Jharkhand High Court
Chhotu Singh Son Of Late Khudi Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 October, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:31932-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1045 of 2003
......
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2003 and order of
sentence dated 01.05.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-
XIII, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.77 of 2002]
......
Chhotu Singh son of Late Khudi Singh, resident of Dumra, P.S.
Baghmara, District Dhanbad.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... Respondent
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
For the Appellant : Ms. Soumya S. Pandey, Amicus Curiae
Mr. S.K. Vishwakarma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
......
C.A.V. on 09.10.2025 Pronounced on 15.10.2025
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard Ms. Soumya S. Pandey, learned amicus
curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned
P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by above named sole
appellant for setting aside the judgment of his conviction dated
30.04.2003 and order of sentence dated 01.05.2003 passed by
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1045 of 2003 P a g e 1 |10
2025:JHHC:31932-DB
Additional Sessions Judge - XIII, Dhanbad in S.T. No.77 of 2002
arising out of Barora (Baghmara) P.S. Case No.19 of 2001 (G.R.
Case No.285 of 2001), whereby and whereunder the appellant has
been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 29.01.2001 at
about 07:00 p.m., the informant Jhulan Bhuiya (P.W.5) son of the
deceased returned to his home after discharging his duties then he
was informed by his grandmother that Chhotu Singh (present
appellant) has assaulted to his mother. In the meantime, younger
brother of the informant told that his mother is not speaking
anything then informant along with his uncle Bharat Bhuiya and
Lakhan Bhuiya went to see his mother and found her lying dead.
It is further alleged that younger brother of informant namely
Sudhir also informed that Chhotu Singh has assaulted to his
mother with pawa (leg) of a cot.
On the basis of above information, Barora (Baghmara) P.S.
Case No.19 of 2001 was registered for the offence under Section
302 of the I.P.C. against the present appellant.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against him for the aforesaid offence. Accordingly, the case was
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1045 of 2003 P a g e 2 |10
2025:JHHC:31932-DB
committed to the Court of sessions where S.T. Case No.77 of
2002 was registered. The present appellant denied the charge
levelled against him and claimed to be tried.
5. In the course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined
by prosecution.
Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following
documentary evidence has been adduced :-
Exhibit 1 : Postmortem Report
6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by defence and the case is denial from occurrence and
false implication.
7. The learned trial court after examining the evidence available on
record found the appellant guilty for commission of offence under
Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence has vehemently
argued that out of seven witnesses examined in this case by the
prosecution, P.W.1 Lakhan Bhuiya, P.W.2 Akli Devi, P.W.3
Pushpa Kumari and P.W.4 Bharat Bhuiya have been declared
hostile by the prosecution and not supported the prosecution case
regarding culpability of the appellant in connection with the
alleged crime. Further, P.W.5 Jhulan Bhuiya is also hearsay
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1045 of 2003 P a g e 3 |10
2025:JHHC:31932-DB
witness from Pushpa Kumari (P.W.3). Therefore, his evidence also
does not support the prosecution story.
P.W.7 Dr. Shailendra Kumar has conducted autopsy on the
dead body of the deceased and found following :-
(i) Multiple patterned bruises of blue colour of lathi or rod
were found, all over the back of trunk, all over the buttocks and
thighs (back and outer aspects) on both sides. There portions were
swollen and blue and ecchymosis was found on cutting the skin.
These patterned bruises were numerous in number more than fifty.
(ii) Dorsum of left hand was found swollen and bruises
with multiple abrasions all over. Bones of left thigh were found
broken.
(iii) Abrasions :-
(a) 1/2" x 1/2" on outer side of right eyebrow.
(b) 1/2" x 1/2" on the front of right ear.
(c) 1/2" x 1/4" at the right angle of lower jaw.
(d) 1/4" x 1/4" over right clavicle.
(e) 1.1/2" x 1" just above pubic symphysis.
(iv) Multiple abrasions of varying size found all over front
of both the thighs.
(v) Abrasion :-
(a) 2" x 1/4" on the left side of lower jaw.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1045 of 2003 P a g e 4 |10
2025:JHHC:31932-DB
(b) 1.1/2" x 1/2" on the knee joint in front of both
sides.
(c) 1" x 1" on left side back of chest.
(d) 1/2" x 1/2" on right side back of chest.
(vi) Lower lip was lacerated in middle 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle
deep.
On dissection heart, stomach and bladder were empty. Uterus
was normal and non-pregnant. All internal organs were pale.
Scalp and skull were intact. Brain and meninges were congested.
Time elapsed since death from 18 to 24 hours.
Cause of death opined - due to shock and haemorrhage and
extensive ecchymosis as a result of systematic beating by rod or
lathi or by some other hard blunt objects.
