Jharkhand High Court
Lakhan @ Pandu Dehri Aged About 50 Yrs vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:25108-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1331 of 2004
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.03.2004
passed by learned Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions
Case No. 26/2002, arising out of G.R. Case No. 380/2001, T.R. No. 41/2002
Pakuria P.S. Casse No. 27/2001]
--------
1. Lakhan @ Pandu Dehri aged about 50 yrs, S/o Late Kanhai Dehri.
2. Raj Kumar Dehri aged about 30 yrs, S/o Late Chamra Dehri.
3. Kanhai Dehri aged about 25 yrs, S/o Shri Lakhan Dehri.
All R/o-village Karipahari, P.S. Gopikander, Dist. Dumka, Jharkhand
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P. P.
--------
C.A.V. on 06.08.2025 Pronounced on 25/08/2025
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
The aforesaid appellants have preferred the present appeal through Jail
Superintendent, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan, Central Prison, Hazaribag
through Letter No. 1741 dated 07.07.2004.
2. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation for
the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC by the First Additional Sessions
Judge, Pakur vide impugned judgment dated 12.03.2004.
Factual Matrix:-
3. On 25.08.2001 at about 14:00 hours, Fardbeyan of one Mr. Dilip Kumar
Hansda (Village Pradhan), Tilwariya (Manjhitola) was recorded by S.I.
Dayanand Azad (P.W.-10), Officer-in-charge of Pakuria Police Station stating
Cr.(Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No. 1331 of 2004
2025:JHHC:25108-DB
inter alia in the presence of Village Chowkidar-Bharat Rai that in the morning,
some villagers came to him and told that dead body of a person is lying near
Tilwaria Village Math. He along with other villagers went to place of
occurrence and saw the dead body of a person aged about 30-35 years was
lying and it appeared that the said person was crushed by bolder (Big Stone) on
his head and blood was oozing from nose also. None of the villagers succeeded
to identify the said person, who was suspected to be outsider.
On the basis of above information, Pakuria P.S. Case No. 27 of 2001
was registered against unknown miscreants for the offence under Section
302/34 IPC.
From the place of occurrence, one 10KG black colour round stone, one
red colour blood stained Gamcha of deceased, blood stained earth, one pair
slipper were seized (Exhibit-5). Inquest report of unknown dead body was
prepared in presence of witnesses, namely, Babulal Hansda (P.W.-1) and
Francis Marandi (P.W.-2).
Charge of investigation was undertaken by S.I., Dayanand Azad (P.W.-
10) of Pakuria Police Station who visited the place of occurrence and sent the
dead body for Post-Mortem.
Village Chowkidar, Bharat Rai disclosed that the unknown deceased
belonged to village Karipahari (Paharitola) P.S. Gopikander, Dist. Dumka,
thereafter, mother of the deceased namely Dukhni Rani (P.W.-9) was contacted
and her statement was recorded. The I.O. has also interrogated with other local
villagers and eyewitnesses and submitted charge-sheet against the above named
accused persons for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Case
No. 26 of 2002 was registered and the accused persons denied from the charge
and claimed to be tried.
5. In course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution.
Apart from the oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary
evidence has been adduced by prosecution: -
i. Exhibit-1 (Formal F.I.R.)
Cr.(Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No. 1331 of 2004
2025:JHHC:25108-DB
ii. Exhibit-2 (Post-Mortem Report of the deceased)
iii. Exhibit-3 (Fardbeyan)
iv. Exhibit-4 (Carbon Copy of Inquest Report)
v. Exhibit-5 (Seizure List)
6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced
on behalf of defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false
implication only on the basis of suspicion. There was no land dispute as alleged
between the deceased and the accused persons.
7. The learned Trial Court placing reliance upon the testimony of eye
witnesses i.e. P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 namely Jilal Dehri and Chhota Lukhu Dehri,
respectively and other circumstantial evidence has held the appellants guilty for
murder of the deceased and sentenced them as stated above.
