Jharkhand High Court
Gurucharan Koda @ Chamu Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 March, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1350 of 2018
(Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
21.12.2016 (sentence passed on 22.12.2016) passed by Sri Manoj
Kumar Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 96/2010.)
1. Gurucharan Koda @ Chamu Das, S/o Chaitan Koda @ Deke.
2. Mansingh Koda @ Poto, S/o Guru Koda.
Both residents of Patahatu, P.O. + P.S. Jagannathpur, Dist.-
West Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
...... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ...... Respondent
-------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
------
Dated: 11/03/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 21.12.2016 (sentence passed on
22.12.2016) passed by Sri Manoj Kr. Singh, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No.
96/2010, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been
convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC
and 201/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under
Section 302/34 IPC and imprisonment for three years and a fine of
Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 201/34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Jina Ram
Koda recorded on 25.02.2010 in which it has been stated that he
has one son and three daughters. The son of the informant,
namely, Nandlal Koda used to work in Tankura Crusher. On
23.02.2010, he had come to his house. It has been stated that the
son of the informant, on 24.02.2010, had gone to Murgapada at
Village Katepada from where he did not return in the night. On
25.02.2010, a boy had come and informed the informant that the
dead body of his son is lying in village Gutusai. On such
information, the informant had gone and seen the dead body of his
son. The informant had come to know that on account of a land
dispute, Tangua Sinku, Choy Sinku, Gurucharan Koda and Man
Singh Koda had committed the murder of his son.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jagannathpur P.S. Case
No. 13/2010 was instituted under Section 302/201 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 S.T. No. 96/2010. Charge was
framed against the accused under Section 302/34 IPC and 201/34
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 nine witnesses in
support of its case.
P.W.1 Mangal Singh Koda has stated that on 24.02.2010, he
was going to Katepada, where the game of Murugapada was going
on and he had met Gurucharan, Nandlal and Man Singh Koda. He
thereafter left for his in-laws' place in the evening. Since it was
night, he was going through an agricultural field. He has stated
that near the peepal tree, he had seen Gurucharan, Nandlal and
Man Singh fighting amongst themselves. He had heard Nandlal
pleading for his life. He had identified both the accused in dock as
the persons who had committed the murder. When he rushed to
the said place, Gurucharan Koda gave him two slaps and he had
seen a knife in the hand of Gurucharan Koda. Both the accused
had threatened him not to disclose the incident to anyone. He had
thereafter, seen both the accused throwing the dead body of
Nandlal in the well. Gurucharan had thereafter taken him home
and once again warned him not to disclose the incident to anyone.
He thereafter left for his work.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that out of fear, he had
not disclosed the incident to anyone for one month and only when
the Police came, he had disclosed everything. He had seen the
occurrence from a distance of 100 yards. He had not disclosed to
anyone that the dead body of Nandlal is lying in the well. He is not
on inimical terms with the accused.
P.W.2 Dr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava was posted as a
Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and on 26.02.2010, he
had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Nandlal Koda and had
found the following:
I. External :-
(i) Abrasion on left eyebrow 1" x ½".
(ii) Abrasion on upper lip ½" x ¼".
(iii) Bruise on anterior side of neck 2" x 1".
(iv) Abrasion on left year.
II. On dissection :-
(i) Head and neck- subcutaneous
extravasation of blood on the anterior
part of neck.
(ii) Blood clot present in trachea.
(iii) Chest- Heart- Blood present in both
chambers, lungs- blood oozing on cut
section, ribs- intact. Abdomen- Stomach-
digested food, Liver- pale and intact,
Spleen- intact, Kidney- intact, Urinary
bladder- 100ml. urine.
(iv) Time since death- 06 hrs. to 36 hrs.
(v) Rigor mortis present in both upper and
lower limbs.
The cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia due to
throttling. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been
marked as Exhibit-1.
P.W.3 Topno Koda has stated that about 2 years back, he
had gone to Katepada and the Police had called him. A dead body
was recovered from a well at Gutusai Tola in village Katepada for
which an inquest report was prepared and he had put his thumb
impression upon them.
P.W.4 Guruwari Sinku has stated that she was selling 'Haria'
at Murgapada, when Nandlal Koda, Gurucharan Koda and Man
Singh Koda had come to her place. All three were in an intoxicated
state. Since darkness was descending, she had left for her house.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she does not
know where the three persons went after consuming Haria. All
three had gone their separate ways.
P.W.5 Yogendra Koda has stated that the incident is of four
years back, and on the date of the incident, he had gone to
Murgapada with his friend Nandlal Koda and Mangal Singh Koda.
They were having 'Haria', when Gurucharan Koda and Man Singh
Koda came. Since he had become drunk, he had left and gone
home alone. In the meantime, Jina Ram Koda came to his house in
search of his son Nandlal Koda and he had disclosed that he had
left Nandlal Koda with Gurucharan Koda and Mangal Koda. When
Jina Ram Koda asked the accused about the whereabouts of
Nandlal Koda, they had disclosed that they had strangulated
Nandlal to death and had thrown the dead body in a well.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that when he had
returned from Murgapada, there were several persons present. No
conversation had happened between Jina Ram Koda and Man
Singh Koda and Gurucharan Koda in his presence.
