Jharkhand High Court
Gurucharan Sinku vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17341-DB )
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1018 of 2016
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
04.07.2016 (sentence passed on 08.07.2016) passed by Sri Pradeep
Kumar Srivastava, learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2011]
---------
1. Gurucharan Sinku, S/o Late Jamdar Sinku
2. Biren Sinku, S/o Late Dhanurjay Sinku
3. Badal Sinku, S/o Late Dhanurjay Sinku
All are residents of Village Aasanpaat, P.O. & P.S.
Majhgaon, District- West Singhbhum .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
---------
C.A.V. Order
Order No. 12/Dated the 1st July, 2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel for
the appellants and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl. P.P. for the
State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 04.07.2016 (sentence
passed on 08.07.2016) passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,
learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions
Trial No. 224 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the appellants
have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the
IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with a
fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine
to undergo R.I. for one year.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of
Purna Munda, in which, it has been stated that the marriage of the
sister of the informant namely, Putli Sinku was solemnized with
Dhanurjay Sinku about fifteen years back. It has been stated that
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17341-DB )
about two days back the informant had come to Aasanpaat village
from Orissa to meet his sister. On 05.06.2011, after having lunch
the informant and his family members were taking rest while the
brother-in-law of the informant, Dhanurjay Sinku had gone to
Champua market to bring some essentials. At 4:00-5:00 P.M. while
the informant and his sister were in the house and the children
were playing nearby the son of Dhanurjay Sinku from his first wife,
namely, Badal Sinku @ Sanjay Sinku, Biren Sinku @ Rajiv Sinku
and the brother of the brother-in-law of the informant Gurucharan
Sinku had come with spade and lathi and started searching for
Rajesh Sinku, the nephew of the informant. When Rajesh Sinku
could not be traced out the accused persons starting committing
assault upon the sister of the informant and when the informant
objected, he was also subjected to assault. When the sister of the
informant tried to flee away to save herself the accused persons
abused her. Incidentally the brother of the informant reached home
at the same time and seeing the accused persons trying to commit
assault upon his wife, he tried to save her but the accused persons
turned their attention to the brother-in-law of the informant and
committed his murder by assaulting him with danda, spade and
stones. The reason for the occurrence is that the accused persons
wanted the partition of their ancestral property which was being
resisted by Dhanurjay Sinku.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Majhgaon P.S.
Case No. 11/2011 was instituted u/s 302/34 of the IPC. 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 Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2011.
Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302/34 of the IPC
which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as eight
witnesses in support of its case.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17341-DB )
5. P.W.1 (Purna Munda) is the informant who has
identified his signature in the fardbeyan which has been marked as
Exhibit-1. His sister and brother-in-law were murdered on the 5th.
The murders were committed by Badal Sinku, Biren Sinku and
Gurucharan Sinku. Badal had a spade, Biren had a lathi while
Gurucharan was merely standing.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that
Gurucharan had not committed the assault. When he was
assaulted, he went away and returned on the next day when he
came to know about the murders. He had fled away when his sister
was being assaulted. He had not informed anyone about the
incident on the day it had taken place. He does not know about the
cause of dispute.
6. P.W.2 (Rajesh Sinku) has stated that Badal and
Biren are his stepbrothers while Gurucharan is his uncle. His
mother was assaulted by Badal with an axe, Biren with a spade
and Gurucharan with a stone. His father had returned from the
market and he was also murdered. The murder of his mother was
done besides the house of Narsingh.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he, his
two siblings and his mother were in the house when the accused
persons came and started committing assault. He was not bodily
harmed by the accused persons. The accused persons were
searching for him. He had gone to the house of Munda and when
he returned home with the Munda the assault had already taken
place by that time. He had not stated before the Police that the
murder of his mother had taken place near the house of Narsingh.
He has also not stated that Krishna Munda had seen the
occurrence.
7. P.W.3 (Krishna Sinku) is the Munda of village
Aasanpaat who has proved his signature in the seizure list of
blood-stained stone, bamboo and earth which has been marked as
Exhibit-2. He has also proved his signature on the inquest report of
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17341-DB )
Dhanurjay Sinku and Putli Sinku which have been marked as
Exhibit-3 and 4 respectively.
8. P.W.4 (Budhram Sinku) has stated that he had
witnessed the murder of Dhanurjay Sinku and Putli Sinku. Biren
had assaulted Putli with a danda and spade while Badal and
Gurucharan were exhorting Biren to continue with the assault.
Putli was chased and assaulted. When Dhanurjay who was
returning from the market tried to save his wife he was also
assaulted. Both had died due to the assault. He has proved his
signature on the seizure list which has been marked as
Exhibit-2/1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that his
statement was recorded by the Police. It is not a fact that he had
seen Dhanurjay and Putli being assaulted when Dhanurjay had
returned from the market. His house is at a distance of 400 feet.