Submissions on behalf of appellants:-
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence of the appellants on following grounds:-
i. The appellants are distant relative of the deceased who was sole
son of his father and after death of the deceased, his landed property has to be
inherited by P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 who had projected themselves to be eye
witnesses of the occurrence.
ii. The only circumstance against the appellants is that they have
been seen in the evening of the occurrence consuming liquor together at
Kharauni Hatia.
iii. The mother of the deceased has raised suspicion against the
appellants due to land dispute but no reliable evidence has been adduced by the
prosecution showing any land dispute between the appellants and the deceased.
iv. P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 namely Jilal Dehri and Chhota Lukhu Dehri,
respectively taking advantage of the death of the deceased and in order to grab
his landed property have falsely stated before the police after one month of the
occurrence i.e. 26.09.2001 posing themselves to be eyewitnesses of the
occurrence and have deposed during trial.
Cr.(Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No. 1331 of 2004
2025:JHHC:25108-DB
v. The evidence of P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 is wholly unreliable and if
their evidence is excluded from consideration, there remains cipher in the
prosecution evidence for sustaining their conviction.
vi. Both the above eye witnesses have claimed to see the occurrence
from a distance of about 25 to 30 yards in the dark night at about 9 pm but did
not disclose about the occurrence to the mother of the deceased (P.W.-9).
Although both P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 have admitted in their cross-examination that
deceased was their own uncle.
vii. The mother of the deceased (P.W.-9) has also stated that she came
to know about the murder of her son from a village lady then she went to the
place of occurrence and saw the dead body of her son where police were also
present.
viii. The conduct and repercussion of P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 as an eye
witness is absolutely unnatural which disqualify them to be an eye witness of
the occurrence.
The learned Trial Court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the
evidence of projected eye witness in right perspective and taken the same to be
gospel truth ignoring the vital discrepancies, as such arrived at erroneous
conclusion which cannot be sustained under law and fit to be set aside.
The appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges levelled against
them. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the reported
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Amar Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of (NCT) Delhi" (2020) 19 SCC 165.
Submissions on behalf of State:-
9. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P., Mrs. Nehala Sharmin has
strenuously argued that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly
analysed, appreciated and scanned the testimony of ocular evidence particularly
the evidence of P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 who are the eye witnesses of occurrence
and also attending circumstances proved by the prosecution and has rightly
convicted and sentenced the appellants. There is no unnatural conduct of P.W.-
6 and 7 who due to fear from the accused persons did not disclose about the
occurrence to anyone in the village rather during interrogation by the
investigating officer (P.W.-10) have disclosed about the culpability of the
Cr.(Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No. 1331 of 2004
2025:JHHC:25108-DB
appellants which was seen by them. These witnesses have remained intact in
cross-examination also and cannot be disbelieved by any stretch of
imagination. Therefore, there is no substance in the points of argument raised
on behalf of the appellants and no merits in this appeal which is fit to be
dismissed.
10. We have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment
in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.
11. The only point for consideration in this appeal is that "as to whether the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from
any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal?"
Analysis, discussions and reasons: -
12. It is pertinent here to apprise with the evidence adduced by the
prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellants before imparting any
verdict on the above point.
13. It is undisputed fact that FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants
who might have killed the deceased in the previous night and dispose of the
dead body at the place of occurrence. The cause of death of the deceased is also
depicted in the post mortem report (Exhibit-2) proved by P.W.-5, Dr. Lalit
Kumar Bhagat who has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the
unknown person on 26.08.2001 at about 10:30 A.M. and found following:-
External Examination:-
(i) Blood coming out of left ear, blackening of left temporal region,
maggot present in left temporal wound, multiple fractures of
whole part of skull.
Internal Examination:-
On dissection of head and neck on opening skull, parts of brain
found lacerated leading to collection of bloody fluid and clots. Nothing
abnormality detected in lungs, heart and in abdominal parts.
Time elapsed since death within six to thirty six hours of duration from
the time of post mortem examination.
Cr.(Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No. 1331 of 2004
2025:JHHC:25108-DB
The cause of death is opined due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of
above injury on vital organ like brain caused by very hard and blunt
substance.
It is also stated by this witness that after twenty four hours of death of
the deceased, the Post Mortem examination was conducted and injuries
were found on the dead body are possible by falling on rock.
