Jharkhand High Court
Arjun Kumar Verma @ Arjun Verma vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 14 January, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 162 of 1999(R)
Against the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 29.05.1999 (sentence passed on
31.05.1999) passed by Sri Raj Narain Prasad Singh,
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T.
No. 259 of 1991.
Arjun Kumar Verma @ Arjun Verma, S/o Yogendra Prasad
Verma, R/o Co-operative Colony, Dumri, P.S.- Jorapokher,
Dist.- Dhanbad ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
2. Chhatu Mahato, R/o Dumari Balu, P.S. Jorapokhar,
Dist.- Dhanbad
... Respondents
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
----
For the Appellant : Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
----
CAV On: 12/12/2024 Pronounced On: 14/01/2025
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Chakraverty,
learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satish Prasad, learned
A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 29-05-1999 (sentence passed on 31-
05-1999) passed by Sri Raj Narain Prasad Singh, learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in S.T. No. 259/1991, whereby
and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and has been sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Chathu
Mahato recorded on 25-09-1990, in which it has been stated that in
the night of 24/25-09-1990 at around 2:30AM, the informant was in
the veranda along with his wife, Chandrawati Devi, administering
medicines to their one-year-old child, Pinku and their daughter was
also present when Arjun Kumar Verma (appellant) entered into the
house and by using abusive language, wanted the informant to come
out. When the informant gave out his identity, the accused wanted to
know about the landlord of the informant and by once again abusing
the informant, dared him to come out. It has been alleged that when
the informant came out, there was a scuffle between the informant
and the accused and when the wife of the informant started shouting,
the accused left the informant, went near his wife and by snatching
his daughter, slammed her on the floor. When the accused tried to
flee away, he was apprehended by the informant and Dev Prasad
Singh.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Joraokhar PS Case No.
301/90 was instituted under Section 302 IPC against Arjun Kumar
Verma. 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. Case No. 259/1991.
Charge was framed against the accused under Section 304 IPC, 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 five witnesses in
support of its case:
P.W.1 Deo Prasad Singh has stated that it was 2:30AM on 25-
09-1990 and he was sleeping in his room when on hearing a
commotion, he came out and saw Chhathu Mahato being assaulted
by Arjun. In the meantime, the wife of Chhathu Mahato arrived and
started shouting for help. He has stated that Arjun Kumar Verma
snatched the child from the lap of the wife of Chhathu Mahato and
threw the child on the ground which resulted in her death. The
landlord Jamadar Singh caught and tied up Arjun Kumar Verma and
informed the Police.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that when the wife of
Chhathu was trying to pacify the quarrel, he had seen the child falling
down from the lap of the wife of Chahthu.
2|Page
P.W.2 Lakhan Kumar Singh was sleeping in his house and
hearing some commotion when he came out, he saw a scuffle going
on between Arjun Kumar Verma and Chhathu Mahato. When the wife
of Chhathu came in the vicinity, Arjun Kumar Verma snatched the
child from her and threw it on the ground.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was awake on the
night of the incident. The scuffle between Arjun and Chhathu was
stopped by his father and the wife of Chhathu.
P.W.3 Dr. Vinod Kumar was posted as an Assistant Professor
and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, P.M.C.H., Dhanbad
and on 25-09-1990, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of
Pinku, a child aged one year, and had found the following:
(i) Abrasion ½" x ½" on the left side of forehead.
(ii) Bleeding from left ear. No other external injury was
visible.
(iii) On dissection, following injuries were found-
(a) Left side chambers of the heart were empty. Right
side chambers were full with blood.
(b) Lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys and other internal
organs were normal looking. Urinary bladder was
empty. Stomach contained about fifty c.c. mucoid
fluid and curd like material.
(iv) On removal of scalp, skull was normal, but bruise 1" x
½" was seen under injury no. 1. Meninges were mildly
congested. Then subdural hematoma seen over left
hemisphere of brain. Brain was mildly congested.
The cause of death was opined to be on account of subdural
hematoma which can be caused by a fall or throwing of the child on
the ground. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been
marked as Exhibit-1.
P.W.4 Jamadar Singh has stated that he was in his house on
25-09-1990 and at 5:00A.M, he received information that Arjun
Kumar Verma had thrown the child of Chhathu Mahato on the ground
3|Page
which resulted in her death. At this, he went and found Arjun Verma
being apprehended by several persons. He had informed the Police.
He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-2.
The inquest report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the
child being either thrown on the ground or accidentally falling off on
the ground.
In cross-examination, on recall, he has deposed that Chhathu
and his wife had disclosed that there was a fight with Chhathu and
when the wife of Chhathu tried to save her husband, the baby fell off
her lap and died. At that point of time, Geeta was also there.
P.W.5 Geeta Devi has stated that when she came out of her
house on hearing a commotion, she had seen Arjun Verma committing
assault upon Chhathu and the wife of Chhathu was shouting for help.
Arjun went near the wife of Chhathu, snatched the child and slammed
it on the ground which resulted in the death of the child. Arjun was
caught and the Police was informed.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had not seen
the snatching and slamming of the child on the ground. She had seen
the child lying on the ground.
In cross-examination, on recall, she has deposed that the son of
Deo Sharan was not present at the place of occurrence. The son of
Deo Sharan came to know about the incident in the morning.
5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the offence.
6. It has been submitted by Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel
for the appellant that none of the witnesses have stated about seeing
the appellant throwing the child on the ground leading to her death.
He has submitted that the informant has not been examined and even
the Investigating Officer has not been examined which has caused
prejudice to the defence. Mr. Chakraverty has further brought to our
notice that the appellant had remained in custody for more than 13
years.
4|Page
7. Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the
evidence of the eyewitnesses clearly depicts the role of the appellant
and in fact, the evidence of P.W.2 of seeing such act on the part of the
appellant has not been rebutted by the defence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and
have also perused the trial court records.
9. Though in the fardbeyan of the informant, it has been alleged
that in course of scuffle between the informant and the appellant, the
child which was in the lap of the wife of the informant, who had come
out to pacify both the sides was snatched by the appellant and
slammed on the ground resulting in her death but such assertion has
not been supported by any of the prosecution witnesses. Almost all of
the witnesses have stated about the child being slammed on the
ground by the appellant, but their cross-examination reveals about
the child accidentally falling on the ground from the lap of the wife of
the appellant. Though this fact has not been stated by P.W.2, but his
presence at the place of occurrence appears to be doubtful as his
father, who has been examined as P.W.1 has not stated that P.W.2
was present at that point of time. The evidence of P.W.2 seems to have
been further decimated as P.W.5 has specifically stated that P.W.2
was not present and he was informed about the occurrence in the
morning. The evidence of the eyewitnesses would therefore suggest
that the child had accidentally fallen off the lap of the wife of the
informant who was trying to intervene in the scuffle between the
informant and the appellant. No role has been assigned to the
appellant of committing such dastardly act and the non-examination
of the informant, who was one of the main characters in the scuffle
further demolishes the case of the prosecution. The learned trial court
has not considered the underlying circumstances emerging from the
prosecution case while convicting the appellant under Section 304
Part I IPC and sentencing him accordingly.
10. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove,
set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
5|Page
29-05-1999 (sentence passed on 31-05-1999) passed by Sri Raj
Narain Prasad Singh, learned First Additional Sessions Judge
Dhanbad in S.T. No. 259/1991.
11. This appeal is allowed.
12. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the
liability of his bail bonds.
13. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 14th Day of January, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
6|Page
