Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment And Order Of ... vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 12 June, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15360-DB )
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 239 of 1997 (R)
Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
15.09.1997 (sentence passed on 16.09.1997) passed by Sri G. K. Verma,
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S. T. No. 96 of
1994.
---
Bijay Lal @ Guddu s/o Nageshwar Prasad, resident of T.S.-K2/103, 2
Baridih, PS Sidhgora, Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
---
For the Appellant : Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.
---
Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---
C.A.V. on - 24.03.2025 Pronounced on - 12.06.2025
Per, R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Ms. Kavita Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 15.09.1997 (sentence passed on 16.09.1997)
passed by Sri G. K. Verma, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Jamshedpur in S. T. No. 96 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the
appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
302/34, 452/34 and 342/34 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C.,
rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence under Section 452/34
I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence under Section
354/34 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fard beyan of Anu
Kumari @ Anuradha Kumari recorded on 24.07.1992 in which it has been
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15360-DB )
stated that about a month back the informant had come to the quarter of
her maternal uncle - Ram Bharosa Singh and Sukhnandan Singh and was
taking care of the children of Ram Bharosa Singh. It has been stated that
on the orders of Ram Bharosa Singh and his wife, the informant used to
go to Baridih market for purchasing vegetables and medicines. It has
been alleged that during the visit of the informant to the market, Guddu
@ Bijay Lal and D. Shankar Rao used to make obscene gestures to her. It
has been stated that last night, the informant after her dinner had gone to
sleep in a room along with her cousins while Ram Bharosa Singh and his
wife slept in another room. The uncle of the informant - S. N. Singh had
gone for his duty. The door of the room of the informant was bolted
from outside by Ram Bharosa Singh. It has been further alleged that in
between 2:30 - 2:45 P.M., the accused persons had come inside the room
of the informant, started touching her body and asked her to come with
them. When the informant raised an alarm, Ram Bharosa Singh came
running at which both the accused with knives in their possession
repeatedly stabbed him and when the wife of Ram Bharosa Singh raised
an alarm, the accused persons had fled away. The neighbours who had
assembled had taken Ram Bharosa Singh to the hospital where he was
declared dead.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sidgora P. S. Case No. 64 of
1992 was instituted under Sections 448, 307, 302/34 of I.P.C. 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 S. T. No. 96 of 1994. Charges were framed
under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 452/34 and 354/34 of I.P.C. which was
read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 3 witnesses in
support of its case.
5. P.W. 1 - Badri Nath Singh did not support the case of the
prosecution and was accordingly declared hostile by the prosecution.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15360-DB )
6. P.W. 2 - Shashi Bhushan Singh has stated that on 24.07.1992
at 5:00 A.M., he had received an information that his brother Ram
Bharosa Singh has been murdered at which he and his family members
had rushed to the house of Ram Bharosa Singh where his wife had
disclosed about the accused persons committing the murder of her
husband and outraging the modesty of Anu Kumari. Anu Kumari on
being asked had stated similarly. He has proved his signature on the
Inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit 1. The Inquest report
has been marked 'X' for idenfication.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that it takes about 10-15
minutes to cover the distance from his house to the place of occurrence.
He was informed about the occurrence by his neighbours, the name of
whom he does not remember.
7. P.W. 3 - Gaya Singh has stated that he had come to know at
about 3:00 A.M. that his nephew Ram Bharosa Singh had been murdered.
When he went, he found Ram Bharosa Singh lying in a pool of blood.
The wife of Ram Bharosa Singh had disclosed the name of both the
accused as assailants.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was informed about
the incident by Malti Devi and Anu Kumari. Anu had disclosed that the
accused persons used to tease her from before.
8. Seven witnesses have been examined as court witnesses.
9. C.W. 1 - Jitendra Singh has stated that on 24.07.1992 when
he returned from duty to his house in the morning, he had come to know
that Ram Bharosa Singh had been murdered. When he went to the
quarter of Ram Bharosa Singh, he had found blood in the Verandah. He
had come to know from Malti Devi and Anu Kumari that the murder
was committed by Guddu Lal and D. Shankar Rao. Anu Kumari was
admitted to a hospital since she had suffered a knife injury.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the police has not
recorded his statement.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15360-DB )
10. C.W. 2 - Dr. A. K. Choudhary was posted as a Tutor in
MGM Medical College and on 24.07.1992, he had conducted the autopsy
on the dead body of Ram Bharosa Singh and had found the following:
"(A) Incised wounds -
(i) Vertically placed incised wound over medial aspect of left elbow, 8
cm x 2 cm x muscle deep.
