Jharkhand High Court
Hari Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 179 of 2003
......
[Against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.01.2003,
passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV, Khunti, in
Sessions Trial Case No.389 of 1991]
......
Hari Singh, Son of Late Jhalu Singh, Resident of Village - Manatu,
Police Station : Rania, District - Ranchi
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... Respondent
WITH
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 280 of 2003
......
1. Sohan Sahu Son of Late Rukhu Sahu
2. Ganesh Sahu Son of Late Ram Prasad Sahu
3. Tulsi Ram Son of Rainu Ram
All resident of Village - Manatu, P.S. Rania, District - Ranchi
4. Bodho Sahu son of Late Sobha Sahu, Resident of Village -
Kumang, P.S. Torpa, District - Ranchi.
.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... Respondent
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
For the Appellants : Ms. Pragati Prasad, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, Adv.
Mr. D.K. Prasad, Adv.
For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 1 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
......
C.A.V. on 09.09.2025 Pronounced on 16.10.2025
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard Ms. Pragati Prasad, learned amicus curiae
appearing for the appellants, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, learned
counsel for the appellants and Mr. V.K. Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P.
with Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that appellant No.1
Surendra Singh in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.179 of 2003 and appellant
No.2 Lalu Sahu in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.280 of 2003 have been
died during the pendency of these appeals, hence, their appeal has
been abated vide orders dated 22.07.2025 and 26.08.2025. The
names of surviving appellants have been renumbered and this
appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid alive appellants.
3. Instant criminal appeals have been preferred by above named
appellants for setting aside their conviction and sentence dated
24.01.2003 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV,
Khunti in S.T. Case No.389 of 1991, whereby and whereunder the
appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections
148, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/- each for the
offence under Section 302/149 of the I.P.C. and further, sentenced
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 2 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 148
of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. Both sentences are directed
to run concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 06.12.1990 at
about 04:00 p.m., the informant, Sita Debi, along with her
husband Harkhu Singh and son Ghasi Singh and other co-villagers
Bhola Sahu were returning from Rania Bazar to their home at
Village Manahatu and reached near Village Kulhi, meanwhile,
some miscreants armed with tangi attacked on husband and son of
the informant. The informant raised alarm then the accused
persons also attempted to assault her but any how she managed to
flee away. It is alleged that due to previous enmity Sohan Sahu,
Lalu Sahu, Ganesh Sahu, Bodho Sahu, Surendra Singh, Hari
Singh and Tulsi Ram have committed the above incident.
On the basis of above information, Rania P.S. Case No.35 of
1990 corresponding to (G.R Case No.640 of 1990) was registered
for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 of the I.P.C. against
five named accused persons and others.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against all the appellants total seven in number. The case was
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 3 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
committed to the Court of sessions. The appellants stood charged
for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 of the I.P.C.
6. In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution. Out of 8 prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 informant,
P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been claimed to be eye witnesses of
occurrence, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are witnesses of inquest, P.W.6 is
tendered by prosecution, P.W.7 is the doctor who conducted
autopsy on the body of deceased persons and P.W.8 is the
Investigating Officer.
Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following
documentary evidence has been adduced :-
Exhibit 1 & 1/1 : P.M. Report of deceased persons
Exhibit 2 : Fardbeyan
Exhibit 3 : Formal F.I.R.
7. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false
implication. The specific plea of appellant Surendra Singh was
that he was permanent employee of Central Fuel Research
Institute, Dhanbad and on date and time of alleged occurrence he
was on duty.
8. On the other hand, the defence has also examined four witnesses
and adduced following documentary evidence :-
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 4 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
Exhibit A to A/2 : Attendance sheet of Ex-
servicemen's Welfare Association Security Staff.
Exhibit Y to Y/4 : Photographs of place of occurrence
9. The learned trial court after appreciating the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record led by prosecution and
defence hold the appellants guilty and sentenced for the offences
as mentioned above.
10. Learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellants as well as
learned counsel for the appellants have challenged the impugned
judgment and order on following amongst other grounds :-
(i) The alleged eye witnesses examined by prosecution have
materially develop the story giving go by to their earlier
statement before police. Therefore, their testimony cannot
be relied upon.