The house of Narsingh Pingua is at the place where the dead body
was lying.
9. P.W.5 (Dr. Ratan Soren) was posted as a Medical
Officer at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and on 06.06.2011 he had
conducted autopsy on the dead body of Putli Sinku and had found
the following:
(1) Rigor Mortis half present in upper limb and fully
present in lower limb.
(2) External Injuries:
(a) Lacerated wound over the left side of the face
below left ear size-1" x ½" with fracture of mandible.
(b) Lacerated wound over left parietal region of
skull size 1"x ½" x bone deep.
(c) Sharp cut left side of parietal area size 1" x ¼"
x skin deep.
(d) Sharp cut left side of chest above nipple size
1" x ½" x ½".
(e) Sharp cut over mid of sternum size 1" x ½" x
½".
(f) Lacerated wound below the left arm 2" x 2" x
½".
On dissection
Head and neck- As mentioned above, brain matter
lacerated, blood clot present over cranial cavity.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17341-DB )
Thorax- Left side third to seventh rib fracture, blood
present in thoracic cavity, Heart-empty, Lungs-intact.
The cause of death was opined to be due to the
above-mentioned injuries caused by hard and sharp object. He has
proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as
Exhibit-5.
On the same day he had conducted autopsy on the
dead body of Dhanurjay Sinku and had found the following:
(1) Rigor Mortis was present upper half and lower full.
(2) External Injuries:
(a) Lacerated wound over right side of eyebrow
size-2" x ½" x ¼" with blood clot.
(b) Lacerated wound over right side of parietal
area skull 3" x ½" x deep to the cranial cavity.
(c) Crush injury of the face, damaging lip, nose,
teeth and mandible.
(d) Lacerated wound left side below ear 1" x ½"
x skin deep with blood clot.
(e) Lacerated wound left shoulder 1" x ½" x
fracture of clavicle.
On dissection
Head and neck- As mentioned above.
Thorax- Ribs intact, Heart-Empty both chamber,
lungs-pale.
Abdomen- Stomach- Digested food materials and Hadia
like substance present.
The cause of injury was opined to be due to the
above-mentioned injuries caused by hard and blunt substance like
lathi and blunt part of spade. He has proved the post-mortem
report which has been marked as Exhibit-5/1.
10. P.W.6 (Nihar Sinku) has stated that on the date of
occurrence at 4:00 P.M. she was in the house along with her
younger sister Sharmila and mother Putli Sinku. Her father had
gone to the market while her brother had gone to attend his duty.
Her stepbrothers Biren and Badal and her uncle Gurucharan
entered into her house in the evening and was opening a box which
was objected by her mother at which Biren had slapped her mother
and Badal took her outside and assaulted her on her head and
abdomen with a spade. Gurucharan was standing and watching
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17341-DB )
the assault. Her father was returning from the market precisely at
the time when the incident was unfolding and Biren had pushed
her father from the bicycle and thereafter Biren and Badal started
committing indiscriminate assault upon her father. She was also in
the radar of the accused persons who were intending to commit
assault upon her but she managed to escape and went to the
house of the Munda. She does not know the reason for the
incident. She stays in the house of her maternal uncle.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that her
brother had not seen the assault. When her mother was being
assaulted, she had fled away to the house of the Munda. She was
also chased by the accused persons when they had entered into
her house. She and her sister stayed at night in the house of the
Munda and in the next morning she came back to her house and
had seen the dead bodies of her parents. Several persons reside in
the vicinity of her house. There was a commotion at the time of the
occurrence.
11. P.W.7 (Pascal Toppo) was posted as a Junior
Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in Majhgaon P.S. and on
18.07.2011 he was given the charge of investigation of Majhgaon
P.S. Case No. 11/2011. He had perused the case diary and
thereafter sent the seized blood-stained soil and stone to Forensic
Science Laboratory, Ranchi. He had submitted charge sheet u/s
302/34 IPC.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that after
taking over investigation he had neither recorded the statement of
the witnesses nor had he examined the place of occurrence. He had
not conducted Test Identification Parade of the accused persons.
