Jharkhand High Court
Murlidhar Tanty vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17447-DB )
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 717 of 2016
(Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 03.02.2016 (sentence passed on 05.02.2016) passed by
Sri Rajnandan Rai, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 187/2010.)
Murlidhar Tanty, S/o Late Lal Mohan Tanty, R/o Vill & P.O.-
Gardi Sai, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist. West Singhbhum.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
----
For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Deomani, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
----
Dated : 01/07/2025
CAV JUDGMENT
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 03.02.2016 (sentence passed on
05.02.2016) passed by Sri Rajnandan Rai, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No.
187/2010 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and has been
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of
Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for 6 months.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Purnima
Tanty recorded on 25.07.2010 in which it has been stated that
she has two sisters and two brothers and all are married, except
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17447-DB )
her. Her father, after retirement from the Army, was working in
TISCO at Noamundi. After the death of her father, her mother
was receiving the pension. Her two brothers were living
separately with their respective families. It has been stated that
the mother of the informant did not share the amount she
received towards pension with anyone and she had also not given
anyone a share of the landed property. The mother of the
informant used to stay alone. It has been alleged that the younger
brother of the informant, Murlidhar Tanty, used to demand the
pension and his share of the landed property and he also used
to pester the elder brother of the informant. The elder brother of
the informant, out of fear, started staying at Noamundi with his
family. The informant sometimes used to come over and stay with
her mother. Murlidhar Tanty always used to torture the mother
of the informant that if the share in the pension as well as the
property is not given to him, someday he will commit her murder
and he also used to abuse and commit assault upon his mother.
It has been alleged that on 24-07-2010 at about 4:30PM, the
informant was washing clothes in the tubewell in front of the
house of her mother, when Murlidhar Tanty came with a Daoli
and confronted her mother by asking as to why she has planted
paddy saplings on the land tilled by him. It has also been alleged
that Murlidhar Tanty became enraged at the reply given by his
mother and after abusing her, gave a daoli blow on her forehead.
The accused had once again assaulted his mother on the neck
which ultimately resulted in the death of the mother of the
accused and the informant. The informant was also chased by
Murlidhar Tanty, but she managed to hide and save herself.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jagannathpur P.S. Case
No. 33/2010 was instituted under Section 302 IPC. On
completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted and after
cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of
2|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17447-DB )
Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 187/2010. Charge
was framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC which
was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses
in support of its case:
P.W.1 Jagdish Jerai has stated that on 24-07-2010 at
4:30PM, he was planting saplings of chilly in his garden and
adjacent to the said place, Khiro Dai was washing clothes near
the tubewell when Murlidhar came near the tubewell with a daoli.
Murlidhar started a quarrel with his mother Khiro and in course
of the same, Murlidhar assaulted Khiro Devi on her head and
twice on her neck as a result of which, Khiro fell down on the
ground and died. Murlidhar was quarrelling with his mother as
he wanted a share in the pension as well as in the landed
property.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that earlier also
Murlidhar used to quarrel with his mother. There is no house in
between his house and the house of the accused. At the time of
the incident, his wife Majmali Pingua and son-in-law Ram Munda
were also present. Nobody else was present. There was a loud
sound coming at the time of the incident, but nobody had come
to the place of occurrence. He was trying to prevent the assault.
The incident was also witnessed by the wife of Sitaram Chatar
and others. No Panchayat was held regarding the dispute
between the accused and the deceased.
P.W.2 Purnima Tanty is the informant and the daughter of
the deceased who has stated that on 24-07-2010 at 4:30PM, she
was standing near the tubewell and her mother Khiro was
washing clothes. Her brother Murlidhar armed with a daoli
had come and started quarrelling with her mother for share in
the land and money. Murlidhar had questioned her mother as to
3|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17447-DB )
why she had planted saplings when he had ploughed his fields
at which, his mother replied that it was for his benefit. The
accused Murlidhar was threatening to commit murder and when
she protested she was also threatened. The accused had
thereafter, twice assaulted his mother with the daoli and the
accused had also made an attempt to commit bodily injury to
her, but she somehow managed to save herself. Her mother
walked for some distance and thereafter fell down and died. The
Police had come on the next day and had recorded her fardbeyan.
She has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as
Exhibit-1.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she is
unmarried. She never used to take money or other essential
items from her mother, but her mother, the accused and his wife
insisted as she was unmarried to construct a house and have
some land. Her mother had given her Rs 40,000/-. The accused
used to regularly quarrel with her mother as he wanted a share
in the pension and landed property. Her elder brother stays with
his family at Noamundi and his son, who is married used to stay
in the house of her mother but was having a separate kitchen.
