Jharkhand High Court
Soma Bading vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13604-DB )
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 354 of 2014
(Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 22.03.2014 (sentence passed on 25.03.2014) passed by
Sri Kaushal Kishor Jha No. 1, learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 84/2010.)
Soma Bading, S/o Sawan Bading, R/o Vill- Kharbagarha,
P.O. & P.S.- Jaldega, Dist.- Simdega.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
----
For the Appellant : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, Spl. P.P.
----
CAV JUDGMENT
Dated : 06/05/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Spl. P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of
conviction and sentence dated 22-03-2014 (sentence passed on
25.03.2014) passed by Sri Kaushal Kishor Jha, No. 1, learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Simdega in S.T. No. 84/2010, whereby
and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.
5,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for three months.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Santosh
Bading recorded on 26-06-2010, in which it has been stated that
in the village construction of the house of Gunu Nayak was going
on and the villagers were to be fed Hadiya for putting the wooden
logs on the roof and the Hadiya was prepared by Soma Bading
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13604-DB )
(appellant). On 25-06-2010, several villagers had consumed
Hadiya in the house of Soma Bading. It has been stated that the
uncle and aunt of the informant, namely, Mangra Bading and
Etwari Bading had gone for consuming Hadiya to the house of
Soma Bading at 3:00pm. When Soma Bading expressed his
inability to serve them Hadiya as it was already consumed by the
villagers, both demanded Mahua liquor. It has been alleged that
Soma Bading gave them half bottle of Mahua liquor which was
consumed by the uncle and aunt of the informant, who
demanded liquor of Rs. 5/- which also was supplied and
consumed by them. After consuming liquor, the aunt of the
informant cursed Soma Bading that since he did not supply
Hadiya, his entire family will be ruined. It has been alleged that
on 26-06-2010, a meeting was called by the villagers to discuss
about the refusal on the part of Soma Bading to supply Hadiya
to the uncle and aunt of the informant and when Soma Bading
came to know about the meeting, he came with a 'Kulhari' and
assaulted the aunt of the informant which resulted in her death.
When the uncle of the informant rushed out to save his wife, he
was also assaulted with a kulhari and he also died at the spot.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jaldega (Orga O.P.) P.S.
Case No. 18/2010 was instituted. 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. 84/2010. Charge was framed against the
accused under Section 302 IPC 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 eight witnesses
in support of its case:
P.W.1 Sukaru Bading and P.W.2 Raju Nayak did not
support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by
2|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13604-DB )
the prosecution.
P.W.3 Gunu Nayak has stated that he has no knowledge
about the occurrence.
P.W.4 Bachan Nayak has stated that the incident is about
2 years back at 9:00am, when he was in his house. Soma Bading
had come with an axe in front of his house and committed
assault on the wife of Etwari Bading and thereafter, on Mangra
Bading. Both died instantaneously. Soma Bading thereafter,
surrendered in the Police Station.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that it is not a fact
that Hadiya was being prepared in the house of Soma Bading at
the instance of Gunu Nayak. The house of Mangra Bading is
situated at a distance of 15 yards from his house. The incident
occurred about 100 yards on the western side from the house of
Mangra Bading. The incident occurred in front of his house and
he had witnessed the incident from his house. Soma Bading had
assaulted Etwari from the backside. He had struck Etwari 2-3
times and she fell on her face in the ground. He did not raise any
alarm. Mangra Bading was also assaulted 3-4 times from the
backside. He was assaulted on the back and neck. He once again
did not raise any alarm. There was a space of 10 minutes between
the two murders. Nobody had reached during this intervening
period.
P.W.5 Santosh Bading is the informant, who has proved
his signature in the fardbeyan which has been marked as
Exhibit-1. He has proved the inquest report and his signature on
the inquest report which have been marked as Exhibit-2 and 3
respectively. The villagers had disclosed to him that his uncle
and aunt were murdered by Soma Bading.
P.W.6 Madan Ratiya was posted as a Chowkidar in Orga
O.P. and on 26-06-2010, the Police had prepared a seizure list
and he had signed on the same as a witness. He has proved his
3|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13604-DB )
signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-
4.
P.W.7 Dr. Om Prakash Rawani was posted as a Medical
Officer at Sadar Hospital, Simdega and on 27-06-2010, he had
conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mangra Bading and had
found the following:
(i) Deep cutting wound on frontal bone on
the left side measuring 3" x 1" x bone
deep.
(ii) Incised wound on neck 2" x 1" x muscle
deep.
(iii) Two incised wounds left side of the
neck 2.5" x ½" x bone deep each.
(iv) Internal injuries:-
(a) Lacerated brain matter left
frontal cortex with blood under
with the meninges.
(b) Trachea and blood vessels of the
neck were found cut.
The cause of death was opined to be on account of bleeding
and shock as a result of neck and brain injury. 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 Etwari Bading and had found the following:
(i) Incised wound on the front of the neck
2" x 1" x muscle deep.
