Jharkhand High Court
Bhola Sao vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 12 June, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15203-DB )
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 54 of 1999(R)
(Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 04.02.1999 (sentence passed on 06.02.1999) passed by
Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned 8th A.J.C., Ranchi in S.T. No.
213/1997.)
1. Bhola Sao, S/o Damodar Sao.
2. Awadh Kishore Sao, S/o Ghura Ram Sao.
Both residents of Vill- Argora, P.S.- Argora, Dist.- Ranchi.
... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 59 of 1999(R)
1. Sukhdeo Sahu, S/o Mana Ram.
2. Subodh Sahu, S/o Mana Ram.
3. Basudeo Sahu, S/o Mana Ram.
All residents of Vill- Argora, P.S.- Argora, Dist.- Ranchi.
... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
----
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Suraj Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
----
CAV on : 16/01/2025 Pronounced on : 12/06/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 54 of 1999(R), Mr. Suraj
Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 59 of 1999(R) and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned
A.P.P.
2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment,
they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence dated 04.02.1999 (sentence passed
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15203-DB )
on 06.02.1999) passed by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned 8th
Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 213/1997,
whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for
the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life.
4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Prabhu
Kumar recorded on 22.11.1996 in which it has been alleged that
while the informant was in his house along with his mother and
sister-in-law, all the accused persons variously armed had come
to his house and while abusing the inmates of the house, they
had started searching for Prakash Sahu. The informant told the
accused persons that Prakash Sahu is not in the house at which,
Sukhdeo Sahu threatened of not sparing Prakash Sahu. It has
been stated that all the accused persons went towards Pahan Toli
where Prakash Sahu had taken a government pond on settlement
for pisciculture and he was also residing nearby. The informant
and his brother Sambhu Kumar went towards the pond to inform
Prakash Sahu that the accused persons were searching for him.
However, they did not find Prakash Sahu at the designated place.
In the meantime, the informant and Sambhu Kumar heard a
sound of alarm coming from the house of Ramesh Oraon and as
they ran towards the source of such distress call, they found
Prakash Sahu being assaulted by the accused persons as a result
of which, he fell down. The accused persons thereafter, fled away.
The informant and his brother informed their maternal uncle
Deena Sahu about the incident and all three rushed to the place
of occurrence where they found Prakash Sahu lying dead with
several marks of injury on his person.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Doranda (Argora) P.S.
Case No. 324/1996 was instituted under Section 302/34 IPC.
On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and
after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court
2|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15203-DB )
of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No. 213/1997.
Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302/34
IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as seventeen
witnesses in support of its case:
P.W.1 Prabhu Kumar is the informant, who has stated that
at around 9:30-10:00PM on 22.11.1996, the accused persons
armed with weapons had forced themselves inside his house and
started searching for Prakash. When they were told that Prakash
is not at home, the accused persons threatened that wherever
they will get hold of Prakash, they will commit his murder. The
accused persons scuffled with his parents and after issuing a
threat, went towards Pahan Toli. He and his brother had followed
the accused persons to Pahan Toli near the pond where Prakash
had constructed a hut. He could not find Prakash there, but he
had heard a cry of distress and when he went to the source of
such alarm, he heard Basudeo saying that the person is dead.
He had hid himself in an alley. All the accused persons thereafter
fled towards the east. He had gone to the house of his maternal
uncle where he met his parents and when everyone returned to
the place of occurrence, the dead body of Prakash was found
lying in a pool of blood. The Police had thereafter come and had
recorded his fardbeyan. He has proved his signature in the
fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1. The accused
persons were annoyed with his brother since he had taken the
pond on settlement.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the tank which
was settled in favour of his brother was a government tank. The
distance between his house and the tank would be half a
kilometer. Even when the accused persons were fleeing away, he
out of fear, did not raise any alarm. None of the persons staying
3|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15203-DB )
in the vicinity of the place of occurrence had come out from their
house. There was no criminal case instituted against Prakash.
P.W.2 Sambhu Kumar has stated that on 22.11.1996 at
9:45PM, he was in his house sleeping. His parents, brother and
sister-in-law were also present in the house. At that point of time,
Basudeo, Subodh, Sukhdeo, Bhola, Awadh and Ram Sahu had
come and they were variously armed. When Sukhdeo had asked
about the whereabouts of Prakash, his brother had stated that
he was not in the house. Basudeo had scuffled with his mother
and wanted to know about Prakash. The accused persons had
threatened them to find out Prakash as he will be done to death.
