Jharkhand High Court
Nil Mohan Koeri S/O Nakul Koeri vs State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 260 of 2003
......
[Against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.02.2003,
passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti, in
Sessions Trial Case No.107 of 1991]
......
1. Nil Mohan Koeri S/o Nakul Koeri
2. Bali Ram Koeri @ Aviram Koeri S/o Bhusan Koeri
3. Srikant Koeri @ Sita Ram Koeri S/o late Kallu Koeri
4. Chutku Koeri S/o late Ram Mohan Koeri
5. Ghasu Koeri Son of late Rama Koeri
6. Madhu Koeri son of late Sita Ram Koeri
7. Sona Ram Koeri son of Bajrang Koeri
All residents of Villatge - Tetla, P.S. - Sonahatu, Dist. Ranchi
8. Ganesh Modak son of Taru Modak
Resident of Village - Banta, P.S. - Silli, District - Ranchi
9. Maghua Koeri son of late Boka Koeri resident of Village - Silli,
P.S. - Silli, Dist. Ranchi.
10.Gurupodo Koeri S/o Basudev Koeri, resident of Village - Kushi,
P.S. Jhalda, Dist. Ranchi
.... .... Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand
.... .... Respondent
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 1 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
For the Appellants : Mr. Amitabh, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
......
C.A.V. on 25.08.2025 Pronounced on 16.10.2025
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard Mr. Amitabh, learned amicus curiae
appearing for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P.
appearing for the State.
2. Instant criminal appeal was preferred by 14 appellants out of them
appellant No.6 Mahendra Koeri, appellant No.8 Krishna Koeri,
appellant No.9 Godhu Koeri and appellant No.12 Chandi Charan
Singh @ Chandi Prasad Singh have been died and their appeal
have been abated. The name of surviving appellants have been
renumbered and this appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid
alive appellants.
3. The appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 07.02.2003 passed by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-II, Khunti in S.T. Case No.107 of 1991, whereby
and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the
offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 324 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the
offence under Section 302/149 of the I.P.C. Further, sentenced to
undergo R.I. of two years for the offence under Section 148 of the
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 2 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
I.P.C. and R.I. of two years for the offence under Section 324 of
the I.P.C. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 05.11.1990 at
about 10:00 a.m., the informant, Dinesh Prasad Koeri, along with
his brother, uncle and other family members were harvesting
paddy crops in their field, meanwhile, 10 to 15 accused persons
came from the South of the village and 10 to 15 persons from the
Eastern side armed with bow, arrow, spade, tabla and tangi etc. It
is alleged that when the informant party with a view to save
themselves started running, they met with the present appellants
who were protesting the harvesting of paddy crops. It is further
alleged that Anant Bhusan Singh (Manki) (not appellant in this
case) assaulted the father of the informant by farsa, Chandi Prasad
Singh (since deceased) and Mangal Singh @ Tej Narayan Singh
(not appellant in this case) assaulted the uncle of informant by
tabla, Mahiram Koeri was assaulted by Madhu Koeri (appellant
No.6), Godhu Koeri (since deceased) and Sona Ram Koeri
(appellant No.7). It is further alleged that the informant was also
assaulted by Mahendra Koeri (since deceased) and Gurupodo
Koeri (appellant No.10) by tabla due to which he sustained injury
on his neck, head, right hand and on both leg. Anyhow, the
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 3 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
informant managed to flee away raising halla then Madan Koeri
and Govind Koeri also ran to save their life when other villagers
assembled then accused persons fled away. It is further alleged
that the father and uncle of the informant died on the spot. The
informant and Mahiram were seriously injured and got their
treatment at Sonahatu hospital. The motive behind the occurrence
is alleged that the paddy field belongs to the informant party being
their ancestral property for which a proceeding under Section 144
of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated between the
parties in the year 1988 and decision was made in favour of
informant. Mahendra Koeri had earlier also caused mischief in the
house of the informant.
On the basis of above information, Sonahatu P.S. Case No.59
of 1990 dated 05.11.1990 was registered for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 448, 427 and 379 of the I.P.C. against
the 17 accused persons.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against 17 accused persons and one Mangal Singh Munda was
declared juvenile. The accused persons Anant Singh Munda,
Funny Singh Munda died during pendency of trial, hence, the
proceedings against them were dropped.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 4 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
6. The above named appellants denied the charges and claimed to be
tried.
7. In the course of trial, altogether 12 witnesses were examined by
the prosecution.
Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following
documentary evidence have been adduced :-
Exhibit 1 : Seizure list
Exhibit 2 & 2/1 : Carbon copy of Inquest Report.
Exhibit 3 & 3/1 : Postmortem Report of the deceased
Exhibit 4 : Signature of witness on fardbeyan
Exhibit 5 : Injury report of informant Dinesh Prasad
Koeri
8. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false
implication due to land dispute and previous enmity and criminal
cases between the parties. The defence has examined one witness
Banwari Lal Jaiswal who has proved certified copy of F.I.R. in
connection with Sonahatu P.S. Case No.60 of 1990 as Ext.A, and
Fardbeyan of the above F.I.R. as Ext.B; Deposition of Godhu
Koeri in S.T. Case No.35 of 1993 marked as Ext.C and deposition
of Dr. Narendra Kumar Sinha in S.T. Case No.35 of 1993 marked
as Ext.C/1.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 5 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
9. The learned trial court after apprising and appreciating the
evidence of the respective parties arrived at conclusion of guilt of
the appellants. Accordingly, held the appellants guilty and
sentenced them as stated above, which has been assailed in this
appeal.