9. The prime witness of this case is the P.W.6 Sudhir Bhuiya who
happens to be the younger brother of the informant. This witness
is a child of 11 years and son of the deceased. According to his
evidence, on the date and time of occurrence, he was playing with
his younger sister, meanwhile, he heard cries of his mother and
went inside the house then saw that accused Chhotu Singh
(present appellant) was assaulting his mother with pawa of a cot.
When Chhotu Singh saw him, he threatened him of dire
consequences, if raised alarm or complained anyone about this
occurrence then he fled away outside the house. The evidence of
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1045 of 2003 P a g e 5 |10
2025:JHHC:31932-DB
this witness suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies
as regards genesis and manner of occurrence rendering him to be
not creditworthy.
10. The learned trial court has committed serious error of law in
convicting the appellant on uncorroborated testimony of a child
witness whose evidence itself suffers from material contradictions
and discrepancies, therefore, impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the appellant not sustainable under law
and fit to be set aside. The appellant deserves to be acquitted from
the charge levelled against him.
In the alternative, it is prayed that the deceased has sustained
minor injuries like multiple abrasions and laceration on outer side
of her eyebrow, front of right ear, lower jaw, both thighs, knee
joined and back of chest. The scalp and skull were intact,
therefore, no vital part of the body has been chosen for assaulting
which may indicate the intention of the appellant to commit
murder of the deceased. Moreover, the injuries sustained by the
deceased have not been opined to be sufficient in ordinary course
of nature to cause death. Therefore, the ingredient of offence
under Section 300 of the I.P.C. which defines murder has not been
proved in this case rather the facts proved leads to commission of
offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. The appellant has
remained in custody for more than 9 years, therefore, sufficiently
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1045 of 2003 P a g e 6 |10
2025:JHHC:31932-DB
punished for his guilt. Hence, conviction and sentence of the
appellant require to be altered/modified and the appellant may be
held guilty for the commission of offence under Section 304 Part
II of the I.P.C. and sentence is also required to be altered to the
extent of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant during
trial of the case which is more than 9 years.
11. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the State
defending the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence of appellant has submitted that he has committed murder.
There were multiple injuries although in the nature of abrasions
but different parts of body have been chosen including the chest
which was immediate cause of death of the deceased. The
appellant has caused death of the deceased without any excuse
and has rightly been held guilty and sentenced. The impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence of appellant
require no interference by way of this appeal which is devoid of
merit and fit to be dismissed.
12. We have given thoughtful consideration to overall facts proved in
this case. It appears that sole eye witness is a child witness aged
about 11 years namely Sudhir Bhuiya (P.W.6) who has claimed to
have seen the accused while assaulting to his mother and due to
sustaining injuries, she died. This P.W.6 was also threatened of
dire consequences, if he discloses the incident to anyone or raise
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1045 of 2003 P a g e 7 |10
2025:JHHC:31932-DB
any alarm. There is no material elicited in the cross-examination
of this witness to disbelieve his testimony and there is no
circumstances to consider that he was tutored rather the informant
(P.W.5) himself disclosed that when he returned from his duty
P.W.6 told him about the assault given to his mother by the
present appellant through pawa of a cot. Thereafter, deceased was
found lying dead in her house. The place of occurrence, manner of
occurrence and involvement of present appellant in the alleged
offence has been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution which
also finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.7 Dr.
Shailendra Kumar, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body
of deceased and found injuries caused by hard and blunt
substance. We have also considered the nature and gravity of
assault given to the deceased and the weapon used by the accused
as well as the opinion of the doctor that the death was caused due
to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by the
deceased. There is no specific opinion that the injury sustained by
deceased was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
nature. There was no injury on vital part of body like head,
therefore, required intention and knowledge as propounded under
Section 300 of the I.P.C. which defines the offence of murder,
does not appear to be proved by the prosecution rather the case
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1045 of 2003 P a g e 8 |10
2025:JHHC:31932-DB
falls within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder punishable under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C.
13. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, we are of the firm
view that the learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate
the overall scenario of the case and the legal principles attracting
the offence of murder and arrived at wrong conclusion while
holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 of
the I.P.C. In our considered view, at best the case falls under
Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. Accordingly, we set aside the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant
for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. which is hereby
altered under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. Accordingly,
appellant is held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part II of
the I.P.C. instead of Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment already undergone by him during trial. In
the result, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in
conviction and sentence as stated above. Appellant is on bail, he is
discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also
discharged.
14. . Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
15. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent
back to concerned trial court for information and needful.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1045 of 2003 P a g e 9 |10
2025:JHHC:31932-DB
16. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by
Ms. Soumya S. Pandey, learned amicus curiae and direct the
Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to
process fee of Rs.7,500/- (Seven Thousand and Five Hundred
only) to Ms. Soumya S. Pandey within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
17. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon
Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 15/10/2025
Sachin / NAFR
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1045 of 2003 P a g e 10 |10
