The State Of Jharkhand vs Sudarshan Mahakur
2025 Latest Caselaw 1241 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand vs Sudarshan Mahakur on 30 July, 2025

Author: Rongon. Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Sanjay Prasad

                                Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )




    [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
    29.11.2018 (sentence passed on 30.11.2018) passed by Sri Ram Bachan
    Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No.
    216/2018]
                        Death Ref. No. 7 of 2018
    The State of Jharkhand                         ... ... Appellant
                                  Versus
    Sudarshan Mahakur, S/o Late Binda Mahakur, R/o Khatpal
    Tola- Mohan Guttu, P.O. & P.S. Dumaria, District- East
    Singhbum                                   ... ... Respondent
                                  With
                    Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 54 of 2019
    Sudarshan Mahakur, S/o Late Binda Mahakur, R/o Khatpal
    Tola- Mohan Guttu, P.O. & P.S. Dumaria, District- East
    Singhbum                                        ... ... Appellant
                                  Versus
    The State of Jharkhand                      ... ... Respondent
                                  ...........
    In Death Ref. No. 7 of 2018
    For the Appellant              : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
    For the Respondent             : Ms. Abha Verma, Amicus Curiae

    In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 54 of 2019
    For the Appellant               : Ms. Abha Verma, Amicus Curiae
    For the Respondent              : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
                            PRESENT
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
                               ...........
Order No. 05 / Dated the 30th July, 2025
Rongon. Mukhopadhyay, J.:

Heard Ms. Abha Verma, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2018 (sentence passed on 30.11.2018) passed by Sri Ram Bachan Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No. 216/2018, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences u/s 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to death along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for life for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the I.P.C. and in default in payment of Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

fine to undergo S.I. for one year.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Raja Ram Mahakur, in which, it has been stated that the informant is a permanent resident of village Khatpal and at the present moment he is staying at Panchwati Nagar in Sonari. It has been alleged that on 06.07.2017 at 2:00 A.M. he had received an information in his mobile that an incident had occurred in his house. When on such information, he reached his house the villagers had disclosed that his uncle Sudarshan Mahakur (appellant) has committed the murder of his father Gurucharan Mahakur, mother Vimla Mahakur and sister Aalochana Mahakur. His younger brother Rajesh Mahakur also suffered injuries and he is being treated at the hospital. It has been alleged that Sudarshan Mahakur by threatening the villagers and by brandishing a bhujali had fled away towards Bhagaband.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Dumaria P.S. Case No. 08/2017 was instituted u/s 302/307 of the IPC against the sole accused. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted u/s 302/307 of the IPC and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 216/2018. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302 and 307 of the IPC, which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case.

6. P.W.1 (Anil Patar) has stated that the incident is of the previous year on the 6th and he was sleeping in the house when he heard the cry of alarm coming from the house of Rajesh Mahakur. When he and the others reached the house of Rajesh Mahakur, they met Rajesh who gave information about his parents and sister who have been assaulted by Sudarshan

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

Mahakur. Rajesh also had injuries upon his person. When they had reached the house of Rajesh, they found all the three persons dead. Rajesh was sent to the hospital. He has stated that Sudarshan Mahakur had fled away and at the time of fleeing away had issued threats that anyone informing the Police would be done to death.

In cross-examination, he has stated that all his family members had rushed to the place of occurrence. When he had reached the place of occurrence, he found Rajesh Mahakur conversing with Champa Mahakur. He does not know the reason for the occurrence. When he had reached the place of occurrence, the accused had already fled away. The area is under Dumaria P.S., which is known for its extremists' activities.