(ii) The material eye witnesses of this case are P.W.1, P.W.2
and P.W.3 who are highly interested witnesses and due to
enmity with the appellants have falsely implicated them in
the alleged occurrence.
(iii) The manner of assault and the weapon alleged to be used
in commission of the alleged offence, does not find
corroboration from the testimony of P.W.7 Dr. Sudhir Kr.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 5 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
Shandilya, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body
of deceased persons.
(iv) P.W.2 Chhedi Singh and P.W.3 Bhola Sahu have testified
about the occurrence in general and omnibus manner
without attributing any specific overt act of the appellants.
(v) P.W.1 Smt. Sita Debi who is wife of the deceased Harkhu
Singh has given a vivid description of the assault
committed by each of the appellants against her son and
husband but in her cross-examination, she has
categorically admitted that her eye sight is very weak
since 5-10 years.
(vi) P.W.3 Bhola Sahu belongs to family members of accused
persons having inimical terms with them. He has
attributed allegation against all the accused persons that
they have assaulted to deceased persons by knife and
tangi and both weapons were used by each of the
assailants simultaneously. He claims to be standing at a
distance of 10 metre from the place of occurrence along
with P.W.1.
(vii) The occurrence is alleged to have happened on
06.12.1990 at about 04:00 - 04:30 p.m. but the F.I.R. was
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 6 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
lodged on 07.12.1990 at about 08:15 a.m. at the police
station which is situated at a distance of only 6 kms.
(viii) The Investigating Officer (P.W.8 Shyam Kumar Singh) in
his evidence has admitted that none of the witnesses in
their statement have told before him that any of the
accused persons were bearing knife rather all have stated
about tangi. The I.O. has also admitted that the murder
was committed due to old enmity but he has not inquired
in detail about the nature of enmity between the parties.
He has also admitted that nearby the place of occurrence
at a distance of 150 to 200 yards, there are some houses
but nearby the place of occurrence, he did not find any
bushy area.
(ix) The learned trial court has ignored the material
contradictions appearing in the evidence of alleged eye
witnesses as well as improvements and exaggerations
regarding actual participation of the appellants and
delayed F.I.R. without any reasonable explanation has led
the learned trial court to a wrong conclusion about guilt of
the appellants. None of the witnesses appear to be eye
witnesses of the occurrence rather they had concocted a
false story after due deliberation due to previous enmity
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 7 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
and involved the appellants in the false case of murder.
The learned trial court has also failed to consider that no
incriminating article has been recovered in this case to
connect the appellants with the alleged offence of murder.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction
and sentence of the appellants is absolutely illegal and based on
conjecture and surmises beyond the weight of evidence available
on record and liable to be set aside. The appellants deserve
acquittal from the charges levelled against them.
11. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. along with A.P.P. appearing
for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on
behalf of the appellants and submitted that the learned trial court
has very wisely and aptly apprised all the materials available on
record and properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and
arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the appellants. The
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of
appellants do not deserve any interference in this appeal, which is
fit to be dismissed.
12. We have gone through the record of the case along with impugned
judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of
both side.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 8 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
13. It appears that in order to substantiate the charges levelled against
the accused persons, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution.
P.W.1 Smt. Sita Debi has corroborated the contents of First
Information Report lodged by her and testified that on the date of
occurrence at about 04:00 p.m., she along with her husband
Harkhu Singh and son Ghasi Singh returning to home from
Tangar Kella Bazar. Chhedi Singh (P.W.2) and Bhola Singh
(P.W.3) were also accompanied with her. She has further deposed
that when they reached near Kulhi Village at Kurthi Tand,
meanwhile, seven accused persons namely Sohan Sahu, Lalu
Sahu, Ganesh Sahu, Bodho Sahu, Surendra Singh, Hari Singh and
Tulsi Ram suddenly came out from a bush armed with tangi and
knife and at first, all the accused persons assaulted to her son
Ghasi Singh by knife and tangi, who died on the spot. Thereafter,
all the above accused persons also assaulted to her husband by
knife and tangi causing his instantaneous death. This witness was
very much scared from the above incident, hence, she fled away
from the place of occurrence and came to her house along with
her bhaisur Chhedi Singh (P.W.2) and another witness Bhola
Singh (P.W.3). She has further disclosed the motive behind the
occurrence is that one Aghnu Singh who is son of his bhaisur has
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 9 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
kept the sister of Tulsi Ram at his house, hence, accused persons
Surendra, Ganesh, Sohan and Tulsi Ram brought her bhatija
Aghnu Singh along with sister of Tulsi for performing Court
marriage at Civil Court, Khunti. She has further deposed that
about six months prior to occurrence the accused persons brought
Aghnu and sister of Tulsi Ram to Court for marriage which could
not be solemnized. Another motive for occurrence as disclosed by
this witness is that the landed property of her husband and son
was got sold by the accused persons in the name of one Gauri
Devi through imposter. When her husband came to know about
the forged sale deed, he took action for cancellation of the sale
deed, due to that reason also the accused persons have killed her
husband and son. Her statement was recorded by the police,
accordingly, case was lodged against the accused persons.
