Jharkhand High Court
Gyan Prakash Sundi Son Of Jai Narayan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 July, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:19326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.881 of 2019
Gyan Prakash Sundi son of Jai Narayan Sundi, resident of
village Lonjo, Niche Toli, P.O. and P.S. Sonua, District West
Singhbhum.
----- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ----- Respondent
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Amrita Banerjee Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. A.K. Tiwary, A.P.P.
-------
CAV JUDGMENT
Dated: 16th July 2025
R.Mukhopadhyay,J. Heard Ms. Amrita Banerjee Singh, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned APP.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 30.05.2019 passed by Sri
Ramakant Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. Case No.318 of 2008(S), whereby
and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 / 34 I.P.C and has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a
fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo
additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbayan of
Ganga Ram Sundi recorded on 10.07.2008 in which it has been
stated that the informant has three brothers; the informant, Jai
Narayan Sundi and Shibu Singh Sundi. On 09.07.2008 at 4.00
p.m., the son of the informant namely Bablu Sundi @ Saluka
Sundi had gone to the house of Jai Narayan Sundi to discuss
about the partition of ancestral property with the mother of the
informant. After some time Jai Narayan Sundi came to the house
of the informant and disclosed that Gyan Prakash Sundi
(appellant), the son of Jai Narayan Sundi and Bablu Sundi are
fighting with each other. The brother of the informant thereafter
hurriedly went away which aroused a suspicion in the mind of
the informant and when he went near the house of Jai Narayan
Sundi, he had seen the appellant fleeing away. The door was
locked and the lock was broken open with the help of a spade
and on entering the informant had found his son lying dead on
the floor. There were marks of injury on his person. The murder
of the son of the informant took place on account of the dispute
regarding the partition of land.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sonua P.S. Case
No. 29 of 2008 was instituted under Section 302 / 34 I.P.C. On
completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against
Jai Narayan Sundi and Gyan Prakash Sundi (appellant) showing
them to be the absconders. After cognizance was taken, the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered
as S.T. No. 318 of 2008. After the accused Gyan Prakash Sundi
was apprehended by the Police, a supplementary case record
being S.T. No. 318 of 2008(S) was opened. Charge was framed
against the accused under Section 302 / 34 I.P.C, 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 7
witnesses in support of its case.
5. P.W.1 Shibu Singh Sundi has stated that the incident
is of 11 years back. The murder of Bablu Sundi was committed
by Gyan Prakash Sundi and Jai Narayan Sundi with an axe. Jai
Narayan Sundi had come to the house of Gangaram Sundi and
disclosed that Gyan Prakash Sundi and Bablu Sundi are
fighting. He and the others had gone to the house of Jai Narayan
Sundi where he found Bablu Sundi dead and Jai Narayan Sundi
and Gyan Prakash Sundi having fled away. The Police, on being
informed, had come and had prepared an inquest report. He has
proved his signature in the inquest report which has been
marked as Exhibit-1. He has also proved his signature on the
seizure list of blood-stained earth which has been marked as
Exhibit-2. He has proved his signature in the Fardbayan which
has been marked as Exhibit-3.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not
witnessed the assault.
6. P.W.2 Gangaram Sundi is the informant and the
father of the deceased Bablu Sundi. It was around 4.00 p.m. His
son had gone to the house of Jai Narayan Sundi to discuss about
some land related matters. When he returned from his field, his
wife had informed him that Bablu Sundi has been murdered in
the house of Jai Narayan Sundi. He along with the villagers had
gone to the house of Jai Narayan Sundi where he found the door
locked from outside and both Jai Narayan Sundi and Gyan
Prakash Sundi having absconded. After breaking open the lock,
when he entered inside, he found the dead body of Bablu Sundi
lying inside the house. There were signs of injury on the neck
and cheek. In the next morning, Police had come and had
recorded his Fardbayan.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not
seen the incident. The Police had recovered the axe.
7. P.W.3 Sachin Gagrai has stated that on coming to
know about the murder of Bablu Sundi, he had gone to the
house of Jai Narayan Sundi where he had seen the dead body of
Bablu Sundi. He has proved his signature on the inquest report
which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. He has also proved his
signature on the seizure list of blood-stained earth, which has
been marked as Exhibit-2/1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had
heard about the incident from Gangaram Sundi.
8. P.W.4 Mecho Sundi is the mother of the deceased who
has stated that she was in her house when Jai Narayan Sundi
came to her house and disclosed that Gyan Prakash Sundi and
he have murdered Bablu Sundi with an axe and his dead body is
lying in his house. When she went to the house of Jai Narayan
Sundi, she found her son lying dead and there were marks of
injury on his neck and cheek. She had informed her husband
who had also come. After committing the murder, both the
accused had fled away.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that the house
of Gyan Prakash Sundi is one house away from her place. She
was informed about the incident by her daughter-in-law
Chandmuni. The Police had not recovered the axe which was
used in the murder.
9. P.W.5 Chandmuni Sundi is the wife of the deceased
who has stated that she had seen the dead body of her husband
in the house of Jai Narayan Sundi. It was Jai Narayan Sundi
who had disclosed to her that he and Gyan Prakash Sundi had
committed the murder of her husband.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that it was Jai
Narayan Sundi who had disclosed that it was Gyan Prakash
Sundi who had committed the murder. The Police had not seized
the axe which was used in the assault.