(ii) In the neck only other wound was of 3"
x 1½" x bone deep.
(iii) Right side of the neck above each
injury 4" x 3" x bone deep.
(iv) Incised wound on left shoulder 2" x 5"
x muscle deep.
4|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13604-DB )
(v) Incised wound on left side of neck 1" x
½" x muscle deep.
(vi) Blood vessels of the neck and trachea
were found cut.
The cause of death was opined to be due to cut, linear injury
resulting in bleeding, shock and death by a sharp cutting
weapon. The post mortem report has been proved and marked as
Exhibit-6.
P.W.8 Sreenivas Kumar was posted as an in-charge of
Orga O.P. On the information of the Officer in-charge of Jaldega
P.S., he had gone to Kharwagarha where he had recorded the
fardbeyan of Santosh Bading. He has proved the fardbeyan which
has been marked as Exhibit-7. He, after taking over the
investigation of the case, had prepared the inquest report of
Mangra Bading and Etwari Bading. Both the inquest reports
have been marked as Exhibit-8 and 8/a. He had inspected the
place of occurrence which is at village Kharwagarha in the parti
land of Mahesh Nayak. On the eastern side of the said place, at
a distance of 20-25 yards, the house of Bachan Nayak is situated.
There was a pool of blood at the place of occurrence. He had
recorded the statement of the witnesses after which he returned
to Jaldega P.S. where the accused had presented himself with
the murder weapon. He had recorded the confessional statement
of Soma Bading and had prepared a seizure list of the blood-
stained axe. The seizure list has been proved and marked as
Exhibit-9. He had obtained the post-mortem report and on
completion of investigation, had submitted charge sheet.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that Bachan Nayak
had stated that in view of assisting in the construction of the
house of Gunu Nayak, the villagers were promised Hadiya by
Gunu Nayak and Soma Bading was outsourced the preparation
of Hadiya.
5|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13604-DB )
5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the offence.
6. Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the informant (P.W.5) has not supported the case
of the prosecution. The only eyewitness to the occurrence, as
claimed by the prosecution, is P.W.4 but he has denied the events
which occurred a day prior to the murders of the uncle and aunt
of the informant. The evidence of P.W.4 is self-contradictory and
is not corroborative with respect to the place of occurrence, the
manner of assault and the injuries inflicted on various parts of
the body of the deceased. As per P.W.4, the axe blows were given
by the appellant from the backside of both the deceased, but the
injuries sustained indicate that there was a frontal assault made
upon them. The ocular evidence vis-a-vis the medical evidence is
glaring on the face of it. Mr. Nanda has drawn the attention of
the Court to the 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the appellant while
submitting that the questions put to the appellant were in a
routine manner and the incident of the previous day has not at
all been put to the appellant. It has been submitted that the
Tangi was not discovered at the instance of the appellant and
hence Section 27 Evidence Act is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case. The blood-stained axe which was
purportedly seized was never sent to the FSL for chemical
examination. It has been submitted that the motive has not been
explained and no question was put to the appellant regarding
motive in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination. On such parameters, it
has been submitted that the appellant deserves to be acquitted
from the charges levelled against him.
7. Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Special P.P. has submitted that
the evidence of P.W.4 is in consonance with the manner of
assault and the post-mortem report corroborates such facts. It is
a case of brutal murder where two innocent persons were hacked
6|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13604-DB )
to death by the appellant with axe. In fact, the appellant after
committing the murders, had surrendered himself before the
Police Station with the murder weapon which conclusively proves
his specific involvement in such gruesome murders.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides
and have also perused the trial court records.
9. As per the fardbeyan of P.W.5, Gunu Nayak had given an
incentive to the villagers in the form of providing them liquor, a
local brew, in return for their assistance in the construction of
his house. The necessary raw material, rice, was provided to the
appellant by Gunu Nayak for preparing Hadiya. The villagers had
consumed Hadiya and when the uncle and aunt of the informant
had approached the appellant, he had showed his inability in
meeting their demand due to unavailability of Hadiya. As a
substitution, Mahua liquor was served by the appellant which
was consumed by them after which, the aunt of the informant,
Etwari Bading cursed the appellant and went away. Due to non-
supply of Hadiya to the uncle and aunt of the informant, a
meeting was called in the village and being enraged, the appellant
with an axe, had hacked them to death and surrendered in the
Police Station with the blood-stained axe.
10. The informant in his fardbeyan has given a vivid description
of the incident of 25-06-2010 and its aftermath on 26-06-2010.
However, his evidence as P.W.5 seems to be a whimper as he had
merely proved his signature upon the inquest report and has
stated about the information of the murders of his uncle and
aunt derived from the villagers. He does not specifically name any
of the villagers who were the source of information to him. The
rest of the witnesses are either hostile or formal barring P.W.4,
who claims himself to be an eyewitness. P.W.4 appears to be the
star witness and he claims to have seen the incident from inside
his house. Initially, Etwari Bading was assaulted, who died
7|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13604-DB )
instantly and later on Mangra Bading was also assaulted and he
also died instantaneously. There was a space of ten minutes
between both the incidents. The same would, therefore, mean
that both the murders did not take place in a quick succession.