After issuing threats, the accused persons went towards Pahan
Toli. He and his brother Prabhu had gone towards the pond
where they heard a cry of alarm, and as they rushed towards the
said place, they had seen all the six accused persons having
assembled. Sukhdeo disclosed that the murder has been
committed after which the accused persons fled away. He and
his brother had gone to the house of his maternal uncle and all
three had come to the place of occurrence where he saw his
brother lying dead. After the Police had come, the fardbeyan of
his brother Prabhu was recorded.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen
the accused persons committing assault upon Prakash. When he
had reached the place of occurrence, they had said that Prakash
is dead and thereafter, they had fled away. He does not know
about the dispute between the accused and the deceased. He had
not raised any alarm earlier at his house or at the place of
occurrence and had also not disclosed anything to the villagers.
P.W.3 Dina Ram Sahu has stated that he had gone to
Pahan Toli with Prabhu and had seen the dead body of Prakash.
He has proved his signature on the inquest report which has
been marked as Exhibit-1/1. He has proved the inquest report
4|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15203-DB )
which has been marked as Exhibit-2.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that there was no
dispute between the accused and the deceased with respect to
the pond. There was no previous dispute also between both the
sides. The Police had not recorded his statement.
P.W.4 Kunti Devi has stated that on 22.11.1996 at
9:45PM, she was in her house when Basudeo, Sukhdeo, Ram,
Bhola, Awadh and Subodh, who were variously armed entered by
kicking open the door and started asking about the whereabouts
of her husband from her brother-in-law Prabhu and Shambhu.
She and her mother-in-law had come out from another room and
asked the accused persons about the reason for searching her
husband at which the accused persons replied that they will
teach him a lesson for demanding extortion. After using
expletives, the accused persons went towards the pond at Pahan
Toli. Both her brothers-in-law followed them. She also left with
her parents-in-law for the said place. After some time, there was
a call of distress and when they rushed to the said spot, they
found the accused persons having assembled there. Basudeo
had stated that the person has died. Sukhdeo asked the other
accused persons to flee away. Her husband was found lying on
the ground in an injured condition with blood coming out from
his person. The pond was settled in the name of her husband.
The settlement paper has been marked "X" for identification.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had not
seen the assault, though she had seen the accused persons
fleeing away. No case was filed against her husband. She has
deposed that Prabhu, Shambhu and her mother-in-law had
reached the place of occurrence along with her. Prabhu and
Shambhu had reached the place of occurrence just a little prior
to her reaching the said place.
P.W.5 Kalawati Devi has stated that it was a moonlit night
5|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15203-DB )
when Basudeo, Sukhdeo, Awadh, Ram, Subodh and Bhola had
come to her house in search of Prakash. When she asked about
the reason for searching Prakash, it was told that Prakash would
be done to death. After threatening her, the accused persons
went towards Pahan Toli. She had asked her sons Prabhu and
Shambhu to inform Prakash. Both her sons went ahead, while
she and the others brought up the rear. When they reached
Pahan Toli, they heard a cry of alarm and on going to the said
place, the accused persons were seen fleeing away. Her son was
lying at the said place in a pool of blood. On seeing the condition
of her son, she had become unconscious. Later on, she came to
know that her son has died.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that there is no
enmity between both the sides. The villagers had no objection of
Prakash being involved in catching and selling fish.
P.W.6 Mehandi Kumari has stated that on 22.11.1996 at
7:30PM, she had seen Prakash and Basudeo quarrelling and she
had pacified the warring parties. She thereafter, went home and
started conversing with the children. After about half an hour,
somebody knocked at the door and on opening the door, she
found three persons standing with sword and balua. They had
entered into her house and started searching for Prakash Sahu.
Having failed to locate Prakash Sahu, all the three persons left
and after half an hour she had heard a distress call and when
she opened the door, she had seen a fight going on. She, out of
fear, went inside her house and closed the door. The Police had
later on called her and she found Prakash Sahu lying in a pool
of blood. She had not seen the accused persons before the
incident.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she stays in
Solanki and she does not know the name of the accused.
P.W.7 Parmanand Ram has proved his signature on the
6|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15203-DB )
seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1.
P.W.8 Sarju Ram Sahu has proved his signature on the
seizure list of seized blood-stained soil which has been marked
as Exhibit-1/2.
P.W.9 Triloki Mahto has proved his signature on the
Inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/3.
P.W.10 Manrakhan Ram has been tendered by the
prosecution.