10. P.W.6 Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha was posted as a Medical
Officer at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and on 10.07.2008, he had
conducted autopsy on the dead body of Saluka Sundi @ Bablu
Sundi and had found the following:-
External Injuries:- Sharp cutting bleeded wound present
right side of face below and lateral to the right pinna.
Size (i) 2" x ½" x ½". (ii) 3" x ½" x ½". Sharp
cutting wound in the neck region 2" x ½" x 2" deep to
thorax.
Internal Injuries:- Thorax- No rib fracture.
Lungs - Intact but congested.
Heart - empty.
Abdomen - Stomach undigested food material
present.
Time since death - 12 to 48 hours because rigor
motise present in both limbs.
The cause of death was opined to be due to
haemorrhage as a result of the multiple injuries caused by sharp
cutting instrument. He has proved the post-mortem report which
has been marked as Exhibit-4.
11. P.W.7 Ganauri Paswan was posted as a Sub-Inspector
of Police in Sonua P.S and on 10.07.2008, he had heard of a
rumour that a person has been murdered at village Lonjo. After
making a station diary entry, he had reached the place of
occurrence where he found the dead body of a person lying
inside a room. He had recorded the Fardbayan of Gangaram
Sundi at the place of occurrence itself. He has proved the inquest
report which has been marked as Exhibit-5. He has proved the
seizure list of blood-stained earth which has been marked as
Exhibit- 6. He had recorded the restatement of Gangaram Sundi
and had also inspected the place of occurrence which is at village
Lonjo, Nichetola, Sundisai in the house of Jai Narayan Sundi
which is a one-room mud house. The dead body of Bablu Sundi
was found in this room. There were marks of injury on the cheek
and neck of the deceased and blood was found splattered on the
ground. The house of Gangaram Sundi was at a distance of 300
yards from the place of occurrence. He had recorded the
statements of Shibu Singh Sundi and Sachin Gagrai. The body of
Bablu Sundi was sent to Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa for autopsy.
He has proved the Fardbayan and the formal F.I.R which have
been marked as Exhibit-7 and 8 respectively. In course of
investigation, he had recorded the statements of Mecho Sundi,
Chandmuni Sundi and Ram Singh Gagrai. He had arrested Jai
Narayan Sundi and had recorded his confessional statement.
The confessional statement has been proved and marked as
Exhibit-9. He had obtained the post-mortem report of Bablu
Sundi and had sent the blood-stained earth for forensic
examination. On completion of investigation, he had submitted
charge sheet showing Gyan Prakash Sundi as an absconder.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that despite his
best efforts, the murder weapon could not be recovered.
12. The statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C in which he has denied his complicity in the
murder of Bablu Sundi.
13. It has been submitted by Mrs. Amrita Banerjee Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant that there are no witnesses to
the occurrence. The evidence of the prosecution also seems to be
laced with ambiguities, especially with respect to the manner of
information received regarding the murder of Bablu Sundi. There
is a wide disparity in the evidence of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 who
are the parents and wife of the deceased. It has been submitted
that even the murder weapon was not recovered by the Police.
The entire case of the prosecution is based on weak
circumstantial evidence.
14. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P has submitted
that it was on the disclosure of the accused Jai Narayan Sundi
that the dead body was recovered from the house where the
present appellant being the son of Jai Narayan Sundi was also
an inmate. The appellant had absconded for more than a decade
which further more intensifies the charge against him. He has
submitted that the prosecution has also been able to prove the
motive which led to the murder of Bablu Sundi.
15. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and have also perused the trial court records.
16. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the
occurrence and the entire case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence. In the Fardbayan the informant (P.W.2)
had stated about Jai Narayan Sundi coming to his house and
disclosing that the appellant and Bablu Sundi are fighting with
each other and this information led to the discovery of the dead
body in the house of the appellant. This version of the informant
has been corroborated by P.W.1. P.W.2 is the informant who has
stated that when he returned from his field, his wife (P.W.4) had
disclosed that the appellant and his father had committed the
murder of Bablu Sundi. However, P.W.4 in his deposition has
submitted about her coming to know of the incident from her
daughter-in-law (P.W.5) while P.W. 5 has stated about knowing
the incident from what had been stated to her by Jai Narayan
Sundi. P.W.2 has given a different version with respect to the
knowledge he had got regarding the incident. In fact, both the
accused were separately tried and there is a marked difference in
the evidence of the witnesses, particularly the parents and wife
of the deceased in both the trials. Despite such discrepancies,
what cannot be lost sight of is of the body of Bablu Sundi having
been recovered from inside the house of the appellant. Since it is
clear that Jai Narayan Sundi was the person who had informed
about the fighting between the appellant and the deceased, the
complicity of Jai Narayan Sundi in the murder has already been
ruled out by us in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.368 of 2013 and the
charge narrows down to the present appellant. There are strong
circumstances emanating from the evidence that a fight had
ensued between the appellant and the deceased which resulted
in the appellant committing assault upon the deceased with an
axe. The motive is a land dispute. The appellant and the deceased
were cousin brothers. It can therefore be easily gathered that on
account of such land dispute the assault had been committed by
the appellant. The post-mortem report reveals that only two
injuries were found on the person of the deceased on his cheek
and neck. This would further enhance the probability of the
assault being committed at the spur of the moment. In such
circumstances the conviction would be appropriate under
Section 304 Part-1 of the Indian Penal Code.
17. We, therefore, modify the conviction of the appellant
under Section 304 Part-1 of I.P.C and consequently sentence the
appellant to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
18. This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid
modification in the conviction and sentence awarded to the
appellant.
19. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s)
closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Shamim/-