In her cross-examination, her attention has been drawn
towards earlier statement before police wherein she admits to
have disclosed that accused persons were bearing knife and tangi
both. The first tangi blow was given to her son by Sohan Ram on
head and second blow of tangi on ear and knife blow was given
on abdomen. Father of Sohan also assaulted by knife and tangi to
her son on back side of head near pinna and knife blow on lower
part of the stomach. Ganesh has also assaulted to her son on head,
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 10 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
leg and back side by knife and tangi. Bodho gave knife and tangi
blow to her son on head and pinna and knife blow on stomach.
Surendra Singh, Hari Singh and Tulsi Ram each have given tangi
blow twice on the head of her son and once knife blow on
stomach. She has seen the above incident from a distance of four
steps. She has further reiterated that after assaulting to her son, the
accused persons assaulted to her husband. First tangi blow on
head was given by Surendra Singh to her husband and he
assaulted both side of the head by tangi. Surendra Singh also gave
knife blow in the stomach of her husband, thereafter, Hari
assaulted to her husband by knife and tangi. She has further
specified that Surendra gave two tangi blows on both side of head
to her husband and one knife blow. Tulsi has also given tangi and
knife blow to her husband on head, thereafter, her husband fell
down and due to fear, she fled away. She has further reiterated that
the incident of assault took place in the Kurthi field near the
pedestrian road. She also admits that from the place of occurrence
Kulhi Village was situated at a distance of 150 yards. She went to
Kulhi Basti. Thereafter, she returned to her home which is situated
at a distance of half kilometer from Village Kulhi. When she
returned to her home, Khedu @ Chhedi and Bhola also stayed in
the night at her home. She has denied the suggestion of defence
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 11 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
that she had seen no occurrence at all as alleged by her rather she
came to know about murder of her son and husband on the next
day morning and lodged this case due to previous enmity against
the accused persons. She also admits that her eye sight is very
weak since 5-10 years and she has failed to identify the
photograph of place of occurrence. She has also acknowledged
that the dead body of her husband was found near community hall
and just adjacent to it, there are houses of Nirmal, Munda, Katya
Kumhar, Pahlu Kumhar, Devmeen Kumhar, Lega Kumharin and
Keshwar Sahu. She also admits that she belongs to Rajput
community. The sister of Tulsi Ram is Gauri Devi, who is by caste
Ghasi (Scheduled Caste) at present her daughter-in-law. She does
not know where Gauri is residing at present.
P.W.2 Chhedi Singh has also corroborated the testimony of
P.W.1 and states that he along with the informant, her husband,
son and one Bhola Sahu were returning from Tangar Kella Bazar
and reached near Kurthi Tand at Village Kulhi then seven accused
persons came out from a bush bearing tangi and knife. All the
accused persons at first assaulted to Ghasi Singh by tangi and
knife due to which he died, then Harkhu Singh was assaulted by
Surendra, Tulsi Ram and Hari Singh by tangi and knife on his
head and stomach who also died on the spot. The accused persons
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 12 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
were intending to kill this witness also then he fled away to his
home. He has also expressed the motive behind the occurrence is
that his son Aghnu Singh has kept sister of Tulsi Ram as his wife.
Hence, all the seven accused persons asked this witness to get
Court marriage of both and they also went to Khunti Civil Court,
but marriage could not be solemnized due to minority of his son.