7. P.W.2 (Parshuram Mahakur) has stated that the incident is of 6th July of the previous year.He was in his house and he had come out of his house at around 1:30-2:00 A.M. for easing himself when he heard some commotion and as he was going towards the house from where the sounds were emanating, he had seen Sudarshan Mahakur standing with a Bhujali. When he went further, he saw Gurucharan Mahakur, Vimla Mahakur and Aalochana Mahakur lying dead and Rajesh was found in an injured condition. Rajesh has disclosed that the assault has been committed by his uncle Sudarshan Mahakur. Rajesh was taken to the hospital with the assistance of the villagers. Sudarshan was issuing threats that whoever discloses about him would be done to death.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had disclosed before the Police that when he was going towards the place of occurrence, he had seen Sudarshan Mahakur standing with a Bhujali and on seeing him he had shirked. He had also disclosed to the Police that at the place of occurrence Rajesh on being asked had disclosed about the incident. When he had reached the place of occurrence a crowd had already

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

gathered. There were about 50-60 persons present and he remembers the names of Suraj Rawat, Kamal Chandra Rawat, Vimal Rawat and Sabu Charan Patar. He was alone when he had seen Sudarshan Mahakur standing with a Bhujali.

8. P.W.3 (Suraj Kumar Rawat) has stated that the incident is of 06.07.2017 in between 1:30-2:00 A.M. He was sleeping in his house when he was woken up by his mother at which he had gone to the house of Rajesh Mahakur where he had seen a deep wound in the chest of Rajesh Mahakur. When asked about the wound Rajesh had disclosed that his uncle Sudarshan Mahakur had assaulted him with a Bhujali. He had also disclosed that Sudarshan Mahakur had committed the murder of his parents and sister with a Bhujali. When he had gone inside, he saw the dead bodies of all three. Rajesh Mahakur had also disclosed that after committing the murders Sudarshan Mahakur had threatened the villagers.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that when he had reached the place of occurrence 30-35 villagers were already present which included Rahul Patar, Mahadeo Mahakur, Govind Mahakur, Leda Mahakur and Bhola Ho amongst others. Rajesh Mahakur was writhing in pain on account of the injury suffered by him. The Police was informed about the incident through telephone by his brother Kamal Chandra Rawat. Prior to the Police reaching the place of occurrence some of the villagers had taken away Rajesh for treatment. He does not know about existence of any land dispute between the deceased and his brother (accused). About 10 years back Dumaria was a naxal infested area but is now free from such activities.

9. P.W.4 (Meghrai Tudu) has stated that it was 06.07.2017 at around 1:30-2:00 A.M. when the villagers of Khatpal village had come and disclosed that an incident has happened in the house of their co-villager Gurucharan Mahakur. He along with them on receiving such information went to the

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

house of Gurucharan Mahakur where he saw the dead bodies of Gurucharan Mahakur, his wife and daughter lying in a pool of blood. Near the same place Rajesh Mahakur was also lying in an injured state. Rajesh on being asked had disclosed that his uncle Sudarshan Mahakur is the perpetrator of the murders as well as responsible for the injuries suffered by him.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that when he had reached the place of occurrence Sudarshan was not present.

10. P.W.5 (Dr. Lalan Choudhary) has stated that on 07.07.2017 he was posted as an Associate Professor in the department of FMT, MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur and on that day, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gurucharan Mahakur and had found the following:

                A.-    Penetrating wounds:-
                (i)    3.5 cms x 1.5 cms x chest cavity deep over right

side of chest, 2 cm medial to right nipple.

(ii) 4.5 cms x 2 cms x chest cavity deep over xyphoid region of chest.

(iii) 2.5 cms x 1 cms x chest cavity deep over left side front of chest, 1.5 cm above left nipple.

                B.-    Incised wounds:-
                (i)    4 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep over right art.

(ii) 3 cms x 1.5 cm x 1.5 cms over palmar aspect of left hand below little and ring fingers.

(iii) 1.75 cms x 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm over left ring finger, palmar aspect.

(iv) 4 cms x 2.5 cm x muscle deep over left fore arm. C.- Abrasion:- 3 cms x 1 cm over right knee.

D.- On dissection:- Left side 3rd inter coastal space pierced 2.5 cms x 1 cm right side 3rd inter coastal space pierced and 4th rib partly upper [art cut 3.5 cms x 1 cm. Pericardium pierced. Right lung pierced 2 cms x 0.25 cm.

