Jharkhand High Court
Kitti Raju Kalindi Son Of Late Rameshwar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:33629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1314 of 2004
---------
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 27.07.2004 and
Order of sentence dated 29.07.2004, passed by the learned
1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial
No.323 of 2001 (Arising out of Golmuri P.S. Case No.68 of
2000, corresponding to G.R No.656 of 2000)]
---------
1. Kitti Raju Kalindi son of Late Rameshwar Kalindi
resident of Tuila Dungari, Police Station - Golmuri,
District - Singhbhum (East).
2. Ram Prasad Son of Late Ramdeo Thathera Resident of
Kanchan Nagar,Police Station - Burmamines, Town -
Jamshedpur, District - Singhbhum (East).
..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P
---------
th
Order No.07/ Dated: 11 November, 2025
1. Heard Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special P.P.
2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of
conviction dated 27.07.2004 and order of sentence dated
29.07.2004, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No.323 of 2001, arising out of
Golmuri P.S. Case No.68 of 2000 (G.R. No.656 of 2000),
whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and have
been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four
years.
3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an
-1- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1314 of 2004
2025:JHHC:33629
F.I.R being Golmuri P.S. Case No.68 of 2000 against three
persons including the appellants under Section 306 I.PC. The
F.I.R has been lodged on the fardbeyan of informant namely,
Raju Kalindi (P.W.-7).
The brief facts of the case, as stated in the F.I.R., is that
on the eve of Holi festival there was some quarrel between
the informant and Savitri Devi and his son namely, Kitti Raju
and for this also, there was some altercation between them.
The information was given to the police station and the police
brought both the parties at the police station and they were
released after conciliation. Thereafter, Savitri Devi, her son
Kitti Raju Kalindi and Ram Prasad tortured the informant
(P.W.-7) and his mother Bhanu Kalindi as a result of which his
mother Bhanu Kalindi, remained disturbed both physically
and mentally. It is alleged that torture meted out to his
mother Bhanu Kalindi to such a extent that on 22.04.2000 at
about 6:00 p.m., she committed suicide, by tying her saree on
her neck. She was taken to Sakchi Hospital where she was
declared dead by the doctor.
4. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, the police, after
investigation, has submitted charge-sheet against three
accused persons, for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.
Upon which cognizance has been taken and charge has been
framed under the aforesaid Section and the case has been
committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellants
have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. During
pendency of the trial, one of the accused namely, Savitri Devi
died and as such only present two appellants have faced the
-2- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1314 of 2004
2025:JHHC:33629
trial.
5. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether seven
witnesses have been examined.
6. P.W.-1, Budh Raj Samad, has stated that Bhanu Kalindi
has committed suicide on 22.04.2000. In cross-examination,
he has stated that he cannot say what was the reason behind
the quarrel. He has also stated that he cannot say that who
informed him that the deceased has committed suicide.
7. P.W.-2, Shital Kalindi, is the daughter of the deceased
and she has stated that after 5-6 days of the quarrel, her
mother has committed suicide. She has stated that she does
not know the reason behind the quarrel and the quarrel has
not been taken place in her presence.
8. P.W.-3, Jiramani Kandolna, has identified the accused in
the court. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she
does not know as to why the deceased hanged herself.
9. P.W.-4, Srimati Nayak, in her cross-examination has
stated that she does not know anything about the occurrence.
10. P.W.-5, Dr. Lalan Chaudhary, is the doctor who has
conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased.
He has stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to
hanging.
11. P.W.-6, Gangi Samad, has stated that she heard about
the hanging of Bhanu Kalindi. In her examination in chief, she
has stated that she has not seen the occurrence.
12. P.W.-7, Raju Kalindi, has stated that there was a quarrel
between the accused and his mother on Holi festival and
conciliation has also been done between them. In his cross-
-3- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1314 of 2004
2025:JHHC:33629
examination, he has admitted that the accused persons are
his relatives.
13. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and the
material available on record, has convicted the present
appellants under Section 306 I.P.C by the impugned
judgment.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised a point
that the basic ingredients of abetment is missing and as such
the conviction under Section 306 I.P.C is bad in law. For that
purpose, he has referred the Section 107 of I.P.C which
defines abetment, which reads as under :-
"107. Abetment of a thing.-- A person abets the
doing of a thing, who -
First.-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of
that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing;
or
Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing."
It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for
the appellants that it was a simple quarrel between the
parties. Neither there was any instigation nor any such
circumstances has been created, giving the victim no other
option but to commit suicide. These two necessary factors are
missing in the allegation itself and in the entire prosecution
story, which has been evidenced from the oral evidence of the
witnesses. Admittedly, the death of the deceased is homicidal.
On the above strength, it has been submitted that the
conviction of the present appellants under Section 306 IPC is
bad in law.
15. On the other hand, learned Special P.P has supported
-4- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1314 of 2004
2025:JHHC:33629
the judgment of conviction and it has been submitted that due
to the quarrel and creation of circumstances, the deceased
was in frustration due to which she has committed suicide.
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
going through the materials available on record, it is evident
that there was a quarrel between the parties. Merely because
they were in quarreling terms and the peace of the victim was
disturbed due to which she has committed suicide, cannot be
a ground for conviction. Disturbing the peace or having
quarrel, cannot attract Section 306 of I.P.C.
Since the very basic ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C is
missing, the trial court has committed an error in convicting
the appellants for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.
17. In view of above discussion, the judgment of conviction
dated 27.07.2004 and the order of sentence dated
29.07.2004, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No.323 of 2001, arising out of
Golmuri P.S. Case No.68 of 2000 (G.R. No.656 of 2000) is,
hereby, set aside.
18. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.
19. Since appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged
from the liability of bail bond.
20. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 11th November, 2025
Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR
Uploaded on 13.11.2025
-5- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1314 of 2004