10. Learned amicus curiae has vehemently argued that the place of
occurrence is alleged to be Kopelongbad field where the
informant parties were harvesting paddy crops with sickles but
from the place of occurrence, no sickles were seized neither blood
mark nor any paddy plants stained with blood have been seized
during investigation. The Investigating Officer of the case has also
not been examined to exactly prove the place of occurrence. The
prosecution witnesses themselves namely P.W.8, Jitu Mahto, and
P.W.9, Govind Mahto, have admitted that at the time of alleged
occurrence accused Anant Singh Munda was not present rather he
was at his house. It is further submitted that the eye witnesses
mentioned in the F.I.R. namely Madan Koeri and Gobind Koeri
and other family members of the informant have also not
supported the prosecution story as regards manner and place of
occurrence. P.W.1, Baby Devi and P.W.2, Pramila Devi, were not
named in the F.I.R. as an eye witness of the occurrence and they
have given altogether different story. The postmortem report of
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 6 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
two deceased persons also does not correspond with the manner of
assault as alleged against the named appellants. It is further
submitted that in the F.I.R. itself, the informant (P.W.6) has
attributed specific allegation against Anant Bhushan Singh
Munda, Funny Singh, Mangal Singh, Mahendra Koeri, Krishna
Koeri, Godhu Koeri, Chandi Charan Singh, Ganesh Modak,
Madhu Koeri, Gurupodo Koeri and Sona Ram Koeri, out of them
Anant Singh Munda and Funny Singh Munda died during
pendency of trial, Mangal Singh Munda was declared juvenile and
Chandi Prasad Singh @ Chandi Charan Singh, Mahendra Koeri,
Krishna Koeri, Godhu Koeri have been died, against whom there
was specific allegation. The informant has levelled general and
omnibus allegation against other appellants without attributing
any specific overt act. The learned trial court has failed to discuss
any "common object" of the appellants in prosecution of which,
all have committed the offence as alleged. It is not discussed at all
as to how the alive appellants named above were member of an
unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon. Therefore, above
named appellants have been held guilty in mechanical manner
ignoring the important admissions/oral testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses without appreciating their credibility as
regards the involvement of above named appellants in the alleged
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 7 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
offence. The learned trial court has further failed to take into
notice that there was no evidence about any common object as
defined in Section 141 of the I.P.C. Therefore, all the appellants
cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the I.P.C. As
such, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the
appellants is absolutely illegal and liable to be set aside. This
appeal is fit to be allowed.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. appearing for
the State defending the impugned judgment of conviction of
appellants has submitted that there is specific allegation against all
the appellants that they were armed with deadly weapons and
forming an unlawful assembly protested against harvesting the
paddy crops by the informant party on their land by using force
and violence. In the course of occurrence, two persons have been
died due to brutal assault given by the members of unlawful
assembly. Some injuries were also caused to the
opponents/appellants and they have also brought on record the
copy of F.I.R. and fardbeyan etc. as Ext.A and Ext.B which also
fortifies that the occurrence took place and place of occurrence
also cannot be disputed. Under such circumstances, non-
examination of Investigating Officer does not make any difference
or in any manner prejudice the defence. The appellants have got
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 8 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
all opportunities to rebut the prosecution evidence and setup their
own defence. The learned trial court has very wisely and aptly
analyzed, scanned and appreciated oral as well as documentary
evidence of respective parties and rightly recorded the findings of
guilt of the appellants which suffers from no illegality or infirmity
calling for any interference by way of this appeal which is fit to be
dismissed.
In support of his aforesaid argument, learned Public
Prosecutor for State has placed reliance upon reported judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalji and Ors. vs. State of
U.P., (1989) 1 SCC 437.
12. The only point for determination in this appeal is that as to
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the
appellants suffers from any error of law calling for any
interference by way of this appeal and not legally sustainable?
13. We have gone through the record of the case along with impugned
judgment and order in light of contentions raised on behalf of both
side.
14. It appears that in the course of trial altogether 12 witnesses were
examined by the prosecution out of them P.W.4 Haripado Mahto
is not an eye witness, P.W.8 Jitu Mahto and P.W.9 Govind Mahto
are hearsay witnesses and both of them have not seen the incident.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 9 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
P.W.5 Raj Kishore Munda is a witness of inquest report of
deceased. The sterling witnesses are P.W.6 Dinesh Prasad Koeri,
who is informant-cum-injured eye witness, P.W.1 Baby Devi,
P.W.2 Pramila Devi, P.W.3 Mahiram Koeri and P.W.11 Rajendra
Prasad Koeri are the eye witnesses. P.W.7 Dr. Ajit Kumar
Choudhary conducted the post-mortem of deceased persons and
P.W.12 Dr. Narendra Kumar Sinha has examined the injured
Dinesh Koeri.