12. P.W.8 (Kasamudding Ansari) was posted as an
Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in Majhgaon P.S. and on
06.06.2011 on a verbal direction he had gone to the place of
occurrence at Aasanpaat village where he had recorded the
fardbeyan of Purna Munda. He has proved the fardbeyan which
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17341-DB )
has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. The endorsement in the
fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/2. He had
thereafter taken over the investigation. He has proved the formal
FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-6 and the inquest report of
Dhanurjay Sinku and Putli Sinku which have been marked as
Exhibit-7 and 7/1 respectively. He had recorded the restatement of
the informant and inspected the place of occurrence which is at
village Aasanpaat in the open space in front of the mud tiled house
of the deceased. The second place of occurrence is the metalled
road going from Paatasai to Kantagila. He had seized from the
place of occurrence blood-stained earth, blood-stained spade,
blood-stained stone and blood stained danda made of bamboo and
had prepared a seizure list which has been proved and marked as
Exhibit-8. He had thereafter recorded the statements of the
witnesses. The post-mortem report of both the deceased were
received by him. On his transfer he had handed over the
investigation to the Officer-in-Charge, Majhgaon P.S.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had
not done any investigation regarding the land dispute between
both the sides. The witness Rajesh Sinku had not stated before
him that his mother was murdered near the house of Narsingh and
that Kisun Munda had seen the occurrence. The witness Krishna
Sinku had not stated anything about the occurrence. He has
further stated that Budhram Sinku is not an eye-witness to the
occurrence.
13. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s
313 Cr.P.C., in which, they have denied their complicity in the
commission of the murder of Dhanurjay Sinku and Putli Sinku.
14. Submission has been advanced by Mr. D.K.
Chakraverty, learned counsel for the appellants that there are no
eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 is the informant whose
evidence is contrary to the contents of his fardbeyan. The evidence
of P.W.2 as an eyewitness has been demolished by the evidence of
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17341-DB )
his sister P.W.6 who has specifically stated that P.W.2 at the time
of the occurrence had gone for his work. So far as P.W.4 is
concerned, P.W.8 (I.O.) has deposed that P.W.4 is not an
eyewitness which indicates that P.W.4 has developed his case
during trial.
15. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl. P.P. for the State
has submitted that P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6 are the eyewitnesses
who all have named the appellants as the assailants. The post-
mortem report also corroborates the manner of assault attributed
to the appellants.
16. We have heard the learned counsel for the
respective sides and have also perused the Trial Court Records.
17. The fardbeyan of P.W.1 seems to reveal that P.W.1
had witnessed the entire incident right from the appellants
entering into the house with weapons in their possession and the
role played by each of the appellants have been demarcated in the
fardbeyan. The informant was also said to have been assaulted but
the prosecution has failed to bring on record any injury report in
support thereof. In his evidence during trial, he seems to have
given a contrary version to the effect that when he was assaulted,
he fled away from the house and returned on the next morning.
Surprisingly neither P.W.1 had disclosed about the incident to
anyone nor he had sought any assistance in order to save his sister
and brother-in-law. He has also not stated as to where he spent
the night. The evidence of P.W.1 therefore cannot be said to be an
eyewitness account. The absence of P.W.1 at the time of the
incident is further fortified by the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6.
P.W.2 is the son of the deceased who claims to have seen the
assault but as per the evidence of his sister (P.W.6) he was not
present in the house as he had gone out to work. P.W.2 in his
cross-examination has stated that he had fled away to the house of
the Munda when the assault had started and when he returned
back with the Munda the assault had come to an end. P.W.3 is the
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17341-DB )
Munda who has stated that his house is at a distance of 1
Kilometer from the house of the deceased. P.W.3 is silent regarding
the information of the assault purportedly given to him by P.W.2.
This has been clarified by P.W.8 (I.O.) to the extent that P.W.2,
P.W.6 and Sharmila Sinku had not come to his house on the date
of occurrence and informed him about the incident. P.W.6 has
deposed that once her mother was assaulted, she had fled away to
the house of P.W.3 but such fact has not been stated by P.W.6
before P.W.8 (I.O.). Such contradiction in the evidence of P.W.6
cannot make it reliable and trustworthy. The only independent eye-
witness seems to be P.W.4 but in his cross-examination, he has
denied to have seen the incident. P.W.8 has also stated that P.W.4
is not an eyewitness to the occurrence.
18. The entire gamut of evidence we have enunciated
above categorically indicates that there are no eyewitnesses to the
assault and the prosecution has failed to examine the neighbors of
the deceased. There seems to be an existence of a dispute between
the appellant nos. 2 and 3 who are the sons of the deceased
Dhanurjay Sinku from his first wife and Dhanurjay Sinku on
account of the refusal on the part of Dhanurjay Sinku to partition
the ancestral land. Such enmity cannot be ruled out to be the
cause of implication of the appellants.
19. On an overall conspectus of the case, we come to a
conclusion that the prosecution has miserable failed to prove its
case beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently, we allow this
appeal and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 04.07.2016 (sentence passed on 08.07.2016)
passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned Sessions Judge,
West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2011.
20. This appeal is allowed.
21. Since the appellant nos. 2 and 3 are in custody
they are directed to be released immediately and forthwith if not
wanted in any other case.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17341-DB )
22. As regards the appellant no. 1 is concerned, since
he is on bail he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
23. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 1st day of July, 2025.
A. Sanga /-
