for life.
15. The reference is accordingly answered. The appeal preferred
by the appellants being Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1081/2018 is
dismissed by upholding the conviction, but modifying the
sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life.
16. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(SANJAY PRASAD, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 20th Day of August, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
17 | P a g e