The cause of death was opined to be hemorrhage and shock. All the injuries were caused by sharp edged heavy object except abrasion which is caused by hard and blunt object. The postmortem report was prepared by him and bears his signature which has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

On the same day he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Vimla Mahakur and had found the following injuries:

               A.-    Penetrating wounds:-
               (i)    4 cms x 1 cm x chest cavity deep over right side
               front of chest 5 cms below right nipple.

(ii) 3.5 cms x 2 cms x chest cavity deep over left side of chest, 8 cms below left axillae.

               B.-    Incised wounds:-
               (i)    2.5 cms x 1 cm over inner aspect of right arm.

(ii) 7 cms x 2 cms x 1 cm over inner aspect of right arm.

(iii) 2.5 cms x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over medial part of left hand.

C.- Perforated stable wound:- 7 cms x 2 cms over medial aspect of left arm a making an entrance 4.5 cms x 1.5 cms making an exit, over posterior aspect of left arm.

D.- Abrasion:- 12 cms x 1 cm over left side of chest above down word later to left nipple.

E.- On Dissection:- Right 4" inter coastal space pierced 5 cms x 1 cm. Pericardium 3 cms x 2 cms. Right atrium of heard pierced 4 cms x 2 cms. Right lung at medial border cut 2 cms x 1 cm.

The cause of death was opined to be hemorrhage and shock. All the injuries were caused by sharp edged moderate heavy object except abrasion which is caused by hard and blunt object. The postmortem report has been proved by him and bears his signature which has been marked as Exhibit- 1/1.

On the same day he had also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Aalochna Mahakur and had found the following:

A.- Penetrating wounds:-

(i) 2.5 cms x 7 cms x cavity deep over epigastric region.

B.- Stab wound (Incised):-

(i) 6.5 cms x 2.5 cms x muscle deep and 3.5 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep over left side of chest, 9 cms below axillae.

(ii) 5.5 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep over left arm.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

E.- On Dissection:- Diapsragm and pierced. Right ventricle of heart pierced 5 cms x 2.5 cms. Uterus.

The cause of death was opined to be due to hemorrhage and shock. All the injuries were caused by sharp edged moderate heavy object except abrasion which is caused by hard and blunt object. The postmortem report has been prepared by him and bears his signature and which has been marked as Exhibit- 1/2.

11. P.W.6 (Dr. Shyam Soren) was posted at Dumaria CHC as a Medical Officer and on 06.07.2017 he had examined Rajesh Mahakur and had found the following injuries on his person:

(i) Profused bleeding from right lower chest - 4 cms x muscle deep.

(ii) Difficulty in breathing in supine position.

The nature of injury was opined to be grievous caused by sharp cutting object. He has proved the injury report which has been marked as Exhibit- 3.

12. P.W.7 (Sona Ram Mahato) has stated that the incident is of 06.07.2017 at around 1:30 A.M. He was sleeping when he was awakened by sounds of alarm and when he was going towards the house of Gurucharan, he had seen Sudarshan Mahakur standing with blood stained Bhujalis. He had two Bhujalis and both were blood stained. He was wearing a lungi and a vest which also had stains of blood. When he had rushed to the house of Rajesh, he had disclosed that his uncle has committed the murder of his parents and sister. Rajesh had disclosed that he was also assaulted by Sudarshan with a Bhujali.

In cross-examination, he has stated that the house of Sudarshan Mahakur is at a distance of 10-15 feet from his house. He had not seen the occurrence. It was a dark night. At the place of occurrence 30-40 villagers had assembled which

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

included Kamal, Ram and Sadhu amongst others. The house of the named villagers are situated adjacent to the place of occurrence. He has disclosed to the Police that he had received information about the incident from the villagers and that Sudarshan while extending threats had fled away. From about one year prior to the incident the area under Dumaria P.S. has been freed from extremist activities. He has deposed that the Police was informed about the occurrence by Kamal.

