Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand vs Ravi Munda on 20 August, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Sanjay Prasad

                          Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )




         (Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
         dated 05.08.2019 (sentence passed on 09.08.2019) passed by
         Sri Lolark Dubey, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-
         Special Judge, Gumla in Special (POCSO) Case No.
         69/2018.)
                                 .............
                      Death Reference No. 03 of 2019
         The State of Jharkhand               ...        Appellant
                                   Versus

         Ravi Munda, S/o Chandan Munda, R/o Sakin Arra Hansa,
         P.S.- Senha, Dist.- Lohardaga.    ...        Respondent
                                   With
                  Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1103 of 2019
         Ravi Munda, S/o Chandan Munda, R/o Sakin Arra Hansa,
         P.S.- Senha, Dist.- Lohardaga.    ...       Appellant
                                   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 2019.
         For the State         : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
         For the Convicts      : Mr. Ramit Satender, Adv.

         In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1103 of 2019.
         For the Appellant   : Mr. Ramit Satender, Adv.
         For the Resp.       : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
                                   ----
                                              Dated : 20/08/2025
                          CAV JUDGMENT

Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05-08-2019 (sentence passed on 09-08-2019) passed by Sri Lolark Dubey, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in Special (POCSO) Case No. 69/2018 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )

been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act and has been sentenced to death along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default in payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 10 POCSO Act and in default in payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Ram Munda recorded on 02-10-2018 in which it has been stated that on the same day at 7:00A.M., the informant had gone out and sat beside the house of Budhnath Munda when a cry of alarm of his wife came from his house. When the informant had reached his house, the wife of the informant had disclosed that their daughter aged nine years had entered into the room of Ravi Munda for bringing rice and their daughter was shouting from inside seeking help from her mother. The informant and his wife asked Ravi Munda to open the door but it was not opened and a crowd had gathered by that time. The door was ultimately broken open and it was found that the daughter of the informant was lying dead and blood was oozing out from her neck. Ravi Munda was apprehended, tied and handed over to the Police.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Bharno P.S. Case No. 67/18 was instituted under Section 302 IPC and Section 8 POCSO act against Ravi Munda. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken under Section 302, 376 AB/511 and Section 8 of POCSO Act. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302, 376 AB/511 IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as thirteen

2|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )

witnesses in support of its case.

P.W.1 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Toppo was posted as a Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on 02-10-2018 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Victim "X" and had found the following:

Inspection:-

                           I.     Bleeding from left nostril.
                           II.    Incised wound over mid lower
                                  neck size 2" x ¾" with cutting of
                                  trachea.
                           On Dissection
                           I.     Upper part of trachea cut through
                                  with laceration of adjacent soft
                                  tissue structure.
                           II.    Both lungs was congested.
                           III.   Left chamber of heart was empty
                                  & right chamber was filled with
                                  fluid blood.
                           IV.    Stomach was filled with semi
                                  digested food.
                           V.     All other abdominal organs were
                                  within normal limit.

The cause of death was opined to be hemorrhage and shock due to injury by sharp cutting weapon. The post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1.

P.W.2 Ram Munda is the informant and the father of the deceased who has stated that at the time of the incident he was sitting in the house of his brother Budhnath. On hearing a cry of alarm, he had come to his house and his wife had disclosed that when his daughter had gone to bring rice, Ravi Munda had closed the door from inside. After breaking open the door and going inside he had found his daughter dead with her neck being cut

3|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )

with a basula. Ravi Munda was apprehended and after tying him with a rope, he was subjected to assault. The basula was handed over to the Police by him and a seizure list was prepared in which he had put his thumb impression. Ravi Munda had taken shelter in his house as Lohardaga Police were searching for him.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that no one had seen the incident because Ravi Munda had closed the door by putting a lock on it.

P.W.3 Mangal Munda was in the village and on hearing the cry of alarm he had gone to the house of Ram Munda. He and the others had broken the door with spade and crowbar and on entering he had found the dead body of Victim "X" and half of her neck was cut. Ravi Munda who was inside was caught and he was tied with a rope.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that his house is at a distance of 10 feet from the house of Ram Munda. He is the nephew of Ram Munda.

P.W.4 Sahodra Devi is the mother of the deceased who has stated that she was outside her house and her daughter had gone inside to bring rice. Her nephew Ravi Munda was sleeping from before in a cot. When Ravi Munda closed the door, her daughter raised a cry of alarm and several persons being attracted towards the distress call, had arrived. The door was closed from inside and it was broken open and on entering inside, she found her daughter dead. Her husband and the villagers had caught hold of Ravi Munda and tied him. Her daughter was also subjected to rape by Ravi Munda.

On a Court question, she has stated that when Ravi Munda had closed the door from inside, her daughter had twice cried out after which she became silent.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that on hearing the cry of distress, 20-25 persons had arrived at her place.