(ii) Over left side of part of chest, vertically placed 3 cm x 1 cm x chest.
(iii) Over bridge of nose, transversely placed 1 cm x .25 cm x skin deep.
(iv) Over right side back of lower chest, transversely placed, 3cm x 1
cm x chest. Chest cavity containing 1 liter of blood on left side.
Posterior surface of lower lose of right lung punctured spleen
punctured over lateral surface. Abdominal cavity containing 200
c.c. of blood on left side."
The cause of death was opined to be due to haemorrhage and
shock. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by sharp cutting
weapon. The post mortem report has been proved and marked as
Exhibit 2.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the injuries are possible
by means of knife.
11. C.W. 3 - Malti Devi is the wife of the deceased Ram Bharosa
Singh who has stated that the incident is of 23.07.1992 at about 2:00-2:30
A.M. She was sleeping in her room with her husband while her children
and Anu Kumari were sleeping in another room. When the children
raised an alarm, she and her husband went to the said room and found
Bijay Lal and Shankar Rao inside the room with knives in their
possession. She had also seen Bijay Lal scuffling with Anu Kumari.
Bijay Lal had inflicted a knife blow on her husband and Shankar Rao
who was hiding behind a drum came out and he also inflicted a knife
blow upon her husband. Both had made indiscriminate assault upon her
husband with knives and thereafter had fled away. By the time, her
husband was taken to the hospital, he was already dead. Both the
accused had gone to her house to elope with her niece. Her husband had
reprimanded both the accused persons on their conduct and attempt to
entice away his niece.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15360-DB )
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had not seen the
accused persons prior to the date of occurrence. Bijay Lal had inflicted a
knife blow on Anu Kumari. Her husband had not disclosed about the
accused persons as indulging in teasing of Anu Kumari. She did not
have a scuffle with Bijay Lal. In trying to save her husband and Anu
Kumari, her head struck the door of a room. She was not treated for the
injury, she had suffered. She has deposed that she knew Shankar Rao
and his family as they reside in the nearby building. Neither she nor her
husband had made any complaint to the police regarding the teasing of
Anu Kumari by both the accused. Her husband had reprimanded the
accused one day prior to the incident.
12. C.W. 4 - Nawal Kishore Singh has stated that on 23.07.1992
at about 2-3:00 P.M., he was sleeping along with his younger brother and
sister Anu Kumari. He woke up on hearing a cry of alarm and saw Bijay
Lal pulling the hands of her sister and when her sister raised a cry of
alarm, Shankar Rao hid himself behind a drum. By that time, his parents
had arrived. Bijay Lal had inflicted a knife blow on her and when his
father tried to save his sister, Bijay Lal indiscriminately assaulted him
with knife. Shankar Rao had come out from behind the drum and
stabbed his father with knife several times. After committing the assault,
both the accused persons fled away. His father was taken to TMH, but
he did not survive.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the quarter has two
rooms and a Verandah. His statement was recorded by the police. He
knows Bijay Lal from before the occurrence.
13. C.W. 5 - Sukh Nandan Singh has stated that in the morning,
he had come to know about the murder of Ram Bharosa Singh and when
he went to his quarter, he had found blood splattered there. He has
further stated that Anu Kumari was admitted in the hospital as she had
suffered knife injuries.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that when he had gone to the
quarter of Ram Bharosa Singh, he had stayed there for half an hour.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15360-DB )
14. C.W. 6 - Murlidhar Singh had proved the formal FIR which
has been marked as Exhibit 2. The hand-writing of the Officer-Incharge
of Sidgora Police Station on the formal FIR has been proved and marked
as Exhibit 1/a. Fard beyan has been marked 'X' for identification.