13. P.W.8 (Raja Ram Mahakur) is the informant who has stated that on 06.07.2017 he was at Tata in Panchawati Nagar. He was informed by a villager on phone that an incident had occurred in his house. He reached his village at 7:30-8:00 A.M. when he came to know from the villagers that his uncle Sudarshan Mahakur had committed the murder of his parents and sister and critically injured his brother Rajesh. He had seen the dead bodies of his parents and sister and blood was found scattered. He had given a written report to Dumaria P.S. which is in his handwriting and bears his signature and which has been marked as Exhibit-4.

In his cross-examination he has stated that whatever has been disclosed by him is on the basis of information gathered from his brother and the villagers. The information about the incident was given to him by his uncle Suraj Chandra Rawat.

14. P.W.9 (Dudh Nath Ram) had brought the material Exhibit (MR No. 01/17) to the Court which was sealed in a cloth. On opening the material Exhibit a plastic container was found and on opening two sealed material Exhibits were found. Both Pack A and Pack B were opened and in them wre found the Bhujalis. The Pack A and B were marked as material Exhibit Nos. I and II.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

In cross-examination, he has stated that the plastic containers which were marked Exhibits were not found in a sealed condition.

15. P.W.10 (Rajesh Mahakur) has stated that on 05.07.2017 all his family members after having dinner went to sleep. His parents were sleeping in the courtyard while he and his sister Aalochna Mahakur were sleeping inside in two separate cots. He woke up when he heard his sister shouting and saw his uncle Sudarshan Mahakur holding the shoulders of his sister and when he started shouting his uncle told him to keep quiet. When he did not heed such warning, his uncle caught hold of him and gave a Bhujali blows on his chest and blood started coming out. Seeing this his sister started raising cry of alarm at which his uncle struck 4-5 blows upon her with the Bhujali. On hearing such commotion his parents came inside from the courtyard and when his father tried to catch Sudarshan Mahakur, he had given 4-5 Bhujali blows upon him. His mother told this witness to flee away which he did and straightaway went to the house of his aunt Champa Mahakur and woke her up. He disclosed the entire incident to her and when she confronted Sudarshan Mahakur, she was told to flee away otherwise she would also be hacked to death. His aunt woke up the villagers and his uncle by brandishing the Bhujali threatened them that if anyone speaks about him, he will be done to death. When the villagers failed to arrange for a vehicle to take this witness to the hospital his uncles Shivdas Gawala and uncle Shankar Mahakur came from Musabani and made arrangements for his treatment at Dumaria hospital. He was referred to MGM Hospital where he was taken in an Ambulance and on seeing the nature of injury, he was referred to TMH. He was thrice operated upon and he had to remain hospitalized for a number of days. He has identified his signature in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement which has been marked as Exhibit-5. He has

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

identified his uncle in the Dock and stated that at the time of the incident he was having two Bhujalis.

In his cross-examination he has stated that in his uncle's house only his uncle and aunt stays. His father and his uncle used to do farming separately. It was not raining when the incident had occurred. It was a dark night and a CFL bulb was burning inside the room. In his statement before the Police as well as in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement he had stated about the accused catching hold of the shoulders of his sister. He had returned to his house from TMH after 15 days. They and his uncle used to regularly visit each other's house. Adjacent to his house are the houses of Tarachandra Rawat, Anil Patar and Badal Mahakur. His uncle had at first hit this witness with a Bhujali then his sister and thereafter his father.

16. P.W.11 (Santosh Anand Prasad) has stated that on 24.08.2017 he was posted as a Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Civil Court, Ghatsila and on the same day he had recorded the statement of Rajesh Mahakur u/s 164 Cr.P.C. This statement has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5/1.

17. P.W.12 (Rup Singh) has stated that at the time of the incident he was working at Haldipokhar. In the morning, he was informed by a relative that his uncle aunt and cousin sister have been murdered and Rajesh Mahakur has suffered injuries with a knife. When he went to the place of occurrence he had seen the dead bodies. He had come to know that Sudarshan Mahakur had committed such assault.