Thereafter, accused persons under conspiracy got the landed
property of Harkhu registered in the name of Gauri Devi. When
Harkhu came to know about the illegal sale of his land, he
protested and take action for cancellation of the sale deed due to
that reason Harkhu and his son have been murdered by the
accused persons.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that towards
western side of the road, there were some bushes where all the
seven accused persons were hiding themselves. Ghasi was
surrounded by all the seven accused persons, who
indiscriminately assaulted with tangi and knife, simultaneously,
after his death, Harkhu was also assaulted by all the seven accused
persons through their respective weapons. There is nothing else in
his cross-examination to rebut his aforesaid testimony.
P.W.3 Bhola Sahu is another eye witness of the occurrence.
He has also stated that while he was returning from Tangar Kella
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 13 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
Bazar along with Ghasi, Harkhu with his wife and Chhedi Singh
near Kurthi Tand near Village Kulhi at about 04:00 - 04:30 p.m.,
all the seven accused persons came out from the bushes armed
with tangi and knife and at first assaulted to Ghasi Singh and
thereafter, to Harkhu Singh. Both of them died on the spot. The
accused persons also attempted to assault this witness and others
but they fled away raising alarm.
In his cross-examination, he also admits that Aghnu Singh is
son of Chhedi Singh who has kept sister of Tulsi Ram. He has
disclosed before police that accused persons were also having
knife. Accused Sohan Sahu belongs to his family but there is no
land dispute with him. He also admits that first blow of tangi was
given by Sohan Ram to Ghasi Singh on head, thereafter, four
other accused persons assaulted to Ghasi and three others to
Harkhu Singh. He has seen the occurrence from a distance of 10m
and was standing under the Jackfruit tree. He also admits that
from the place of occurrence Police Chowki is about 3 kms and
Rania Police Station is about 13-14 kms. In the night itself, one
Ramdosi had gone to inform the police about the occurrence. He
has denied the suggestion of defence that due to previous enmity,
he has given false evidence.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 14 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
P.W.7 Dr. Sudhir Kr. Shandilya who conducted postmortem
on the dead body of Ghasi Singh on 08.12.1990 at 11:00 and
found following ante mortem injuries :-
Stab injury
(i) Over abdomen just below xiplin sternum 1.1/2" x
1/2" x 3".
(ii) Over right hypockudrium 1" x 1/2" x 4".
(iii) Over left lypodimdrum 1" x 1/2" x 4".
(iv) Over right lumber region 1" x 1/2" x 3".
(v) Over left lumber 1" x 1/2" x 4".
(vi) Over left inguinal region 1" x 1/2" x 4".
All viscera's underlying stab injuries were
injured.
(vii) Stab injury over left thigh on the aspect 1" x 1/2"
x 3".
Incised injury
(i) Over dorsal aspect of left little finger 1.1/2".
(ii) Incised injury over left ear 4" x 2" x 4".
(iii) Over occipital region 4" x 2" x 4".
Brain matter exposed and protruded out. Cause of
death due to shock and haemorrhage.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 15 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
Time since death more than 36 hours. Injuries over abdomen
were caused by sharp pointed weapon may be Gupti and Barchhi.
Injury over head caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon may be
Tangi. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature.
On the same day at 12:10 p.m., he conducted postmortem on
the dead body of Harkhu, aged about 55 years and found the
following ante mortem injuries :-
Incised wounds
(i) Back to right ear over mastoid antrum two in
number.
(ii) 3" x ½" x 3" just half inch below this No.(i)
injury. There was anterior injury no.2. 2.1/2" x
½" x 1" with fracture of temporal bone.
(iii) Over right ear lobules and mastoid process size
2.1/2" x ½".
(iv) Over occipital region three in number (i) 3" x 1"
(ii) 1" x ½" (iii) 1" x ½" depth is not given of
any of these three injuries.
(v) Incised injury over nape of the neck 2" x ½" x
½".
Stab injuries
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 16 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
(i) Over left epigastrium just left to medial line size
1.1/2" x ½" x 6" stomach also injured.
Cause of death due to shock and haemorrhage owing to above
injuries. Incised injuries were caused by heavy sharp cutting
weapon such as Kulhari or Tangi and stab wounds by sharp
pointed weapons such as Gupti or Barchhi. Time since death
more than 36 hours. This witness has proved post-mortem
report which is marked as Ext.1 and Ext.1/1.