15. C.W. 7 - Shyam Narain Sharma was posted as a Sub-
Inspector of Police at Sidgora Police Station and in the night of
23/24.07.1992, when he was on patrolling duty, he had met the Officer-
in-charge Naresh Sahay at Baridih Chowk who had disclosed that an
information has been received that a person residing in quarter no.
T.S.K.-2-15 has suffered knife injury. On reaching the said quarter, it was
found that Ram Bharosa Singh and his niece Anu Kumari had suffered
knife injuries and both have been sent to T.M.H. In T.M.H., the doctors
had disclosed that Ram Bharosa Singh has been declared dead and Anu
Kumari is being treated. He has prepared the Inquest report which has
been marked as Exhibit 3. He has proved the fard beyan which has been
marked as Exhibit 4. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as
Exhibit 5 with objection. After taking over the charge of investigation, he
had recorded the re-statement of the informant and had also inspected
the place of occurrence which is quarter no. T.S.K.-2-15 in Tube Colony.
Near the said quarter, there is quarter no. T.S.K.-2-30 in which the
accused D. Shankar Rao resides. On the north eastern side is the quarter
of Guddu @ Bijay Lal. He had recorded the statements of other witnesses
and had also made efforts to apprehend the accused persons. Even on
search of the houses of the accused, the knives could not be recovered.
On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that when he had gone to the
place of occurrence at night, Malti Devi had not disclosed the name of the
assailants. He had not received any injury report of Anu Kumari from
T.M.H. The witness - Naval Singh had stated that on alarm, he had
awakened but out of fear he had not opened his eyes.
16. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the murder of Ram
Bharosa Singh.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15360-DB )
17. It has been submitted by Ms. Kavita Kumari, learned
counsel for the appellant that the incident had taken place in the dead of
night and none of the prosecution/court witnesses have stated about any
source of light and hence the identification of the appellant as one of the
assailants seems highly improbable. It has been submitted that Anu
Kumari who is the informant and the centre of the entire episode of
assault has not been examined by the prosecution. Ms. Kavita Kumari
has referred to the evidence of C.W. 3 while submitting that she had not
seen the assailants prior to the incident and the identification of the
appellant once again stands in the realm of grave doubt. In fact C.W. 7
has stated that when he had gone to the place of occurrence in the night,
C.W. 3 had not disclosed the name of the assailants.
18. Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned A.P.P. has stated that C.W. 3 and
C.W. 4 are the eye-witness who have categorically stated about the
assault committed by the appellant with a knife which finds support
from the autopsy report.
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and have also perused the trial court records.
20. It is an admitted fact that the incident had taken place in the
dead of night when the appellant and another accused had entered into
the room of Anu Kumari with an intention to forcibly take her away with
the obvious desire of satisfying their carnal instincts. Anu Kumari
objected and raised an alarm leading to Ram Bharosa Singh and Malti
Devi (C.W. 3) arriving at the place of occurrence and resistance to the
criminal conduct of the accused was dealt with swiftly ending the life of
Ram Bharosa Singh. Though, the informant has not been examined by
the prosecution, but the narrative made in the fard beyan of Anu Kumari
has been aptly and convincingly supported by C.W. 3 and C.W. 4. Both
are eye-witnesses to the occurrence and both have stated about the
manner in which the assault had taken place. The learned counsel for the
defence has sought to highlight the contradictions in the evidence of
C.W. 3 qua the identification of the appellant, but such ambiguity has
been firmly set at rest by the evidence of C.W. 4. Even the I.O. (C.W. 7)
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15360-DB )
while describing the place of occurrence has noted that the quarters of
both the accused are in the vicinity which all the more clarifies the points
raised by the defence, so far as the point of identification by the appellant
is concerned. As regards the source of light as raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant, no question to that effect has been put to any of
the eye-witnesses. Moreover, the incident had taken place in the colony
which generally does not have any dearth of source of light. The post
mortem report reveals the brutality of assault which was committed and
the same corroborates the ocular evidence. The entire aspects of the
matter have been properly dealt with by the learned trial court and
having found no reason to differ with the same, we dismiss this appeal.
21. Since the appellant is on bail, he is directed to surrender
before the learned trial court immediately and forthwith to serve out the
rest part of his sentence.
22. Pending I.A., if any stands closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 12th day of June, 2025
R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3