It would also mean that P.W.4, had the time and opportunity to
inform the neighbourhood by raising an alarm, but he has
admitted to have not raised any alarm even after the second
murder had taken place. There is not a single eyewitness who
has stated about P.W.4 being the eyewitness to the occurrence.
It is no doubt true that a conviction can be based on solitary
evidence, but such evidence has to be cogent, consistent and
untarnished. Minor contradictions and flaws are the hallmark of
any evidence considering the long gap it takes between the
incident and the trial, but such inherent deficiencies would not
make a dent in the case of the prosecution but major
contradictions in the conduct of the eyewitness, as we have
pointed out above, would make the same fallible. Another
important feature in the evidence of P.W.4 is the manner of
assault. The assault with an axe upon both the deceased was
made from the back side, but the injuries sustained by them
reveals that there was a frontal attack on them with axe. Learned
counsel for the appellant is correct in his submission that the
findings in the postmortem report does not match the manner of
assault as depicted by P.W.4. The evidence of P.W.4 cannot,
therefore, be said to be an eyewitness account of the incident and
the case of the prosecution is, therefore, renegaded to the realm
of circumstantial evidence. Motive pales into oblivion when there
are eyewitnesses to the incident, but as we have held above P.W.4
cannot be said to be an eyewitness which would, therefore,
resurrect motive as an important element in the commission of
murders. P.W.5, the informant has not stated about the incident
which occurred on 25-06-2010 and so far as P.W.4 is concerned,
8|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13604-DB )
he has totally denied about the incident on the said date which
has melted the plea of motive as projected by the prosecution.
When we have a glance at the 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the
appellant, what transpires is that not a single question of the
incident has been put to him. The main question put to the
appellant also seems to be fraught with inconsistency. As per the
fardbeyan of P.W.5, the incident had occurred at 7:30 AM, while
as per the evidence of P.W.4 the same took place at 9:00AM.
However, the question is related to the incident at 7:30AM and
not 9:00AM and this major contradiction makes such statement
vulnerable.
11. In the case of Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand,
(2020) 10 SCC 108, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:
"9. This Court, time and again, has emphasised
the importance of putting all relevant questions to an
accused under Section 313 CrPC. In Naval Kishore
Singh v. State of Bihar [Naval Kishore Singh v. State
of Bihar, (2004) 7 SCC 502 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1967] , it
was held to be an essential part of a fair trial
observing as follows : (SCC p. 504, para 5)
"5. The questioning of the accused under
Section 313 CrPC was done in the most
unsatisfactory manner. Under Section 313 CrPC
the accused should have been given opportunity
to explain any of the circumstances appearing
in the evidence against him. At least, the various
items of evidence, which had been produced by
the prosecution, should have been put to the
accused in the form of questions and he should
have been given opportunity to give his
explanation. No such opportunity was given to
the accused in the instant case. We deprecate
9|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13604-DB )
the practice of putting the entire evidence
against the accused put together in a single
question and giving an opportunity to explain
the same, as the accused may not be in a
position to give a rational and intelligent
explanation. The trial Judge should have kept in
mind the importance of giving an opportunity to
the accused to explain the adverse
circumstances in the evidence and the Section
313 examination shall not be carried out as an
empty formality. It is only after the entire
evidence is unfurled the accused would be in a
position to articulate his defence and to give
explanation to the circumstances appearing in
evidence against him. Such an opportunity
being given to the accused is part of a fair trial
and if it is done in a slipshod manner, it may
result in imperfect appreciation of evidence."
12. The cursory manner in which the exercise of 313 Cr.P.C.
was undertaken by the prosecution apart from depriving the
appellant of availing of the basic tenets of natural justice but also
has prevented him to explain the circumstances as logical
questions were not put to him.
13. So far as the recovery of a blood-stained axe from the
appellant is concerned, admittedly the same was not on the
confession of the appellant and it has not been ascertained by
the prosecution that the blood found on the axe was of human
origin as the axe was never sent to the FSL for examination.
14. The aforesaid features would reveal that the learned trial
court has not properly appreciated the materials available on
record and has instead considered features which are not
germane for arriving at a just decision in the case.
15. We, therefore, based on the narrative noted above, set aside
10 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13604-DB )
the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22-03-
2014 (sentence passed on 25-03-2014) passed by Sri Kaushal
Kumar Jha-I, learned Principal Judge, Simdega in S.T. No.
84/2010.
16. This appeal is allowed.
17. Since the appellant is in custody, he is directed to be
released immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any other
case.
18. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(AMBUJ NATH, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 06th Day of May, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
11 | P a g e