P.W.8 Shyam Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer of
the case has recorded fardbeyan of informant Sita Debi (Ext.2).
Accordingly, formal F.I.R. (Ext.3) was registered. He has visited
the place of occurrence and inspected the same on identification
of informant. The place of occurrence is Kurthi field of Nirmal
Kandulna situated near a pedestrian road at Village Kulhi. North
side of the place of occurrence, there was a Jackfruit tree and
towards South Tamarind tree and houses of Kumhar communities
at a distance of 300 yards. Both dead bodies were found at the
place of occurrence under pool of blood and inquest report was
prepared in presence of witnesses and he also seized blood-stained
soil and sent the dead body of both the deceased to Khunti
Hospital for postmortem. He received postmortem report of the
deceased persons, recorded statement of witnesses and found
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 17 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
sufficient evidence against the accused persons had submitted
charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 of the
I.P.C.
In his cross-examination, this witness reiterates that incident
has happened about 04:30 p.m. on 06.12.1990 and on 07.12.1990
at about 08:15 a.m. case was lodged. The police station is situated
at about 6 km and there is no pitch road. He has also recorded
restatement of witness Sita Debi (P.W.1) just after recording her
fardbeyan but date and time of the same is not mentioned in the
diary. He has also recorded the statement of both Chhedi Singh
(P.W.2) and Bhola Sahu (P.W.3) at Police Station. This witness
further admits that none of the witnesses have stated before him
that the accused persons were bearing knife rather all have stated
that the accused persons were having tangi with them. He also
states that the motive behind the occurrence was old enmity
between the parties but in connection with enmity he has not
made detailed inquiry. He also admits that witness Chhedi Singh
(P.W.2) has stated before him that his son has kept a girl namely
Gauri who is sister of accused Tulsi Ram but he has not taken
statement of Gauri. The villagers were not ready to give statement
due to fear of accused persons. He also admits that at the place of
occurrence, no other eye witnesses were present. The seized
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 18 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
blood-stained soil was not sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination
and that is also not produced before the Court. He has denied the
suggestion of defence that he has conducted table work and not
recorded the statement of any of the witnesses and submitted
charge-sheet without any evidence against all the accused persons.
14. The defence has also examined four witnesses.
D.W.1 Keshwar Sahu stated that he knows the field of
Nirmal Munda in Kulhi Village, where two people (Harkhu and
his son) were murdered. He was not present at the scene at the
time of the murder but arrived about half an hour later and saw the
bodies from a distance. He does not know who committed the
murder or who was present at the scene and he never told
anything to the police.
D.W.2 Nirmal Munda stated that Manatu Village is about
1.5 km from Kulhi Village. He did not know Ojha Saw or Sita
Debi from Manatu Village. The photos shown (marked as
Exhibits- 5 and 5/4) are of his own field, where two men were
killed about eight years ago. He has further stated that he did not
reach the site immediately and arrived about half an hour later,
when many people from Kulhi Village were already there. No one
told him who committed the murder. The police visited the village
but did not record his or anyone else's statement. He has further
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 19 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
stated that he did not know the area, plot number or size of the
field nor the owners or details of surrounding lands. His house is
about 50 yards from the place of occurrence and there are five or
six houses nearby. He resides in Kulhai village and has no further
knowledge.
D.W.3 Basant Ram has stated that his village is about 30-32
km from Kulhi village. Bodhan Sao son of Shobha Sao, lives in
the witness's village. On the day of the incident, police came
searching for Bodhan Sao in connection with a murder in Kulhi
village. However, Bodhan Sao was in his own village at Kuman
and working in the threshing floor all day. He does not know as to
who was murdered. He has also not seen any dead bodies and has
no knowledge about the occurrence.
D.W.4 J.M. Choudhary stated that he was serving as
Security Officer at the Central Fuel Research Institute (CFRI),
Dhanbad, on 06.12.1990. He knows Surendra Singh (son of late
Gangu Singh), who has worked as a security guard at the institute.