P.W.11 Delta Oraon has stated that in the evening of
21.11.1996, he had seen the quarrel between Prakash and
Basudeo. They were pacified by Mehandi Kumari. In the night,
he came to know that Prakash has been murdered.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of
the quarrel he was in his house. His statement was recorded by
the Police. The distance between the place of occurrence and his
house is about 4 feet. Prakash had constructed a hut near the
pond and he used to frequently reside in the hut.
P.W.12 Birbal Oraon has been tendered by the
prosecution.
P.W.13 Manbahal Ram Sahu has stated that on
22.11.1996 he was in his house when at 9:45PM, the accused
variously armed had come to his house and started searching for
his son Prakash who was not in the house. The accused persons
scuffled with his wife and threatened to commit the murder of
Prakash. They had left subsequently in search of Prakash. He
has stated that he had sent his sons Prabhu and Shambhu to
warn Prakash about the intentions of the accused. He along with
his wife and daughter-in-law also went in search of Prakash. At
a distance of about 10 feet from his house, he had heard the
distress call of Prakash at which he rushed to the said place and
heard Basudeo saying that the person is now dead and all the
accused persons thereafter fled away. His sons Prabhu and
7|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15203-DB )
Shambhu were standing in the alley. He had sent his sons to
inform his brother-in-law and after he reached, all went to the
place where Prakash was lying dead. Prakash had taken
settlement of a pond and he used to stay near the pond.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not
stated before the Police that his wife and sister-in-law had
informed him about the accused persons coming to his house
and they were laced with various weapons. He had also not stated
that the information of the murder of Prakash was given to him
by his son at 2:00A.M. There was never any enmity between his
family and Sukhdeo and Basudeo. There was a dispute with
respect to catching of fish which he had disclosed to the Police.
P.W.14 Shrawan Kumar has proved his signature in the
fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1/4. He has also
proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked
as Exhibit-1/5.
P.W.15 Nakul Dubey was posted as a Sub-Inspector of
Police at Argora P.S. and on 22.11.1996 at 10:30P.M., he had
recorded the fardbeyan of Prabhu Kumar. He had taken over the
investigation of the case. In course of investigation, he had
inspected the place of occurrence and had also recorded the
statement of the witnesses. He had prepared the inquest report
which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. The place of
occurrence is at Pahan Toli in the unmetalled road going from
east towards the west. Blood in good quantity was found at the
said place. About 150 yards from the said place, the pond is
situated. He had obtained the post-mortem report which has
already been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. The fardbeyan has
been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. The formal FIR and the
seizure list have been proved and marked as Exhibit-5 and 6
respectively. He has also proved his signature in the second
seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-6/1. On
8|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15203-DB )
completion of investigation, he had submitted chargesheet.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not
recovered any weapons from the place of occurrence. As per the
First Information Report, Prabhu and Shambhu are the only
eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The deceased was an accused in
Case No. 269/1996. The wife of the deceased had stated before
him that the incident was informed to him after Prabhu and
Shambhu came back from the place of occurrence. The said
witness had not stated that she had gone to the place of
occurrence with her mother-in-law, Prabhu and Shambhu. The
witness Kalawati had stated that she was informed about the
incident by Prabhu and Shambhu and thereafter, she had gone
to the place of occurrence with her daughter-in-law Kunti Devi
and Prabhu and Shambhu.
P.W.16 Lakshman Ram had signed on the seizure list as a
witness.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that no weapons
were recovered in his presence.
P.W.17 Dr. Ajeet Kumar Choudhary was posted as a Tutor
in the Department of Forensic Medicine, RMCH, Ranchi and on
23.11.1996, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of
Prakash Sahu and had found the following:
(A) Incised wounds:-
(i) 11 x 2 inch x bone deep on left cheek
root of nose and forehead cutting the
underlined bone completely.
(ii) 9 x 2 cm x bone deep over left parieto
area petal region of head cutting the
underlined bones and grey matter.
(iii) 8 x 2 cm x soft tissue of left lateral neck
upper part.
(iv) 16 x 3 cm x bone deep over left fronto
9|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15203-DB )
lateral neck cutting the soft tissues,
blood vessels, trachea, esophagus and
4th cervical vertebra completely. On
inspection of the wound, one tissue tag
is projecting indicating minimum two
blows.
(v) 18 x 4 cm into bone deep over left
shoulder lateral side cutting the head
of left humorous and left scapular
bone.
(B) Stabb wounds: -
(i) 3 x 1½cm x cavity deep over back of
right abdomen. The weapon passes
through the abdominal wall and
perpetrates the small intestine.
(ii) 3 x 1cm x cavity deep over front and
lower part of right chest. The weapon
passes through the 7th intercostals
space diaphragm and enters into liver.