The accused used to abuse after having liquor which was quite
frequently.
P.W.3 Parmanand Das has stated that on 24-07-2010 in
the evening, he returned from outside when Sandeep Tanty and
Purnima Tanty had disclosed that Muralidhar Tanty had
assaulted Khiromani Tanty with a daoli which resulted in her
death. He had heard that Muralidhar had committed the murder
as he wanted the pension amount.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen
the incident.
P.W.4 Guruwa Munda has stated that on 24-07-2010 he
had come to his in-laws' place at Gardi Sai. He was planting chilly
4|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17447-DB )
in the field of his father-in-law Jagdish Jerai, while the mother
of Muralidhar was bathing in the tubewell when Muralidhar
came and started talking with his mother which soon turned ugly
and Muralidhar assaulted his mother on the neck and forehead
with a 'bankia' and he thereafter, caught hold of his sister
Purnima, but she managed to flee away. The mother of
Muralidhar died later on. His statement was recorded by the
Magistrate. He has proved his signatures on such statements
which have been marked as Exhibits- 2 and 2/1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he knows
Muralidhar Tanty since the year 2006. Sometimes he and
Muralidhar used to sit, but Muralidhar never discussed any
family matters. He was staying at his in-laws' place for about 2-
3 months prior to the incident. Purnima Tanty stays at Gardi Sai.
The tubewell is situated at a distance of 2-4 feet from the place,
where he was planting saplings of chilly. Purnima and her
mother were present near the tubewell. In the garden, Jagdish
Jerai and his wife were present.
P.W.5 Sunita Jerai has stated that on 24-07-2010 at
4:30PM, she was in the courtyard of her house. Khiromani Tanty
was washing clothes in the tubewell situated just in front of her
courtyard. Muralidhar Tanty came and started quarrelling with
his mother and thereafter, assaulted Khiromani with a daoli on
her head and neck as a result of which she died.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she and the
children were standing. Her husband was not in the house on
that day. Besides her, Jagdish Jerai was also present. Murali
used to stay with his mother and the family of Murali also used
to reside there.
P.W.6 Sandeep Tanty has stated that on 24-07-2010 at
4:30PM, he was standing in front of his house when he saw
Muralidhar Tanty coming with a daoli in his hand. He, out of
5|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17447-DB )
fear, fled away towards the jungle. Later on, he came to know
that his grandmother has been murdered by the accused person.
After the Police had come, an inquest report was prepared. He
has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been
marked as Exhibit-3. The Police had recovered a daoli from the
possession of Muralidhar Tanty and a seizure list was prepared.
He has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been
marked as Exhibit-4. His statement was recorded by the
Magistrate. He has proved his signature on the said statement
which has been marked as Exhibit-5.
P.W.7 Ramcharitra Ram was posted as a Sub-Inspector of
Police in Jagannathpur P.S. and on 25-07-2010 at 6:30AM, he
had heard a rumor that at village Gardi Sai a mother has been
murdered by her son. In order to verify the sanctity of such
rumor, he had gone to the place of occurrence with police force
and recorded the fardbeyan of Purnima Tanty. The fardbeyan has
already been marked as Exhibit-1. He has proved his
handwriting and signature on the endorsement which has been
marked as Exhibit-6. The endorsement has been marked as
Exhibit- 6/1. The signature of Prem Kumar Das has been proved
and marked as Exhibit-6/2. He had inspected the place of
occurrence which is the tubewell in the courtyard and kitchen
garden of Jagdish Jerai situated in village Gardi Sai. He has
proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-7.
He has proved the seizure list of an iron daoli seized from the
possession of the accused which has been marked as Exhibit-8.
The dead body was sent for post-mortem to Sadar hospital,
Chaibasa. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked
as Exhibit-9. He had got the 164 Cr.P.C. statements recorded of
Guruwa Munda and Sandeep Tanty. He had recorded the
confessional statement of the accused. The seized daoli was sent
to the Forensic Science Laboratory. He had recorded the
6|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17447-DB )
statement of witnesses and had submitted chargesheet.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that there was a
dispute as the mother of the informant did not give her children
a share of the pension as well as the property. The informant
never stayed with her mother on a permanent basis. In course of
investigation, it has come that the accused used to pester his
brother and sister about the pension of his mother.