According to attendance records (Exts. A, A/1, A/2), Surendra
Singh was on duty from 05.12.1990 to 07.12.1990, across various
shifts. The attendance registers were signed by Surendra Singh,
Imamuddin Khan and Kedar Singh, whose handwriting and
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 20 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
signatures the witness recognizes. CFRI is about 180 km from
Ranchi.
In his cross-examination by prosecution, this witness has
admitted that Surendra Singh, Imamuddin Khan and Kedar Singh
were not direct employees of CFRI but worked under a contracted
security service (Ex-Serviceman Welfare Association, Security
Services Ranchi). He could not confirm whether the attendance
registers were actually prepared in his presence. He has denied
that the documents were forged to protect Surendra Singh.
15. We have given thoughtful consideration to overall facts and
circumstances of this case. The most important witness of this
case is (P.W.1) Sita Debi, informant-cum-wife of deceased Harkhu
Singh. As per F.I.R. (Ext.2), all the seven accused persons namely
Sohan Sahu, Lalu Sahu (since deceased), Ganesh Sahu, Bodho
Sahu, Surendra Singh (since deceased), Hari Singh and Tulsi Ram
suddenly came out from a bush and started assaulting to the
husband and son of the informant indiscriminately and due to fear
of accused persons, the eye witnesses who were present namely
Sita Debi, Chhedi Singh and Bhola Sahu fled away. The whole
prosecution case rests upon the evidence of these three eye
witnesses. No corroborative piece of evidence like seizure of
weapon of offence, blood stained soil or any other incriminating
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 21 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
materials have been collected during investigation. Learned
counsel for the appellants has laid much emphasis upon the very
presence of these three alleged eye witnesses at the relevant time
of occurrence on the ground of discrepancies and vital
improvements appearing in their evidence. Therefore, considering
the gravity of offences charged against the appellants, threadbare
analysis of testimony of these ocular witnesses, is required to
ascertain the truth.
Admittedly, P.W.1 (Sita Debi) had a weak eye sight since
many years prior to occurrence. She has claimed to see the
occurrence from the distance of four steps. Although, in the First
Information Report which was admittedly lodged after 16 hours of
occurrence, the informant Sita Debi has not stated any specific
overt act against any appellants rather in a general omnibus
manner, she states that she along with her husband, son, bhaisur
Khedu @ Chhedi Singh and Bhola Sahu were returning from
market and reached at village Kulhi at about 04:30 p.m., all the
accused persons seven in number armed with tangi started
inflicting deadly assault upon her son and husband, when she
protested, she was also threatened to kill then she along with her
bhaisur Khedu Singh and Bhola Singh fled away to their home.
Her fardbeyan was recorded at Police Station Rania on
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 22 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
07.12.1990 at about 08:15 a.m. in presence of Bhola Sahu (P.W.3)
and Khedu @ Chhedi Singh (P.W.2). In her evidence during trial,
P.W.1 (Sita Debi) has materially improved her testimony and she
has attributed against all the appellants giving assault by knife and
tangi, firstly, to her son and thereafter to her husband. All the
appellants have also been attributed causing injuries on the same
part of body by their respective weapons. The place of occurrence
is Village Kulhi and no particular field like Kurthi field of
Manahatu or near the pedestrian road. Similarly, P.W.2 Chhedi
Singh and P.W.3 Bhola Sahu have claimed to see the occurrence
from a distance of 10 metre standing under a Jackfruit tree. They
have also stated that all the accused persons were simultaneously
assaulting to Harkhu Singh and Ghasi Singh. However, P.W.2
Chhedi Singh who happens to be bhaisur of informant has stated
that all the accused persons at first assaulted to Ghasi Singh by
tangi and knife and then Harkhu Singh was assaulted by Surendra
Singh, Tulsi Ram and Hari Singh by tangi and knife on his head
and stomach. P.W.3 (Bhola Sahu) has not attributed specific overt
act against each accused persons rather in general and omnibus
manner stated that all the accused persons assaulted at first to
Ghasi Singh and thereafter, to Harkhu Singh by knife and tangi.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 23 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
16. It appears from postmortem report of deceased persons that
deceased Ghasi Singh has sustained seven stab injuries on
different parts of body and three incised wounds. Similarly,
deceased Harkhu Singh has sustained five incised wounds on
different parts of body and one stab injury on stomach. It is opined
by the P.W.7 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Shandilya that above incised
wounds injuries may be caused by sharp cutting weapon like
Kulhari and stab wounds by sharp pointed weapon such as Gupti
and Barchhi. It is not pointed out that all the injuries are caused by
same weapon or by different weapons.