18. P.W.13 (Md. Quddish) was posted at Dumaria P.S. as Officer-in-Charge and on 06.07.2017 Raja Ram Mahakur had given a written report based on which Dumaria P.S. Case No. 08/2017 was instituted. He had taken over the investigation. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and inspected the place of occurrence. He had arrested Sudarshan Mahakur at Bhagabandh as he was trying to flee away. His confessional

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

statement was recorded, in which, he has confessed to have committed the murders. On search of his person two blood stained Bhujalis were recovered. He had inspected the place of occurrence, which is at village Khatpal tola, Mohangutu in the house of Gurucharan Mahakur. The house is made up of mud and tiles. In front of the main door is a big courtyard where a place of puja is located. All the doors are wooden except the door facing the southern side. Inside the room in the southern side is a cot where the dead body of Vimla Mahakur was lying. Underneath the other cot the dead body of Aalochna Mahakur was lying and between the two cots lay the dead body of Gurucharan Mahakur. In course of investigation, he had recorded the statements of Meghrai Tudu, Anil Patar, Parsuram Mahakur, Suraj Kumar Rawat and Roop Singh. All had supported the case of the prosecution. He had recorded the statement of Rajesh Mahakur at TMH. On 07.07.2017 he had recorded the confessional statement of Sudarshan Mahakur. He had received the FSL report and in course of investigation had also got the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the only eyewitness recorded. He had obtained the postmortem report of all the three deceased as well as the injury report of Rajesh Mahakur and in terms of the direction of his superior authorities had submitted charge sheet u/s 302/307 of the IPC. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-6. The endorsement in the written report is in his handwriting and bears his signature which has been marked as Exhibit-4/1. He has proved the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-7 with objection as well as the arrest memo which has been marked as Exhibit-8.

In his cross-examination he has stated that he had not made any station diary entry regarding his going to the place of occurrence after receiving the information. In course of investigation, he has prepared the arrest memo as well as the seizure list. On 06.07.2017 at 9:05 A.M. he had inspected the

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

place of occurrence and before 9:40 A.M. he had recorded the statements of Meghrai Tudu, Anil Patar, Parsuram Mahakur, Suraj Kumar Rawat and Roop Singh. He had prepared the inquest report but neither has he given a description of the same in the diary nor he had appended such report in the case diary. He had obtained the injury report of Rajesh Mahakur from Primary Health Centre, Dumaria. Prior to recording of the confessional statement of the accused he had seized the weapon. At the time of the arrest of the accused he had seen blood stains in his cloths. He had not appended the injury report of the accused in the case diary. He had also not seized blood-stained cloths of the accused. He had not seized blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence. The witness Anil Patar had not stated that Rajesh Mahakur had told him to save his parents and sister. The witness Parsuram Mahakur had not stated before him that while going to the place of occurrence he had seen Sudarshan Mahakur standing with a Bhujali and he slid back on seeing him. Meghrai Tudu had not disclosed that when he had gone to the place of occurrence, he had seen Rajesh Mahakur lying on the ground with injuries on his chest. He had also not stated that he had come to know about the incident from Rajesh. Sonaram Mahakur had not stated before him that while he was going towards the house of Gurucharan, Sudarshan was seen standing in the road with a Bhujali which was blood stained. He had also not stated that Rajesh Mahakur had disclosed about the involvement of his uncle. It is a fact that Rajesh Mahakur has stated that Sudarshan Mahakur had caught the hands of his sister Aalochna Mahakur. He in his statement had stated about his uncle piercing his stomach with a Bhujali. He had also stated that after assaulting his sister his uncle had assaulted his mother and thereafter his father.

Rajesh Mahakur had not stated that his mother asked him to flee away. He had not recorded the statement of the

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

wife of the accused Champa Mahakur. Rajesh Mahakur had stated that he had disclosed about the incident to Champa Mahakur. He had not stated that Shivdas Gawala and Shankar Mahakur had come in the night and taken him to Dumaria Government Hospital. He has proved his handwriting and signature in the inquest report, which has been marked with objection as Exhibit-x, x/i and x/ii.