P.W.-8 Bada Lukhu Dehri has simply stated that on 24.08.2001 in the
evening he had gone to Kharauni Hatia where he saw that Lakhan @ Pandu
Dehri, Kanhai Dehri and Raj Kumar Dehri were selling pig flesh. Sukhua Dehri
(Deceased) was also selling pig flesh. He also stated that there was land dispute
between the deceased and the accused persons and threatening was extended by
the accused persons to deceased. In the next day morning, he came to know
about the murder. Therefore, he has expressed his suspicion against the accused
persons. This witness is also cousin of deceased.
P.W.-9 Dukhni Rani is the mother of the deceased. According to her
evidence, her son Sukhua Dehri had gone to Hatia for selling pig flesh but did
not return till night then she went to his sasuraal in search of him and next day
morning returned to her village then a village lady disclosed about the dead
body of her son lying near Tinpahari Math. She went on the place of
occurrence and saw the dead body of her son who had sustained head injuries.
She has also expressed her suspicion against the appellants due to land dispute
and threatening given by them since three years prior to occurrence.
P.W.-1 Babu Lal Hansda is a witness of inquest report. According to
him on 25.08.2001 in the morning he heard Halla that a dead body was lying
on Math then he went there and saw the said dead body was of Sukhua Dehri.
P.W.-2 Francis Marandi is also witness of inquest report. He was also
not known the deceased but he was present at the place of occurrence where
police prepared inquest report. He has also stated that mother of the deceased
came at place of occurrence and disclosed the name of deceased and also
expressed her suspicion that the accused persons Lakhan @ Pandu Dehri,
Kanhai Dehri and Raj Kumar Dehri killed her son.
P.W.-3 Lakhpati Rai is a formal witness who is a advocate clerk and
proved the formal FIR as exhibit-1.
Cr.(Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No. 1331 of 2004
2025:JHHC:25108-DB
P.W.-4 Dilip Kumar Hansda is Informant-cum-Village Pradhan of
Village Tilwaria, Manjhitola. According to him, the occurrence took place in
the night of 24.08.2001 and in the next day at about 2 pm he came to know that
dead body of a person is lying near math. He went there but could not identify
the deceased, who had sustained head injury appeared to be caused by heavy
stone. He along with village Chowkidar Bharat Rai informed the police.
P.W.-10 S.I. Dayanand Azad is the I.O. of this case who heard about the
occurrence through rumour and went to place of occurrence, where fardbeyan
of informant was recorded by him. He has also prepared seizure list of heavy
blood stained stone of 10 KG, Blood stained earth from the place of occurrence
and prepared seizure list. He has also prepared inquest report of the deceased in
presence of witnesses and sent the dead body for post mortem examination
thereafter he visited the place of occurrence which is situated in village
Tilwariya. It is stated that at the place of occurrence there were several big and
small stones and which was lonely place. The seized stone and blood stained
earth has not been sent for chemical examination for F.S.L. and also not
produced as material evidence during trial of this case.
14. The above discussion of first limb of the prosecution evidence does not
contain any material evidence against the appellants except suspicion, although
it is established that the death of the deceased was caused due to head injury
crushed by stone.
15. The main part of evidence is ocular testimony of P.W.-6 Jilal Dehri and
P.W.-7 Chhota Lukhu Dehri, who are the cousin of the deceased. Therefore,
their testimony as an eye witness requires close scrutiny in view of the fact that
for the first time after one month of the occurrence they were interrogated by
the investigating officer and claimed to have seen the accused persons were
assaulting the deceased under state of intoxication due to previous land dispute
continuing between them.
P.W.-6 Jialal Dehri has stated that on the date of occurrence in the
evening he had gone to Kharauni Hatia where he saw that accused persons
Lakhan Dehri, Raj Kumar Dehri and Kanhai Dehri were talking with Sukhua
Dehri (Deceased) and forcibly took him towards liquor shop in the Hatia. It is
further stated that this witness along with Chhota Lukhu Dehri (PW-7) also
went to consume liquor where they saw that accused persons administered huge
Cr.(Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No. 1331 of 2004
2025:JHHC:25108-DB
liquor to Sukhua Dehri (Deceased), thereafter, they proceeded towards their
home. This witness suspected that today something might happen hence he
along with Chhota Lukhu Dehri followed the deceased and accused persons.
