Jharkhand High Court
Dularam Tiu Son Of Harisingh Tiu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 February, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 837 of 2002
Against the judgment dated 14.11.2002 passed by Sri Shri Kant Roy,
learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Seraikella in S. T.
No. 130 of 2002. ---
Dularam Tiu son of Harisingh Tiu, resident of Village Anand-dih, PS
Kharswan, District Seraikella-Kharswan, Jharkhand
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Arbind Kumar Amicus Curiae, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Special P.P.
---
Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---
Per, R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
20.02.2025 Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae for the
appellant and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Special P. P. for the
State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
14.11.2002 passed by Sri Shri Kant Roy, learned Additional District
Judge, Fast Track Court, Seraikella in S. T. No. 130 of 2002 whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fard Beyan of Sumi
Tiu recorded on 11.05.2022 in which it has been stated that on 10.05.2022
at about 11:00 P.M., the husband of the informant namely, Sadhu Tiu
after having his meals was sitting at home, when her brothers-in-law
namely, Dularam Tiu (appellant) and Konda Tiu came and called the
husband of the informant at which he came out of the house and while
sitting on the cot started conversing with them. In course of
conversation, both the accused persons committed assault upon the
husband of the informant with lathi at which he fell down on the ground
and died. No one came to the rescue of the husband of the informant
primarily for the reason that a loudspeaker was blaring on account of a
marriage party going on in the vicinity. When the informant raised a cry
of alarm, the accused persons had fled away.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Kharsawan P. S. Case No. 14 of
2002 was instituted for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of
I.P.C. 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. 130 of 2002. Charge was
framed under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. which was read over and
explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses in
support of its case.
5. P.W. 1 - Dr. Pradip Kumar Pati was posted as a Medical
Officer in Sub-Divisional Hospital and on 11.05.2022 he had conducted
autopsy on the dead body of Sadhu Tiu and had found the following:
A. Nutritional status of body was poor.
B. Rigor mortis present.
C. Bleeding from both nostrils.
D. Abrasion over root of nose ½ " x ½ " with contusion of
underlying area.
E. Abrasion below right eye ½" x 1 cm.
F. Sub conjunctional haemorrhage over left eye.
G. Abrasion over extension aspect of right elbow joint.
1 ½ " x 1 cm.
H. Abrasion over extension of left elbow joint at two places
diamante of each being 1 cm x 1 cm.
I. There was fracture of nosal, frontal, ethmoidal bone.
6. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by hard and
blunt substance and death was caused by haemorrhage due to such
injuries. The post mortem report was proved and marked as Exhibit 1.
7. P.W. 2 - Kamal Narayan Singh was posted as an Officer-in-
Charge in Kharsawan Police Station and on 11.05.2022 he had recorded
the fard beyan of Sumi Tiu. He had proved the fard beyan which has
been marked as Exhibit 2. The endorsement on the FIR has been proved
and marked as Exhibit 2/1. The formal FIR has been proved and marked
as Exhibit 3. He had prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body
for post-mortem. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at
village Anand-dih in the courtyard of the deceased. He had recorded the
re-statement of the informant as well as statements of other witnesses.
He had submitted charge-sheet on the direction of supervisory authority.
In cross-examination he has deposed that apart from the
informant, Belan Tiu and Karu Tiu claimed to have witnessed the
occurrence.
8. P.W. 3 - Karu Tiu has stated that he was in his house and in
the morning, the informant had disclosed that Sadhu Tiu has been
murdered by the accused persons by assault made with danda. It is
incorrect to say that he had witnessed the occurrence.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that whatever has been
stated by him is hearsay.
9. P.W. 4 - Belan Tiu did not support the case of prosecution
and was declared hostile by the prosecution.
10. P.W. 5 - Sumi Tiu is the informant who has also been
declared hostile by the prosecution.
11. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the murder.
12. It has been submitted by Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned
Amicus Curiae that there is no evidence brought forward by the
prosecution which would indicate about the appellant being involved in
the murder of the husband of the informant. Even the informant has
been declared hostile by the prosecution and an innocuous statement of
the informant (P.W. 5) of having seen the appellant when she came out of
the house was the solitary reason for the conviction of the appellant.
13. Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Special P. P. has
submitted that there are circumstantial evidences available on the record
which point to the guilt of the appellant.
14. Though, the informant in her fard beyan has stated about
witnessing the appellant and Konda Tiu assaulting her husband with
lathi, but such assertion has not been supported by her in her evidence
during the trial. There are admittedly no eye-witness to the assault and
the only incriminating circumstance according to the prosecution is the
statement of P.W. 5 to the effect that when she came out of the house on
hearing a cry of alarm, she had seen the appellant. No overt act has been
alleged against the appellant. It also appears that as per P.W. 5, there
were two marriage ceremonies being performed in the locality and there
was a lot of noise and even if it is assumed that the appellant was
present, his presence cannot be ruled out on account of marriage
ceremonies being conducted in the vicinity. P.W. 4 has been declared
hostile by the prosecution and P.W. 3 has stated that he could came to
know about the incident in the next morning. There is a total dearth of
evidence so far as the prosecution case is concerned. The learned trial
court was apparently in error in convicting the appellant without there
being any semblance of evidence available on record and consequently
we set aside the judgment dated 14.11.2002 passed by Sri Shri Kant Roy,
learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Seraikella in S. T.
15. This appeal is allowed.
16. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the
liabilities of his bail bond.
17. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Arbind
Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High
Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees to the
learned Amicus Curiae within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
18. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served
upon the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee
expeditiously.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 20th day of February, 2025
R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3