15. P.W.-6 Dinesh Prasad Koeri is informant-cum-injured eye
witness. He has corroborated the version contained in the F.I.R.
According to him, occurrence took place on 05.11.1990 at about
9-10 a.m., when he along with other family members namely his
uncle Pusu Koeri, father Koka Koeri, brother Rejendra Koeri,
mother Pramila Devi, aunt Baby Devi, Mahiram Koeri, Govind
Koeri and Madan Koeri etc. had gone to harvest paddy crops,
meanwhile, 10 to 15 persons arrived towards southern side and 10
to 15 persons from east side armed with various weapons and
surrounded the informant party. Out of several accused persons,
he identified (1) Anant Bhusan Singh, (2) Mangal Singh @ Tej
Narayan Singh, (3) Chandi Singh, (4) Funny Singh, (5) Ganesh
Modak, (6) Ghasu Koeri, (7) Krishna Koeri, (8) Chutku Koeri, (9)
Madhu Koeri, (10) Maghua Koeri, (11) Godhu Koeri, (12)
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 10 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
Mahendra Koeri, (13) Gurupodo Koeri, (14) Neil Mohan, (15)
Srikant, (16) Balram and (17) Sona Ram. He also saw Ganesh
Modak armed with gun, Funny with tangi and other accused
persons were bearing tabla and some miscreants were standing at
a distance with bow and arrow to whom he could not identify. He
has specifically stated that Anant Bhusan Singh assaulted to his
father by tabla who started fleeing then he was chased and killed
in the field of Bavri Koeri. He has further stated that his uncle
Pusu Koeri was assaulted by Mangal Singh and Chandi Singh
Munda by tabla causing several sharp cutting injuries, who also
died on the spot. Mahiram was assaulted by Godhu Koeri, Madhu
Koeri and Sona Ram Koeri by tabla who also fell down in the
field sustaining injuries (no injury report of Mahiram has been
brought on record). This witness has further stated that Mahendra
and Gurupodo Koeri surrounded him and started assaulting by
tabla causing injuries on head, right hand, both legs, fingers,
forehead and neck but any how he managed to flee away raising
alarm. He was brought to Sonahatu hospital in unconscious state
and after regaining consciousness, his fardbeyan/statement was
recorded by police at the hospital. Due to injury on right hand, he
put his L.T.I. over his statement. He got his treatment about one
month in the Sonahatu hospital. He has further stated that the
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 11 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
place of occurrence is ancestral land of this witness and in
connection with this land, litigation was also ended in his favour
which was fought with Ghasu Devi.
In his cross-examination, this witness has also admitted that
paddy crop field involved in this case, was sold by wife of Jitu
namely Savitri in favour of one Jaleshwari in the year 1950, which
was cancelled by the Savitri Devi and again in the year 1970, the
said land was sold to Fagu but he has not seen the said deed of
1970. This witness also admits in his cross-examination that in his
statement before Police, he has stated that Jitu Koeri died
issueless and after his death, maternal grandmother of Ghasu
Koeri gifted the lands of her share in favour of her daughter
Jaleshwari Devi which was got cancelled by father and uncle of
this witness and the possession of land was recovered. He also
admits that partition suit No.15 of 1989 has been filed by
Jaleshwari Devi against informant party. He also admits that a
cross-case, in respect of the same day occurrence, has been filed
against him and other 15 family members by Godhu and Krishna
for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C., i.e., S.T. Case
No.35 of 1993 pending in this Court itself. He further admits that
he along with other family members had gone to harvest paddy
crops, hence, all family members were bearing हँसुआ (sickle) but
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 12 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
he cannot tell what happened of those हँसुआ (sickles). He also
admits that Chandi Charan is resident of Village Banta which is
situated at distance of 5 k.m. from the village of this witness. This
witness has denied the suggestion of defence that this witness
along with his family members assaulted to Godhu Koeri and
Krishna by sharp cutting weapon who were working in their filed
adjacent to the place of occurrence. It is also denied that Pusu
Koeri assaulted to Godhu Koeri at his field wherein chilli crop
was growing and he was irrigating the same and this witness
assaulted to him by danda on left leg, Pusu Koeri assaulted on
neck by tabla with intention to kill and Krishna Koeri was also
intercepted and assaulted by Madan Koeri by tabla.
P.W.-1 Baby Devi is an eye witness of this case. According to
her evidence about four years ago on Monday morning around 9-
10 a.m., she with her husband, brother-in-law and other family
members had gone to harvest paddy crops in Kopelongbad field.
While she along with family members were harvesting, around 17
persons including Anant Bhushan, Mangal Singh, Chandi Sahu,
Mahendra, Ghasu Kisto, Madhu, Godhu, Sona Ram, Gurupodo
and others arrived armed with deadly weapons. Anant Bhushan,
Mangal Singh and Chandi carried tabla (sharp weapon), while the
others had bows, arrows and stones. It is further deposed that
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 13 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
Anant Bhushan struck Koka Koeri (brother-in-law) on the waist
with a tabla due to which he fell down in a nearby field of Bavri
Koeri. When this witness tried to intervene, Pusu Koeri went and
assaulted him in the said field. Thereafter, Chandi and Mangal
Singh attacked her husband and cut him with tabla on his thigh
and leg in the same field. In this attack, Dinesh and Mohi Koeri
were also injured. When villagers arrived, the assailants fled
away. She identified Mahendra as the one who instigated the fight
and she also claimed to recognize the other accused persons
involved in the assault.