In his cross-examination with respect to the inquest report he has deposed that the original copies of the inquest report were neither appended to the case diary nor the same was produced before the court.

19. The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he has denied his involvement in the incident.

20. Ms. Abha Verma, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has submitted that the conviction is based on surmises and conjectures. It has been submitted that all the witnesses have subsequently developed their case and brought within its fold involvement of the appellant. She has submitted that no motive has been established by the prosecution and the evidence of P.W.10 indicates that there was a cordial relationship between both the families who resided adjacent to each other. Champa Mahakur the wife of the appellant and to whom P.W.10 had rushed out was not examined by the prosecution. The same has rendered the evidence of P.W.10 uncorroborated and unconvincing. The only eyewitness to the occurrence is P.W.10 and, therefore, according to the learned counsel the trial court should have been circumspect in considering this evidence. Apart from being the solitary eyewitness he is also related to the deceased and, therefore, it was all the more necessary that his evidence is corroborated by the other witnesses. He has further submitted that according to P.W.10 the appellant was not mentally sound. Ms. Verma adds that the version of some of the witnesses indicates that the area

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

under Dumaria P.S. was an extremist infested area but such angle has neither been investigated by the Investigating Officer nor the learned trial court has considered the possibility of occurrence being the handiwork of the extremists. Ms. Verma has further submitted that as per the version of P.W.10 he had fled away after seeing the assault made by the appellant upon his sister and father and, therefore, he was not an eyewitness to the murder of his mother Vimla Mahakur which all the more makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.

So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it has been submitted that the mitigating circumstances have not at all been considered by the learned trial court. The case does not fall within the category of rarest of rare cases which fact has been overlooked by the learned trial court.

21. Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State has relied upon the evidence of P.W.10 as well as the circumstantial evidence as emanating from the evidence of the other witnesses regarding the presence of the appellant with Bhujali(s) while fleeing away and has submitted that the same leads credence and reliability in the evidence of P.W.10. The postmortem report corroborates the manner of assault upon the deceased and the injury report of Rajesh Mahakur is also corroborative to the manner of assault.

22. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records.

23. The star witness in the present case is Rajesh Mahakur who is the only eyewitness and who had also suffered grievous injuries on account of the assault committed upon him by the appellant. The prosecution case in fact primarily revolves around the evidence of P.W.10. In the case of "State of Maharashtra Vs. Dinesh" reported in (2018) 15 SCC 161,

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

while considering the evidentiary value of a solitary eyewitness it was held as follows:

"8. In Joseph v. State of Kerala, this Court has observed that where there is a sole witness, his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of other material on record. In State of Haryana v. Inder Singh, this Court has laid down that the testimony of a sole witness must be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court. In Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, this Court, after taking note of the aforementioned two judgments, observed that "the principles stated in these judgments are indisputable. None of these judgments say that the testimony of the sole eyewitness cannot be relied upon or conviction of an accused cannot be based upon the statement of the sole eyewitness to the crime. All that is needed is that the statement of the sole eyewitness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind of the Court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to commission of the crime and involvement of the accused in committing such a crime". It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement (Seeman v. State)."

24. The evidence, therefore, of a solitary eyewitness has to be accepted with caution and should be tested on the touchstone of the evidence of the other witnesses.

25. Based on the aforesaid principles we now consider the evidence of P.W.10. On a perusal of his evidence, it seems that P.W.10 has given a vivid description of the occurrence as it had unfolded. He was the first victim of an unprovoked onslaught unleased by the appellant. P.W.10 had got up from his sleep and saw the appellant holding the shoulder of Aalochna Mahakur. When this witness in spite of warnings given by the appellant not to shout continued with his tirade the appellant had caught hold of him and gave a Bhujali blow on his chest. This was followed by an assault by the appellant upon