4|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )

P.W.5 Pradeep Munda is the cousin brother of Victim "X" who has stated that at the time of the incident he was in his house. Ravi Munda had come and he was sleeping in the house of Ram Munda. On hearing a commotion, he had rushed to the house of Ram Munda where the wife of Ram Munda had disclosed that Victim "X" is shouting from inside the room. The door was broken open with a crowbar by Tej Bahadur, Ram Munda and Budhram Munda. On entering inside the room, Victim "X" was found lying dead on the ground. Ravi Munda was taken out of the room and was tied with a rope. The Victim "X" was murdered by Ravi Munda with a basula.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that when he had reached the house of Ram Munda, he had seen the presence of 20-25 persons.

P.W.6 Lachhu Munda has stated that on hearing a commotion, he had gone to the house of Ram Munda where he found the dead body of the nine-year-old daughter of Ram Munda. Ravi Munda was taken out from the house of Ram Munda, tied and was assaulted. He had come to know that Ravi Munda had committed rape upon Victim "X" and thereafter murdered her.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that Ram Munda is his relative. His house is at a distance of 500 meters from the house of Ram Munda. When he had reached the house of Ram Munda, several persons were found already present by then.

P.W.7 Dukhiya Munda was standing on the road and on hearing a commotion, he had gone to the house of Ravi Munda where after the door was broken open, the dead body of Victim "X" was found with an injury on the neck. Ravi Munda was apprehended from inside the room, tied and handed over to the Police. The Police had prepared a seizure list of basula in which he had put his thumb impression.

5|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the contents of the seizure list.

P.W.8 Sukra Munda was acquainted with Victim "X" who was aged about 8-9 years at the time of the incident. He was standing on the road and on hearing a cry of alarm, he had gone to the house of Ram Munda and when the door was broken open, the dead body of Victim "X" was found lying with an injury on her neck. Ravi Munda was apprehended from the same room and after tying him up he was handed over to the Police. He had put his thumb impression on the seizure list.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know as to what was written in the seizure list.

P.W.9 Bandhu Munda has stated that he knew the daughter of Ram Munda who was aged 8-9 years at the time of the incident. He was standing on the road and on hearing a commotion, he had gone to the house of Ram Munda and when the door was broken open, the dead body of Victim "X" was found with an injury over neck. Ravi Munda was brought down from the place he was hiding, tied up and handed over to the Police. He has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit- 2.

P.W.10 Sunil Munda has stated that Ravi Munda had come as a guest in the house of the victim. At the time of the incident, he was standing on the road and on hearing a commotion, he had come to the house of Ram Munda and had seen that despite efforts, the door of her room was not being opened. The door was broken open and on entering, the dead body of Victim "X" was found lying with her neck cut. Ravi Munda was hiding in the same room near the roof and he was forced to come down after which he was tied and handed over to the Police once the Police arrived on information. He has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit- 2/1.

6|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )

P.W.11 Raghunandan Prasad Ram has proved the written order of the Officer-In-Charge Vishundev Choudhary for producing the seized materials in connection with Bharno P.S. Case No. 67/2018 which has been marked as Exhibit- 4.

P.W.12 Ramdhani Singh was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police in Bharno P.S. and he was given the charge of investigation of Bharno P.S. case No. 67/18. He had recorded the fardbeyan of Ram Munda in the house of Ram Munda. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit- 5. The endorsement in the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 5/1. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 6. He had arrested Ravi Munda and had prepared an arrest memo which has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 7. The confessional statement of Ravi Munda has been marked as Exhibit- 8. On the basis of the confessional statement of Ravi Munda, he had seized the blood-stained basula from the house of Ram Munda and he had also seized blood-stained earth and a seizure list was prepared which has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 9. The inquest report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2/2. He had sent the dead body for autopsy to Sadar Hospital, Gumla. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and had also inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of Ram Munda. He had recorded the statements of Sahadra Devi, Pradeep Munda, Mangal Munda and Lachhu Munda who all have supported the occurrence. He had received the post-mortem report. The seized articles were sent to FSL, Ranchi. He had obtained the proof of date of birth of Victim "X" which has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 10. He had also recorded the statements of Dukhiya Munda, Sukra Munda and Prem Munda. He had obtained the report from FSL, Ranchi. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge sheet under Section 302 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act. He has proved

7|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )

the charge sheet which has been marked as Exhibit- 11. He has produced a carton covered with a cloth to the Court. The covered cloth has been marked as Material Exhibit- I, while the box which was covered with a cloth has been marked as Material Exhibit-II. The envelope of the FSL has been marked as Material Exhibit- III while the blood-stained earth inside the envelope has been marked as Material Exhibit- IV. The basula has been marked as Material Exhibit- V. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not conducted any search in the house of Ravi Munda. He had not seized the crowbar which was used in breaking open the door. It is true that the seizure list does not contain the signature of the accused. From the place of occurrence, blood-stained earth and blood-stained basula were seized by him.