When they reached near Tilwaria village in the evening then Lakhan Dehri
forcibly laid down Sukhua Dehri on earth thereafter Raj Kumar Dehri
and Kanhai Dehri threw big bolder on his head due to which Sukhua
Dehri died. He along with Chhtoa Lukhu Dehri (P.W.-7) was seeing the
occurrence from 25-30 yards concealing themselves. They returned to their
home but did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone due to fear.
This witness in his cross examination has admitted that accused persons
are co-villagers and known to him. He also admits that Sukhua Dehri
(Deceased) was his uncle. He also admits that due to land dispute with the
accused persons there was tense relationship with them and he reached at his
home at about 9 pm.
P.W.-7 Chhota Lukhu Dehri has also admitted that accused persons and
deceased consumed liquor together on the date of occurrence in the evening at
Kharauni Hatia and when they were proceeding towards their home then this
witness along with Jilal Dehri (P.W.-6) followed them. He has further alleged
that near Tilbaria Sorandi, Lakhan Dehri laid down Sukhua Dehri
(deceased) and Raj Kumar Dehri pressed his neck and Kanhai Dehri
assaulted by a big bolder on head of the Sukhua Dehri (Deceased) due to
which he died. The incident took place at about 9 pm in the night.
In his cross-examination, this witness also admits that deceased was his
own uncle. He has further given jolt to his earlier testimony by saying that he
along with Jilal Dehri (P.W.-6) did not immediately follow the accused persons
and the deceased rather after 15 minutes he along with Jilal Dehri were
returning to home and he along with Jial Dehri saw the occurrence from a
distance of 30-40 yards at the time of occurrence which was evening and there
was no darkness of night. He also admits that due to previous dispute and
enmity with the accused persons they were pursuing the accused persons.
16. We have given anxious consideration to the evidence of P.W.-6 and
P.W.-7 as discussed above and find that as regards the time when these
witnesses proceeded to follow the deceased along with accused persons while
returning to their home, there are material contradictions. P.W.-7 states that it
Cr.(Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No. 1331 of 2004
2025:JHHC:25108-DB
was evening contrary to this P.W. -6 states that it was dark night and about 9
pm. The manner of assault also suffers from material contradictions as per
P.W.-6 it was Lakhan Dehri who forcibly laid down the deceased (Sukhua
Dehri) on earth and Raj Kumar Dehri and Kanhai Dehri threw big bolder on his
head due to which Sukhua Died. On the other hand, as per P.W.-7 it was
Lakhan Dehri laid down Sukhua Dehri (deceased) and Raj Kumar Dehri
pressed his neck and Kanhai Dehri assaulted by a big bolder on head of the
Sukhua Dehri (Deceased) due to which he died. The further suspicious
circumstance is that both these witnesses happens to be own cousin of the
deceased but they did not disclose about the incident to any of the villagers or
to the police and kept mum for about one month. No valid reasons appeared in
their evidence to justify their unnatural conduct. These witnesses are also under
inimical terms with the accused persons, therefore, the testimony of P.W.-6 and
P.W.-7 not only suffers from material contradictions as discussed above but
also raising finger of suspicion against them due to their unnatural conduct in
not disclosing the incident even to the mother of the deceased. It is also
admitted that the deceased was sole son of his father and after his death, the
property has to be inherited by the P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 being natural heirs.
17. Admittedly, these witnesses have also not made any attempt to rescue
their own uncle from the above murder caused by the accused persons when the
assailants were having no arms with them.
18. In view of the above discussions and reasons, we find that the testimony
of P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 are not trustworthy and cannot form basis for conviction
of the accused persons. It is quite obvious that except the testimony of P.W.-6
and P.W.-7, there is nothing on record to establish the guilt of the appellants.
We further find that the learned Trial Court has not considered the testimony of
P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 on touchstone of truthfulness and acted upon the bald
statement of these witnesses, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned
Trial Court about the guilt of the appellants is not justified under law.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is
hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted
from the charges levelled against them.
19. The appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of bail
bonds and their sureties are also discharged.
Cr.(Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No. 1331 of 2004
2025:JHHC:25108-DB
20. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
21. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court record be sent back
to the concerned court for information and needful.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 25/08/2025
Basant/N. A. F. R.
Cr.(Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No. 1331 of 2004