In her cross-examination, she has specifically admitted that
she does not know directions like east or west, but she regularly
sees the field where the incident occurred which is near her house
about 100 -150 yards from the road. She has further stated that
Ganesh was carrying a gun. She has further stated that Dinesh was
assaulted by Mahendra on his head, neck and right hand with
tabla. She reaffirmed that the field where the incident took place is
her ancestral property recorded in the name of her father-in-law
Kola's. She has denied that the disputed field ever belonged to
Krishna or Ghasu.
P.W.2 Pramila Devi is another eye witness of this case.
According to her evidence, she along with her family members
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 14 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
went to the field at Kopelongbad to harvest paddy. While
harvesting paddy, accused persons namely Anant Bhusan, Mangal
Singh, Chandi, Ghasu, Kisno, Godhu, Madhu, Madhuwa, Chitku,
Sonaram, Baliram, Shrikant, Leelu, Mahendra, Gurupodo, Funny
and Ganesh came there. Anant Bhushan, Mangal and Chandi were
armed with tabla (sharp weapon), Ganesh was armed with gun
and others were armed with bows, arrows and sticks etc. After
they entered her field, one Anant Bhushan assaulted her husband
with a tabla on his back due to which he fell down in Bavri
Koeri's field where Anant Bhushan again attacked and cut him. It
is further stated that her brother-in-law, Pusu Koeri, was also
attacked in the same field by Mangal Singh and Chandi with tabla
where he died. In that incident, Dinesh (informant) was also
attacked by Gurupodo and Mahendra and sustained injuries on his
right hand, shoulder and forehead but he, managed to escape.
After attacking her husband, her devar and Dinesh, all the accused
fled away from the spot. It is further stated that Mahendra still
threatens that he will continue to attack and kill her family.
In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that
she is not educated and could not describe the boundaries, but
around the land where the incident took place, there are fields of
Bauri, Giri, Gholtu Koeri and Sonaram. It is further deposed that
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 15 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
she did not tell to the Police that: "On hearing of the murder, she
ran to the field and saw that her husband and devar had already
been killed." It is further deposed that at the time of the incident,
nobody attacked Godhu. My devar Pusu's wife, Baby, was present
with me at the spot. It is further stated that Kopelongbad where
the occurrence took place does not belong to Rohit, Sukharam,
Dukhu and Darji.
P.W.3 Mahiram Koeri is another eye witness of this case.
According to his evidence, about 4½ years ago, on Monday
morning around 10:00 A.M., he along with others (Koka, Pusu,
Dinesh, Rajesh, Omila Devi, Bibi Bala, Govind, and Madan) had
gone to the Kopelongbad field to harvest paddy. While they were
harvesting, the accused persons armed with deadly weapons
arrived and surrounded them. It is further stated that Anant Singh
attacked Koka with a tabla (sharp weapon) on his waist. Koka
tried to run but fell into Bavri's field, where Anant Singh assaulted
him again, causing his death. This witness also stated that Pusu
Koeri was attacked by Mangal Singh and Chandi with a tabala,
and Pusu also died in the same Kopelongbad field. It is further
stated that Dinesh was assaulted by Gurupodo and Mahendra by
tabla though wounded Dinesh managed to escape.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 16 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the place of
occurrence is in south of his house, which is only two fields away
from his house. He has further deposed that the place of
occurrence is about 150-200 gaj from the house of Koka. He has
further clarified that Kopelongbad has around 15-16 fields, all
situated together. To the north of this land, the land of Koka and
Pusu, on the south, the plot of Giri Mahto, on the east side, the
plot of Dholtu Koeri and on the west, the plot of Sonaram Koeri
and Bajrangi is situated. This witness has firmly denied the
defence suggestion that he was not present at the place of
occurrence at the time of the incident.
P.W.7 Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary who conducted
postmortem on the dead body of Koka Koeri, aged about 50 years,
on 06.11.1990 at about 12:30 hours had found following injuries:-
Abrasion
(i) 2 x 1 cm over the right cheek
(ii) 2 x 2 cm over the soft scapular region
(iii) 3 x 1 cm over the right scapular region
Lacerated wound
(i) 2 x 1 cm x scalp deep on the right occipital region with
contusion of the scalp underneath.
Incised wound
(i) 22 x 4 cm x bone deep over the back of abdomen lower
part situated transversely cutting the underlying soft
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 17 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
tissues, blood vessels and 4th lumber vertebrae
completely.
(ii) 8 x 1 cm x ½ cm over left thigh lower part of lateral
side.
(iii) 6 x ½ x ½ cm and 3 x ½ x ¼ cm over left arm lateral
side upper part.
All the injuries were ante mortem. Abrasions and lacerated
wound were caused by hard and blunt substance may be lathi and
incised wounds were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon.
Cause of death is opined to be due to aforesaid injuries and
especially due to incised wound No.(i).