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

Aalochna Mahakur and Gurucharan Mahakur with Bhujali. The evidence of P.W.10 indicates that he had not seen the assault committed by the appellant upon his mother Vimla Mahakur. The source of identification though it was a dark night according to P.W.10 was the CFL bulb burning inside. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.10 that it was only the appellant who had entered the house and save and except P.W.10 and his family members no one else were present and, therefore, clear inference can be drawn that it was the appellant who had also committed the murder of Vimla Mahakur the mother of P.W.10. P.W.2 and P.W.7 in their evidence have stated to have seen the appellant with Bhujali(s). While P.W.2 has stated that while going to the house from where some sounds were coming, he had seen the appellant standing with a tangi, P.W.7 had seen the appellant standing with two blood-stained Bhujalis. Though some of the persons were present at the house of Gurucharan Mahakur when P.W.2 and P.W.7 had reached the place of occurrence but they were not examined by the prosecution though the same would not slice off the reliability of the evidence of P.W.10; more so as apart from these two witnesses P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 have consistently stated about seeing the three dead bodies lying and P.W.10 being present in an injured condition. All these witnesses have unequivocally stated that P.W.10 had disclosed to them about the manner of occurrence and the role played by the appellant. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.7 had rushed to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident had occurred and, therefore, their evidence assumes considerable significance in order to corroborate the version disclosed by P.W.10. It also appears that the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit-5/1) of P.W.10 is clear and cogent on the point of the act of murder committed by the appellant and he has not wavered from the said statement in his evidence during trial.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

26. The other important aspect is the FSL report submitted by the Director, SFSL, Ranchi which has been marked as Exhibit-2 with the aid of Section 293 Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer (P.W.13) had seized two blood-stained Bhujalis from the possession of the appellant and a seizure list was duly prepared which has been marked as Exhibit-7. The report of the FSL clearly depicts the presence of human blood in both the Bhujalies seized by P.W.13. The same is another circumstance defining the role of the appellant in the murder.

27. An argument has been put forward by the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant that the incident was the handiwork of naxals. The same seems to be without any basis. In fact, P.W.3 and P.W.7 have clearly stated about the absence of extremists in the area in which the occurrence had taken place.

28. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that it was the appellant who was solely responsible in committing the murder of his brother Gurucharan Mahakur, sister-in-law Vimla Mahakur and niece Aalochna Mahakur.

29. So far as the sentence imposed upon the appellant is concerned, we may refer to the case of "Machhi Singh and Others versus State of Punjab", reported in (1983) 3 SCC 470:

"32. The reasons why the community as a whole does not endorse the humanistic approach reflected in "death sentence-in-no-case" doctrine are not far to seek. In the first place, the very humanistic edifice is constructed on the foundation of "reverence for life"

principle. When a member of the community violates this very principle by killing another member, the society may not feel itself bound by the shackles of this doctrine. Secondly, it has to be realized that every member of the community is able to live with safety without his or her own life being endangered because of the protective arm of the community and on account of the rule of law enforced by it. The very existence of the rule of law and the fear of being brought to book operates as a deterrent for those who have no scruples in killing others if it suits their ends. Every member of the community owes a debt to the

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

community for this protection. When ingratitude is shown instead of gratitude by "killing" a member of the community which protects the murderer himself from being killed, or when the community feels that for the sake of self-preservation the killer has to be killed, the community may well withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty. But the community will not do so in every case. It may do so "in rarest of rare cases" when its collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty. The community may entertain such a sentiment when the crime is viewed from the platform of the motive for, or the manner of commission of the crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime, such as for instance:

I. Manner of commission of murder

33. When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. For instance,

(i) when the house of the victim is set aflame with the end in view to roast him alive in the house.

(ii) when the victim is subjected to inhuman acts of torture or cruelty in order to bring about his or her death.

(iii) when the body of the victim is cut into pieces or his body is dismembered in a fiendish manner. II. Motive for commission of murder

34. When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness. For instance when (a) a hired assassin commits murder for the sake of money or reward (b) a cold-blooded murder is committed with a deliberate design in order to inherit property or to gain control over property of a ward or a person under the control of the murderer or vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust, or (c) a murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland.

III. Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime

35. (a) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath. For instance when such a crime is committed in order to terrorize such persons and frighten them into fleeing from a place or in order to deprive them of, or make them surrender, lands or benefits conferred on them with a view to reverse past injustices and in order to restore the social balance.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

(b) In cases of "bride burning" and what are known as "dowry deaths" or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation.

IV. Magnitude of crime

36. When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed.

V. Personality of victim of murder

37. When the victim of murder is (a) an innocent child who could not have or has not provided even an excuse, much less a provocation, for murder (b) a helpless woman or a person rendered helpless by old age or infirmity (c) when the victim is a person vis-a- vis whom the murderer is in a position of domination or trust (d) when the victim is a public figure generally loved and respected by the community for the services rendered by him and the murder is committed for political or similar reasons other than personal reasons.

38. In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh case will have to be culled out and applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposing of death sentence arises. The following propositions emerge from Bachan Singh case:

"(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.

(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the 'crime'.

(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.

(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.

39. In order to apply these guidelines inter alia the following questions may be asked and answered:

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?

(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?"

30. In the case of "Khushwinder Singh versus State of Punjab", reported in (2019) 4 SCC 415, it has been held as follows:

"14. Now, so far as the capital punishment imposed by the learned Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that, as such, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused is not in a position to point out any mitigating circumstance which warrants commutation of death sentence to the life imprisonment. In the present case, the accused has killed six innocent persons, out of which two were minors -- below 10 years of age. Almost, all the family members of PW 5 were done to death in a diabolical and dastardly manner. Fortunately, or unfortunately, only one person of the family of PW 5 could survive. In the present case, the accused has killed six innocent persons in a pre-planned manner. The convict meticulously planned the time. He first kidnapped three persons by way of deception and took them to the canal and after drugging them with sleeping tablets, pushed them in the canal at midnight to ensure that the crime is not detected. That, thereafter he killed another three persons in the second stage/instalment. Therefore, considering the law laid down by this Court in Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), the case would fall in the category of the "rarest of rare case" warranting death sentence/capital punishment. The aggravating circumstances are in favour of the prosecution and against the accused. Therefore, striking a balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we are of the opinion that the aggravating circumstance would tilt the balance in favour of capital punishment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no alternative punishment suitable, except the death sentence. The crime is committed with extremist brutality and the collective conscience of the society would be shocked. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the capital punishment/death sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court and confirmed by the

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

High Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore, we confirm the death sentence of the accused imposed by the learned Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court while convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC."

31. The aggravating and mitigating factors have been enumerated in the case of "Deen Dayal Tiwari versus State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 237 in the following manner:

"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 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 commuted the death penalty to life

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

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."

32. In the present case no doubt it is true that the appellant had committed the brutal murder of his brother, sister-in-law and niece but it also appears as per the evidence of P.W.10 who is the only eye-witness to the occurrence that when he had woken up on hearing the alarm of his sister, he had seen the appellant holding the shoulders of his sister. It would seem that the appellant was attempting to commit an immoral act with his niece and the subsequent acts of committing assault upon four persons appears to be as a resultant effect of the alarm raised by his niece which attracted the attention of P.W.10 who was the first present to have been assaulted with a Bhujali and the resistance put up by the niece and the parents of P.W.10 were dealt with by making assault upon them with Bhujalis. There does not seem to be any criminal antecedent of the appellant and there is nothing on record to indicate that his conduct would not lead to reformation and rehabilitation. Such mitigating circumstances would lead us to conclude that the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant would be harsh moresoever when the present case does not come within the category of rarest of rare cases.

33. In such circumstances, therefore, we modify the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21369-DB )

34. The reference is accordingly answered and consequently the conviction of the appellant dated 29.11.2018 passed by Sri Ram Bachan Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No. 216/2018 is affirmed while the sentence is modified to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life.

35. This appeal stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence imposed upon the appellant.

36.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Dated, the 30th day of July, 2025.

Alok/NAFR