17. If the evidence of above eye witnesses is considered in the light of
injuries sustained by deceased persons, the manner of assault and
receiving of injuries on different parts of bodies as per evidence of
witnesses becomes not corroborative to each other. Therefore, the
exact attributability of assault against each of the appellants
becomes unreliable.
18. The testimony of P.W.1 Sita Debi, P.W.2 Chhedi Singh and P.W.3
Bhola Sahu also becomes doubtful for following reasons:
(i) The occurrence took place on 06.12.1990 at 04:30 p.m.
in Village Kulhi which is at a distance of 500 m to 1
k.m. as stated by above witnesses from their own
Village Manahatu.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 24 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
(ii) The F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Rania which is
situated at a distance of 12 k.m. from the place of
occurrence. Although the witnesses have admitted
existence of a Police Chowki at a distance of 3 k.m.
from the place of occurrence as stated by P.W.3 Bhola
Sahu. None of the villagers or local residents, were
informed about the above occurrence in the night.
(iii) P.W.2 Chhedi Singh has admitted that his son has kept
the sister of appellant Tulsi Ram namely Gauri Devi as
his wife. It is also admitted by P.W.1 and P.W.2 that
Tulsi Ram was adamant to solemnize marriage of his
daughter through Court marriage with the son of
Chhedi @ Khedu Singh (P.W.2) and they also went to
Court about six months prior to occurrence, but
marriage could not be solemnized due to minority of
the boy Aghnu Singh. Thereafter, Tulsi Ram
fraudulently got registered landed property of the
deceased as well as of Khedu @ Chhedi Singh (P.W.2)
in the name of his daughter Gauri Devi which was
protested by the deceased persons and action was taken
for cancellation of the sale deed, therefore, accused
persons were annoyed. This fact also suggests that it
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 25 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
was the son of P.W.2 Chhedi Singh who kept Gauri
Devi, i.e., daughter of appellant Tulsi Ram as his wife
and the landed property of Harkhu Singh (deceased)
was also sold. Therefore, the enmity ensues between
Khedu Singh and Harkhu Singh also.
(iv) P.W.3 Bhola Sahu has also inimical terms with accused
Ganesh Sahu and Sohan Sahu. No independent
witnesses have come to support the prosecution case.
All the above eye witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3) have
given colourable evidence regarding place of occurrence, manner
of assault, use of weapon and the actual participation of each
appellants in commission of the alleged offence of murder. The
manner in which they claim to be eye witness makes their
presence at the place of occurrence itself as doubtful.
19. The learned trial court has swayed upon testimony in
examination-in-chief of these witnesses and overlooked the
material contradictions and discrepancies appearing in their cross-
examination as well as the contradictions pointed out in the
evidence of P.W.8 Shyam Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer of
this case.
20. In view of material improvements and discrepancies appearing in
the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, their motive and animus
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 26 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
with the accused persons existing prior to the occurrence renders
themselves as unreliable and not creditworthy. The learned trial
court has miserably failed to consider that the evidence of these
eye witnesses are not corroborated from the medical report of the
deceased persons as to the nature of injuries sustained by them
along with the use of weapon. The whole spectrum of the case as
brought on record by these eye witnesses indicates their presence
at the spot to be doubtful rather they were present at their home
and in the next day morning, they got information about the
occurrence and F.I.R. was lodged against the appellants due to
enmity.
21. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, we are of the firm
view that the learned trial court has miserably failed to properly
appreciate the evidence of ocular witnesses claiming themselves
to be eye witness of the occurrence and also in absence of any
cogent and reliable evidence concluded about the guilt of the
appellants which is not warranted under law. Accordingly,
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the
appellants is hereby set aside and these appeals are allowed. The
appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of
their bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.
22. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 27 |28
2025:JHHC:32159-DB
23. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent
back to concerned trial court for information and needful.
24. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by
Ms. Pragati Prasad, 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.
Pragati Prasad within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
25. 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.) Nos.179 of 2003 & 280 of 2003 P a g e 28 |28