P.W.8 Dr. Binod Kumar Pandit has stated that late Dr.
Dhananjay Kumar Mishra was his colleague and well known to
him and on 25.07.2010, Dr. Mishra had conducted autopsy on
the dead body of Khiro Tanty and had found the following:
(A) External:-
(i) Posterior part of neck cut, cutting
Atlanta-axial joint, spinal cord,
trachea, esophagus, all vessels and
nerves of neck. Margin of wound sharp.
Size of laceration 3" x 1"x 2". Anterior
part of neck skin only remained intact.
Laceration is blood stained indicating
massive external hemorrhage. Wound
is antemortem in nature.
(i) A laceration on the lateral side of left
eye 2" x 1" x 1", margin of wound
sharp, wound is blood stained, wound
is antemortem in nature.
(B) Internal:-
Heart empty, stomach contains semi
solid material, lungs pale, liver pale,
spleen- pale, viscera-ned.
The cause of death was opined to be due to massive external
hemorrhage due to the above-mentioned external injury no. (i)
and (ii) caused by hard and blunt substance such as 'Dabi'. He
7|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17447-DB )
has proved the post-mortem report which is in the handwriting
of Dr. Dhananjay Kumar Mishra and bears his signature which
has been marked as Exhibit-13.
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 murder of Khiro Tanty.
6. It has been submitted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani,
learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was instituted after
a delay of one day and no plausible explanation has been
submitted by the prosecution for such delay. It has been
submitted that the evidence of the witnesses is contradictory to
each other and hence cannot be relied upon. The evidence of
P.W.1 reveals that at the time of the incident apart from him, his
wife and son-in-law were present at the time of the assault and
the son-in-law has been examined as P.W.4, who has stated
about the presence of the deceased and informant as well as
P.W.1 and his wife. However, the informant, who has been
examined as P.W.2 has not stated about the presence of any of
the witnesses which is contrary to what has been stated by P.W.1
and P.W.4.
7. Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. has submitted
that there are several eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the
assault committed by the appellant upon his mother has been
corroborated in the post-mortem report.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and have also perused the trial court records.
9. The appellant had a long-standing dispute with his mother
(deceased) as he persistently demanded a share in the landed
property and pension which she received, on account of the
death of her husband. The deceased had resisted the torture of
the appellant all along and never parted with either the landed
property or with her pension to either of her children. As per
8|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17447-DB )
P.W.5, the appellant stayed with his mother along with his family
while as per P.W.7 (I.O.), he never stayed on a permanent basis.
Though witnesses have stated about the constant demand made
by the appellant, but the same had not resulted in any complaint
anywhere including the panchayat. The incident of assault which
acted as a spark to the already burning embers is of the deceased
planting seedlings on the land which was ploughed by the
appellant. The resultant effect of confronting the deceased by the
appellant regarding such act of the deceased was a quarrel which
ensued and a subsequent assault upon the deceased by the
appellant with a daoli. It seems that the simmering rage, on being
deprived of a share in the landed property and pension,
reached a tipping point and the life of the mother of the appellant
was snuffed out of her. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the
witnesses to the assault and though some contradiction appears
with respect to the presence of each other in their evidence, but
an overall view would indicate that there cannot be any doubt
that it was the appellant who had committed the assault upon
his mother with a daoli and the post-mortem report further
enhances the evidence of the eyewitnesses.
10. A sequel to the above finding would lead us to conclude that
there was a provocation on the part of the deceased as she had
planted paddy saplings in the land ploughed by the appellant
and her consistent refusal to partition the landed properties. The
evidence of the informant (P.W.2) shows the softer side of the
appellant as it was the appellant and his wife who supported the
deceased to give some land to P.W.2 to construct a house as she
was unmarried pursuant to which the deceased had given Rs.
40,000/- to P.W.2. The entire facets of the case convincingly
point to the assault having been committed by the appellant on
account of a long-standing dispute and the quarrel which ensued
on the date of the occurrence and the act of the appellant can be
9|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17447-DB )
inferred to be an intention to cause death of Khiromani Tanty
which would entail a conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC.
The conviction is accordingly modified to one under Section 304
Part I IPC. The appellant is in custody since 26-07-2010, i.e., is
about 15 years. The sentence is, therefore, modified to the period
already undergone.
11. This appeal stands disposed of with the afore-mentioned
modification in the conviction and consequent sentence imposed
upon the appellant to the period already undergone.
12. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(AMBUJ NATH, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 1st Day of July, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
10 | P a g e