This witness has also conducted postmortem on the dead body
of Pusu Koeri on the same day and found following injuries :-
Abrasion
(i) 5 x 1 cm over left infra scapular region.
(ii) 6 x 1 cm on back of left abdomen.
(iii) 4 x 1 cm over upper part of right glutial region.
Incised wound
(i) 6 x 2 cm x 5 cm over the right arm lateral side lower part
cutting the underlying soft tissues and blood vessels.
(ii) 1.1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm lateral side upper part of right arm.
(iii) 7 x 1.1 / 2 x bone deep over the left arm lateral side upper
part cutting the under lying soft tissues blood vessels and
bone partially with laying 4cm long from the middle end
of the wound downwards.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 18 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
(iv) 3 x 1 x 18 / 2 cm situated 2 cm below the preceding
injury.
(v) 7 x 3 x 2 cm on the middle and front part of the left thigh.
(vi) 10 x 3cm x bone deep over the lateral side of right thigh
middle part cutting the underlying soft tissues, blood
vessels and bone partially.
(vii) 7 x 2cm x soft tissues over back and upper part of right
leg.
(viii) 4 x 1 x 1 cm over left scapular region.
(ix) 5 x 1 x 1.1 / 2cm back and upper part of right thigh upper
part of right thigh there was infiltration of blood and
blood clot at the side of injury.
All the injuries were ante mortem. Abrasions caused by hard
and blunt substance and incised wounds were caused by heavy
sharp cutting weapon. Cause of death is opined to be due to
aforesaid injuries. Time elapsed since death 18 to 38 hours.
P.W.10 Madan Mohan Koeri has proved the fardbeyan
(Ext.4) and has stated that Dinesh (informant) gave his statement
before the police in his presence and had put his thumb
impression on it.
In his cross-examination, he has mentioned that the land of
Daharbad is located in Village Tetla towards the south, about half
a kilometer from the village and it is ploughed by Godhu Koeri.
He has further stated that at the time of the occurrence, chilli
crops were sown by Madhu Koeri and Godhu Koeri was irrigating
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 19 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
the chilli field. He has clarified that the incident occurred in
Kopelongbad, which lies just before Daharbad (separated by 1-2
fields). This witness has also stated that while Godhu was
irrigating the crop, Pusu, Mahiram Koeri, Rajan Koeri and Koka
Koeri had gone to the field. A quarrel took place in Kopelongbad
near the chilli field, during which Godhu assaulted Pusu with a
kudal (spade).
P.W.11 Rajendra Prasad Koeri has stated that on
05.12.1990, at about 9-10 A.M., he along with his elder brother
Dinesh Prasad Koeri (informant) and other family members
including Koka Koeri (father), Pusu Koeri, Mahiram, Baby Devi,
Pramila Devi, Taronji Devi, Manju Kumari went to Kopelongbad
to harvest paddy. While they were harvesting, the accused persons
arrived, surrounded them and raised alarm. It is further stated that
Anant assaulted Koka Koeri with a tabala (sharp weapon) on his
waist in his field. Thereafter, Koka was then chased and murdered
in the field of Bavri Koeri. It is further stated that Pusu Koeri was
attacked by Mangal and Chandi with tabla and farsa in the same
land and he died due to the assault.
In his cross-examination, he has deposed that before the
accused came, they had already harvested about four bhojhas
(bundles) of paddy, but he could not say in whose name the land
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 20 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
stood recorded. This witness has denied the defence suggestion
that the land (place of occurrence) belonged to Ghasu and
Jaleshwari. The witness has further denied the suggestions that the
case which is filed by accused is true.
P.W.12 Dr. Narendra Kumar Sinha who had examined the
injured-cum-informant Dinesh Koeri on 05.11.1990 had found
following injuries:-
(i) One sharp cut wound over mid portion of head
transversely placed 5" x 1/4" x 1/4", 4" above
both ears with fresh bleeding.
(ii) One sharp cut wound 1.5" x 1/2" x 1/2" over the
anterior portion just above the forehead with
fresh bleeding.
(iii) One lacerated wound 3" x .2" x skin deep over
the right anterior portion of shoulder joint.
(iv) One lacerated wound posterior aspect of right
wrist joint of 1.5" x .5" x .3" with compound
fracture of lower end of radius.
(v) One abrasion over the lower 1/3rd of anterior
bone of right lower leg size 2 cm x .2 cm.
(vi) One abrasion over inner aspect of left foot 4"
back to the tip of the toe size 2 cm x .2 cm.
(vii) One abrasion over the right side neck obliquely
placed size 4 cm x .2 cm.
Nature: Injury No. (iv) grievous and rests are simple. Injury
Nos. (i) & (ii) caused by sharp weapon like farsa. Injury Nos. (iii),
(iv), (v), (vi) caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 21 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had also
examined Godhu Koeri and Krishna Koeri of same village on
same day with certain injuries on them. Some of their injuries
were on neck which is vital part of the body and found sharp cut
and lacerated injuries on both of them. On Krishna Koeri, he
found two lacerated injuries.
16. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence
and false implication due to land dispute. It has also come from
the evidence of witnesses that for the occurrence of same day
Sonahatu P.S. Case No.60 of 1990 dated 06.11.1990 was also
instituted by the Godhu Koeri registered for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 307/34 of the I.P.C. in which
charge-sheet was submitted and S.T. Case No.35 of 1993 was
registered and simultaneously, tried by the same Additional
Sessions Judge.
17. The defence has examined one witness namely Banwari Lal
Jaiswal who has proved the formal F.I.R. of Sonahatu P.S. Case
No.60 of 1990 and fardbeyan which is marked as Ext.A and Ext.B
respectively dated 06.11.1990. From perusal, it appears that
fardbeyan of one Godhu Koeri was recorded on 06.11.1990 at
11:00 a.m. and on the basis of which Sonahatu P.S. Case No.60 of
1990 was registered on 06.11.1990 at 14:00 hours under Sections
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 22 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 307/34 of the I.P.C. The defence has also
adduced documentary evidence Ext.C, deposition of Godhu Koeri
in S.T. Case No.35 of 1993 arising out of Sonahatu P.S. Case
No.60 of 1990, Ext.C/1 is deposition of P.W.12, Dr. Narendra
Kumar Sinha, who has examined the person of Godhu Koeri
(informant of Sonahatu P.S. Case No.60 of 1990) and proved his
injury report. P.W.12 has proved the injury report of Godhu Koeri
and Krishna Koeri in S.T. Case No.35 of 1993.
18. From perusal of Ext.B relied upon by defence which is fardbeyan
of Godhu Koeri of Sonahatu P.S. Case No.60 of 1990 recorded by
Officer In-Charge G. Pathak of Sonahatu Police Station Camp
Tetla on 06.11.1990 stating inter alia that on 05.11.1990 at about
09:00 to 10:00 a.m. in the field of Daharbad, informant was
irrigating his chilli field, meanwhile, (1) Pusu Koeri, (2) Dinesh
Koeri, (3) Madan Koeri, (4) Bikha Koeri, (5) Mahi Koeri, (6)
Yadav Koeri and (7) Nagen Koeri armed with deadly weapons
surrounded the informant from four corners and Pusu Koeri gave
a tabla blow on his neck due to which he fell down then Dinesh
Koeri assaulted by danda causing injury on left leg. Krishna Koeri
was also assaulted by Madan Koeri by tabla. Other accused
persons namely Bavri Koeri, Gora Koeri, Dhodha Koeri, Sohrai
Koeri, Baka Koeri, Ishwar Koeri and Bhola Koeri were also
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 23 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
assisting to the above accused persons. He has also admitted land
dispute with Ghasu Koeri and Pusu Koeri due to that reason
forming an unlawful assembly, the accused persons have assaulted
to informant party in a concerted manner. Since, informant was
injured and no other male members were present in the house,
hence, there was delay in lodging the report.
Ext.C/1, the deposition of Dr. Narendra Kumar Sinha
(P.W.12) who has examined the injured persons of both parties of
this case, has examined Godhu Koeri on 06.11.1990 and found
following injuries :-
(i) One sharp cut wound 4" x 2" x skin deep over the
posterio lateral aspect of right side neck just 1" below
the ear with serum and PHs formation.
(ii) One sharp cut wound encircling right side neck 3 ½" x
½" x 1" just below injury No.(i).
(iii) One lacerated wound over pinna of right year with pus
formation of size ½" x 1/4" x skin deep.
(iv) One sharp cut wound cutting left interior portion of
thumb with pus formation ½" x 1" x 1/4".
(v) The defuse swelling and pain over medial left aspect of
knee.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 24 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
He has opined that all injuries are simple in nature. Injury
Nos.(i), (ii) and (iv) caused by sharp edged weapon such as farsa
and injury Nos.(iii) and (v) by hard blunt object like lathi. Time
elapsed within 36 hours.
On the same day, he has also examined Krishna Koeri and
found following injuries :-
(i) One lacerated wound posterior aspect of mid portion of
right forearm size 2.5cm x 5" x .5" with pus formation.
(ii) One lacerated wound just 1" above the injury No.(i)
size 2.5cm x .3cm x .2cm.
(iii) One sharp cut wound over posterior aspect of root of
left thumb of size 2.5cm x .3cm x .5cm with pus
formation.
All injuries are opined to be simple in nature. Injury No.(iii)
caused by sharp cut weapon and rest injuries by hard and blunt
object.
19. We find that the learned trial court has not discussed in its
judgment as to whether any unlawful assembly was formed and as
to what was its common object and whether all the accused
persons have acted in prosecution of common object of all.
20. In the above context, it appears necessary to deal with the relevant
provisions of law as under :-
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 25 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
141. Unlawful assembly.-An assembly of five or more
persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the
common object of the persons composing that assembly
is-
First- To overawe by criminal force, or show of
criminal force, the Central or any State
Government or Parliament or the Legislature of
any State, or any public servant in the exercise of
the lawful power of such public servant; or
Second- To resist the execution of any law, or of any
legal process; or
Third- To commit any mischief or criminal
trespass, or other offence; or
Fourth- By means of criminal force, or show of
criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain
possession of any property, or to deprive any
person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of
the use of water or other incorporeal right of
which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to
enforce any right or supposed right; or
Fifth- By means of criminal force, or show of
criminal force, to compel any person to do what
he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do
what he is legally entitled to do.