P.W.6 Jambi Kui has stated that her son Nandlal had gone to
Murgapada where Gurucharan Koda and Man Singh had
committed his murder and had thrown the dead body in the well.
There was a land dispute between her family and the accused. She
has stated that her husband Jina Ram, Koda has died.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that no occurrence
had taken place in her presence.
P.W.7 Narkant Koda has stated that he had gone with the
Dakua Chota Sinku to inform the Police about the murder. He had
enquired about the murder and he had come to know that both the
accused had committed such murder and had thrown the dead
body in the well.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that whatever has been
stated by him is hearsay. He had not witnessed the incident. There
was no dispute between the deceased and the accused, though
their fathers were on inimical terms on account of a land dispute.
P.W.8 Ramnarayan Thakur was posted as an Officer-in-
Charge of Jagannathpur P.S. and on 25.02.2010, he had recorded
the fardbeyan of Jina Ram Koda and had taken over the
investigation of the case. The endorsement on the fardbeyan has
been marked as Exhibit-2/1. The formal FIR has been proved and
marked as Exhibit-3. He has also proved the post-mortem report
which has been marked as Exhibit-4. In course of investigation, he
has recorded the re-statement of Jina Ram Koda and had also
recorded the statements of Tapas Koda, Kona Ram Koda, Kairi Kui,
Chadu Koda, Jami Kui, Yogendra Koda, Narkant Koda, Mangal
Singh Koda and Guruwari Sinku. He had inspected the place of
occurrence. The first place of occurrence is a well situated in an
open place in village Deraposi. The second place of occurrence is
the parti land of Ajit Singh, about 100 yards from the culvert at
village Katepada. He had obtained the post-mortem report and had
recorded the confessional statements of the accused. He had also
got recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Mangal Singh Koda. On
completion of investigation, he had submitted charge sheet against
both the accused persons.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that Mangal Singh
Koda was not made an accused, though he had admitted that he
had assisted the accused in dumping the dead body in the well.
There are no eyewitnesses, except Mangal Singh Koda.
P.W.9 Nirupam Kumar was posted as a Judicial Magistrate
1st Class in Civil Court, Chaibasa and on 19.03.2010, on the
direction of the C.J.M., he had recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement
of Mangal Singh Koda. He has proved the 164 Cr.P.C. statement
which has been marked as Exhibit-5.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that Mangal Singh
Koda had given his statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. in Hindi.
5. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the
murder of Nandlal Koda.
6. It has been submitted by Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants that the entire case of the prosecution
rests upon the purported solitary eyewitness account of P.W.1. The
evidence of P.W.1 cannot be relied upon due to the fact that he had
not disclosed about witnessing the incident but had come up with
such story after more than a month of the incident. P.W.4 is
another witness, who had merely stated about the appellants and
the deceased having 'Haria' at her place. The dearth of evidence
projected by the prosecution has not been properly appreciated by
the learned trial court and hence this appeal is liable to be allowed.
7. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. has submitted that the
evidence of P.W.1 is preceded by his 164 Cr.P.C. statement in
which he had given a vivid description of the incident and a
reasonable explanation has been submitted by P.W.1 with respect
to his delayed disclosure which was on account of the threats
meted out to him by the appellants.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides
and have also perused the trial court records.
9. The evidence of P.W.1 reveals that he is the only eyewitness to
the occurrence. It appears that P.W.1 had not immediately
disclosed about the occurrence to anyone, but had revealed about
what he had seen after about a month. The incident had taken
place in a lonely spot and it was night and absence of any light in
the vicinity is a foregone conclusion considering the fact that it was
an agricultural land where the occurrence had taken place.
Moreover, P.W.1 has stated that he had seen the incident from a
distance of 100 yards. The scenario which would unfold, therefore,
makes P.W.1 a doubtful witness so far as witnessing the incident is
concerned. His depiction of the incident seems to be mere assault
on Nandlal Koda by the two appellants and nothing has been stated
about seeing the deceased being throttled. It was P.W.4, who saw
the deceased and the appellant having 'Haria'. She has stated that
all three had gone their separate ways. There also seems to be a
clear dearth of evidence of anyone having seen the deceased and
the appellant going together. The long silence of P.W.1 is a damning
factor against the prosecution and his explanation for such delay in
stating about his witnessing the incident also is not tenable and
believable. The learned trial court seems to have overtly relied upon
the evidence of P.W.1, while convicting the appellant without
dissecting such evidence which, in fact, demolishes the case of the
prosecution.
10. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made
hereinabove set aside the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 21.12.2016 (sentence passed on 23.12.2016)
passed by Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 96 of 2010.
11. This appeal stands allowed.
12. Since the appellants are in custody, they are directed to be
released immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any other
case.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(AMBUJ NATH, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 11th Day of March, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