P.W.13 Dr. Shashi Toppo was posted as a Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on 02-10-2018, he had examined the deceased and had found the following:

                           (i)    There is no injury on vagina,
                                  valva and breast. Hymen was
                                  intact.
                           (ii)   Vaginal    swab    examination:-
                                  Spermatozoa not found. Epithelial
                                  cells present.

It was opined that sexual harassment cannot be ruled out by this examination. He has proved the report which has been marked as Exhibit- 1/2.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that no marks of injury were found on the private parts of the victim.

5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the commission of the offence.

6. The defence has examined 04 witnesses in support of its

8|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )

case:

D.W.1 Ravi Munda is the accused who has stated that in the morning, he had gone towards the agricultural field of Ram Munda and on hearing a commotion, he was running towards the house of Ram Munda when the villagers caught hold of him and started committing assault upon him.

D.W.2 Chandan Munda is the father of the accused who has stated that his son was not a quarrelsome person and he has been wrongly implicated in this case.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that Ravi Munda, for 2-3 years, was involved in farming in the house of his maternal uncle.

D.W.3 Shila Kumari is the sister of Ravi Munda who has stated that there has never been any complaint against her brother. She does not know about the case in which her brother was sent to jail.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she stays with her father while Ravi Munda stays with his maternal uncle.

D.W.4 Sushma Kumari is another sister of Ravi Munda, who has reiterated what has been stated by D.W.3.

7. It has been submitted by Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been a victim of the circumstances. It has been submitted that it has not been ascertained by the prosecution that it was the appellant who had committed the murder of Victim "X".

8. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the appellant was apprehended from inside the room after breaking open the door and the dead body of Victim "X" was also found lying in the same room and which proves beyond any reasonable doubt about the appellant sexually exploiting the victim and committing her murder with a basula.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides

9|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )

and have also perused the trial court records.

10. The hapless victim aged 9 years had gone inside the house to bring rice when the appellant who was sleeping in a cot had locked the door from within and despite repeated efforts by the informant and others to get the door opened, the appellant did not open the door which ultimately led to breaking open the door with crowbar and spades and on entering, a ghastly scene unfolded to the effect that the Victim "X" was found lying on the ground with her neck half cut and the appellant hiding himself in the same room who was brought down, tied with a rope and handed over to the Police as soon as they came on receiving such information.

11. P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the witnesses who had entered inside the room from where the appellant was apprehended and the dead body of Victim "X" was located. It is obvious that there are no eyewitnesses to the actual incident since the entire episode took place within the four corners of the room which was locked from inside. It has been ascertained beyond doubt that the appellant and the deceased were the only persons who were present inside the room. No other angle has been sought to be projected by the defence. As per P.W.4, who is the mother of Victim "X", as soon as the door was locked Victim "X" had cried out seeking the help of P.W.4 but thereafter she became silent and on breaking open the door, her dead body was found. As per P.W.12 (I.O.), a blood stained basula was recovered on the confession of the appellant from the house of Ram Munda. The FSL report indicates that blood of human origin was found on the basula. The post-mortem report also corroborates the nature of weapon which was used in the commission of murder and which was recovered at the instance of the appellant, though a contrary evidence has been given by P.W.2 (informant) that it was he who had handed

10 | P a g e Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )

over the basula to the Police. The culpability of the appellant in committing the murder with the seized basula in spite of such contradiction does not wash away as the basula was found inside the room itself. The prosecution has, therefore, been able to prove that it was the appellant who had attempted an aggravated sexual assault upon the Victim "X" as per the medical report (Exhibit-1/2) and had committed the murder with the assistance of a basula. The judgment of conviction of the learned trial court is, therefore, affirmed.

12. So far as the sentence of death is concerned, we may refer to the case of Deen Dayal Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 237, wherein it has been held as follows:

"19. Aggravating Factors.

19.1 Brutal multiple murders: The Appellant has been found guilty of 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

11 | P a g e Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )

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 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

12 | P a g e Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )

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 'rarest of rare.' It was emphasized that there existed a possibility of reforming the offender."

13. The appellant is a young person and there is nothing to indicate that the appellant cannot be reformed and rehabilitated in the society. The offence attributed to the appellant primarily of murder does not speak of a gross depravity or being diabolical in nature and does not fall in the category of "rarest of rare cases"

to attract a punishment of death sentence. The mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances and having given our anxious consideration to the nature of the offence, the manner in which it was executed and the specific role played by the appellant we come to the conclusion that for 13 | P a g e Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24413-DB )

the ends of justice, rigorous imprisonment for life would be the appropriate sentence which can be imposed upon the appellant.

14. Accordingly, the sentence imposed upon the appellant of capital punishment is modified to rigorous imprisonment for life.

15. The Reference is answered accordingly and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1103 of 2019 is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence imposed upon the appellant.