(iii) 3 x 1cmx cavity deep on the front of the
abdomen right side lower part. The
weapon passes through the abdominal
wall and perforates the small intestine
at two places. There is foreface of blood
and blood clot on the abdominal cavity.
It was opined that death was caused due to the above-
mentioned injuries. He has proved the post-mortem report which
has been marked as Exhibit-3.
6. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the
commission of the murder of Prakash Sahu.
10 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15203-DB )
7. The defence has examined one witness in support of its
case:
D.W.1 Sita Ram Yadav has stated that Basudeo Sahu was
employed in 36 NCC Battalion. He had brought the Attendance
Register to the Court in a sealed cover. The signature of Basudeo
Sahu on 22.11.1996 as a mark of attendance is found in the
register. He has proved the signature of Basudeo Sahu which has
been marked as Exhibit-A. The Attendance Register reveals that
Basudeo Sahu was present on duty at Dhanbad till 8:00PM.
8. It has been submitted by Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar,
learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.
54 of 1999(R) that there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence.
The claim of P.W.1 and P.W.2 of having witnessed the incident of
murder has been discarded by the learned trial court which has
mostly relied upon the evidence of Mehandi Kumari (P.W.6), but
her evidence suffers from contradictions and incongruities. The
evidence of P.W.6 has been contradicted by P.W.15 (I.O.). There
are only circumstantial evidences which are not of such nature
which would lead to conviction of the appellants.
9. Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 59 of 1999(R) apart from adopting the
argument advanced by Mr. A.A. Kumar, has submitted that the
deceased was a wanted person on account of his criminal
antecedent from which it can be inferred that he had a number
of enemies.
10. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. has submitted
that apart from there being several eyewitnesses to the
occurrence, P.W.6 and P.W.11 had seen the quarrel between
Prakash and Basudeo. In fact, several of the witnesses have
stated of having seen the appellants fleeing away from the place
of occurrence.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
11 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15203-DB )
and have also perused the trial court records.
12. The fardbeyan of Prabhu Kumar (P.W.1) reveals that he and
his brother Shambhu Kumar had witnessed the assault
committed by the appellants upon his brother Prakash Sahu
which led to his death. However, such eyewitness account seems
to have been considerably diluted in course of their evidence
recorded as P.W.1 and P.W.2. As per their testimony, they had
gone to Pahan Toli where the appellants were also destined and
they had heard a cry of alarm after which the appellants were
seen fleeing away. The descriptive tenor of the evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.2, in view of this frailty appearing on the face of record,
has been elaborately considered by the learned trial court and
while discarding such evidence, the following conclusion has
been arrived at:
"Therefore, I do not belive the evidence of
p.w.1 and 2 on the point of identification of
accused persons at the p.o. by voice and
identification by face."
13. The learned trial court has placed excessive reliance on the
evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.11, more particularly to P.W.6. P.W.6
has stated about a quarrel between the deceased and Basudeo a
few hours prior to the incident of murder and it was she, who
managed to separate both the parties. She has stated about some
unknown persons forcibly entering into her room in search of
Prakash and after half an hour, she had heard a sound of alarm.
She had opened the door and found an assault going on which
frightened her and she closed the door. This witness has not
identified any of the assailants and a connection has been sought
to be made with the entire episode of quarrel involving one of the
appellants Basudeo Sahu. P.W.11 has merely stated about the
quarrel between the deceased and Basudeo which was pacified
by P.W.6. By no stretch of imagination, it can be assumed, more
12 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15203-DB )
so, in absence of any supportive evidence that it was the
appellants who had committed the murder of Prakash Sahu. The
settlement of the tank in favour of Prakash Sahu, as per the
prosecution, is the cause of heartburn of the appellants and the
motive for the murder. But at the same time, some of the
witnesses have stated that there was no animosity between both
the parties. The exaggeration in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2
as narrated by the learned trial court seems to have percolated
down to P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.13, but their presence at the time
of assault has been completely decimated by P.W.1 and P.W.2.
In absence of any eyewitness and in absence of any identification
of the appellants as the assailants or as the persons fleeing away
from the place of occurrence creates a grave doubt over the case
projected by the prosecution. The benefit of doubt, in such
circumstances, would therefore, accrue to the appellants.
14. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made
hereinabove, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 04.02.1999 (sentence passed on 06.02.1999)
passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned 8th Additional
Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 213/1997.
15. These appeals are allowed.
16. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from
the liability of their bail bonds.
17. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 12th Day of June, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
13 | P a g e