Explanation.-An assembly which was not unlawful when
it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful
assembly.
Section 142. Being member of unlawful assembly. -
Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 26 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly,
or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful
assembly.
Section 143. Punishment. -Whoever is a member of an
unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine, or with both.
Section 144. Joining unlawful assembly armed with
deadly weapon.-Whoever, being armed with any deadly
weapon, or with anything which, used as a weapon of
offence, is likely to cause death, is a member of an
unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 146. Rioting. - Whenever force or violence is
used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof,
in prosecution of the common object of such assembly,
every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of
rioting.
Section 147. Punishment for rioting.-Whoever is guilty
of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.
Section 148. Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.-
Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly
weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of
offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 27 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty
of offence committed in prosecution of common object. -
If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in prosecution of the common object of that
assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew
to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object,
every person who, at the time of the committing of that
offence, is a member of the same me assembly, is guilty of
that offence.
21. In the instant case, the charges were framed against the appellants
wherein common object of unlawful assembly is shown to commit
murder and attempt to commit murder of the members of
informant party while they were working on their field, i.e.,
harvesting paddy crops. As per trend of cross-examination and
suggestions to the prosecution witnesses, the accused
persons/appellants are also claiming their right over the disputed
land. The ocular testimony of eye witnesses, i.e., P.W.1, P.W.2,
P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.11 clearly goes to show that the prosecution
has built up a case of unlawful assembly having common object to
protest the harvesting of crops due to bonafide dispute and
nothing else as defined under Section 141 of the I.P.C. The
prosecution has further proved causing of injury with various
deadly weapons attributed to some of the accused persons only.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 28 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
The cross case, i.e., Sonahatu P.S. Case No.60 of 1990 has been
registered against 14 accused persons of the informant party and
witnesses of this case also establish the presence of both parties at
the place of occurrence and admittedly adjacent to the paddy field,
the appellants also own some land wherein chilli crop was planted
and they were irrigating the same. Therefore, mere presence of
other persons on spot, ipso facto not sufficient to warrant their
culpability.
22. It is a case wherein two persons have been murdered from the
informant side and informant also got sharp cut injuries in the said
incident. From the defence side also Godhu Koeri and Krishna
Koeri were injured and later on died. The whole story suggests the
exchange of assault from both side without any premeditation.
The learned trial court has not specifically mentioned in its
judgment as to the nature of common object of the appellants and
whether the present appellants were member of unlawful
assembly but on the basis of evidence, have convicted all the
appellants for the offence under Section 148 of the I.P.C. as well
as 302 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C.
23. As regards applicability of Section 149 of the I.P.C. which
enunciates principle of joint liability. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Lalji (supra) has held that :-
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 29 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
"There are two essential ingredients of Section
149 viz. (1) com-mission of an offence by any
member of an unlawful assembly and (2) such
offence must have been committed in prosecution of
the common object of that assembly or must be such
as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to
be committed. Once the court finds that these two
ingredients are fulfilled, every person who at the
time of committing of that offence was a member of
the assembly is to be held guilty of that offence.
After such a finding it would not be open to the court
to see as to who actually did the offensive act or
require the prosecution to prove which of the
members did which of the offensive acts. The
prosecution would have no obligation to prove it.
Section 149 created a constructive or vicarious
liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for
the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common
object by any other member of that assembly. The
basis of the constructive guilt under Section 149 is
mere membership of the unlawful assembly, with the
requisite common object or knowledge. This section
makes a member of the unlawful assembly
responsible as a principal for the acts of each, and
all, merely because he is a member of an unlawful
assembly. While overt act and active participation
may indicate common intention of the person
perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the
unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal
liability under Section 149. When the accused
persons assembled together, armed with lathis, and
were parties to the assault on the complainant party,
the prosecution is not obliged to prove which
specific overt act was done by which of the accused.
In an appeal by persons convicted under Section
302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC, the question
whether a particular person was a member of that
unlawful assembly at the relevant time has to be
examined; and if it is found from the evidence on
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 30 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
record that he was not a member of the unlawful
assembly, he could not be convicted with the aid of
Section 149. The question to be examined by the
court is not whether there was enough corroboration
for their individual participation in the commission
of the offence, but whether the accused persons were
members of the unlawful assembly at the relevant
time.
From the evidence on record, it could not be held
in this case that the appellants were not members of
the unlawful assembly at the relevant time. Whether
any specific injury could individually be attributed
to them or not would not at all be material. The
submission that the appellants be acquitted on
ground of lack of corroboration has, therefore, to be
rejected."
24. In the background of above principles of law, oral as well as
documentary evidence, the role of present appellants in the
alleged occurrence may be determined. Admittedly, there was
counter case for the same occurrence between the parties as is
revealed from Ext.A and Ext.B adduced by the defence. The
genesis of occurrence is alleged to be dispute about harvesting of
paddy crops from the disputed land allegedly belonging to the
informant party but no documentary evidence has been adduced
showing ownership or possession over the disputed land of either
of the parties. It is admitted fact that when the informant parties
were harvesting the paddy crops then they say 10 to 15 accused
persons coming from Southern side and 10 to 15 from Eastern
side armed with bow, arrow, spade, tabla, tangi etc. but who
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 31 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
started protesting against the harvesting of paddy crops by the
informant party, has not been specifically asserted whereas it is
said in general manner that seeing the accused persons armed with
deadly weapons, the informant party started fleeing away, then
some of the miscreants started assaulting to them by their
respective arms. Therefore, the main genesis of occurrence and
formation of unlawful assembly with one of the common object as
mentioned in Section 141 of the I.P.C. as discussed above has to
be proved by the prosecution but nothing has been brought on
record. The prosecution has straightforward began with
allegations of assault on informant party by some of the accused
persons who might have develop their common intention to
assault the informant party while protesting against harvesting of
paddy crops. Therefore, individual participation of the accused
persons and possibility of their having any common object with
other co-accused persons becomes a question of fact in this
particular case to be dealt with in accordance with evidence of eye
witnesses of the occurrence.
25. In the instant case, the most important eye witness is informant-
cum-injured who has been examined as P.W.6 Dinesh Prasad
Koeri. According to him, out of 30 accused persons, he identified
only 17 including the present appellants and no particular arm is
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 32 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
attributed to any of the appellants except Ganesh Modak who is
alleged to bearing a gun but no gun shot is fired, is also admitted
fact.
As regards, main occurrence of assault, P.W.6 has stated in
specific terms that his father was assaulted by Anant Bhusan
Singh by tabla, who was chased up to the field of Bavri Koeri and
killed. His uncle Pusu Koeri was assaulted by Mangal Singh and
Chandi Singh Munda by tabla who also died on the spot. It is
apparent that Anant Bhusan Singh, Mangal Singh and Chandi
Singh Munda are not appellant in this appeal. Further, evidence of
P.W.6 is that he himself was assaulted by Mahendra (died) and
Gurupodo Koeri (appellant No.10) who assaulted him by tabla
causing injuries on both legs, fingers, forehead and neck. The
injury report of this witness shows that he has sustained simple
injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon and grievous injuries
caused by lathi i.e. hard and blunt object. There are general and
omnibus allegations about assailants in the evidence of P.W.6.
Another injured Mahiram Koeri has been examined as P.W.3.
According to his evidence also, Anant Singh assaulted to Koka
(deceased) by tabla resulting in his instantaneous death. Pusu
Koeri was attacked by Mangal Singh and Chandi by tabla who
also died and Dinesh was assaulted by Gurupodo and Mahendra.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 33 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
He has stated nothing about his own injuries and as to who was
his assailant.
Other witnesses of facts namely P.W.1 Baby Devi and P.W.2
Pramila Devi are not mentioned in the F.I.R. as an eye witness but
have been examined as eye witnesses and they have stated in the
same line as P.W.6 as regards involvement of accused persons in
assaulting the deceased and the informant.
P.W.11 Rajendra Prasad Koeri is the brother of informant who
also states the involvement of Anant Bhusan Singh in assaulting
Koka Koeri who died on the spot and Pusu Koeri was assaulted by
Mangal and Chandi. Although, he has also claimed to be present
at the spot but sustained no injuries.
26. In the above scenario, the formation of unlawful assembly by the
appellant with particular object as stipulated under Section 141 of
the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. The prosecution has
been able to attribute specific overt act against (i) Anant Bhusan
Singh who caused death of Koka Koeri (ii) Mangal and (iii)
Chandi who assaulted to Pusu Koeri by tabla causing his death
and (iv) Gurupodo (appellant No.10) who assaulted to informant
by tabla along with co-accused person (v) Mahendra and nothing
has been whispered against appellants Nil Mohan Koeri, Bali Ram
Koeri, Srikant Koeri, Chutku Koeri, Ghasu Koeri, Ganesh Modak
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 34 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
and Maghua Koeri. They appear to have been dragged in this case
only because they are family members of the defence party and
without any cogent and reliable evidence have been held guilty
with the aid of Section 149 of the I.P.C. for the offence of murder
punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Therefore, conviction
and sentence of above appellants appear to be not justified under
law. It further transpires that against appellant No.10 Gurupodo
Koeri there is general and omnibus allegation of causing injuries
to informant by sharp cut weapon, which has been proved to be
simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon.
27. In view of the above discussions and reasons, we are of the
definite view that the learned trial court has not properly
appreciated the overall aspects of the case and the materials as
brought on record by the prosecution witnesses and also failed to
properly apply the relevant law as provided under Sections 141
and 149 of the I.P.C., therefore, arrived at wrong conclusion about
the guilt of the appellants. Accordingly, impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence of the present appellants is hereby set
aside. This appeal is allowed. Appellants are on bail, they are
discharged from the liability of their bail bonds and sureties are
also discharged.
30. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 35 |36
2025:JHHC:32157-DB
31. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent
back to concerned trial court for information and needful.
32. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by
Mr. Amitabh, 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 Mr.
Amitabh within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
33. 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: 16/10/2025
Sachin / NAFR
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.260 of 2003 P a g e 36 |36
